OK, so surely this should be based on household income.

88K earned & still getting the benefit?

Earn 45K as a single parent .. benefit not paid. Fair?

Didge

Fair.. nope.
easier to implement.. probably.
They should as you pointed out, do it on household income. Any combined income over 44K get nada, zilch, diddly squat.

What's wrong with that argument?

Yes bit what is a good salary. Many backbenchers actually qualified for family credit. And they are in the top 5% of income.

There is nothing wrong with that argument (except maybe you'll find that many 'middle income families will not have kids - only those who sit on their arses all day doing F-All and claiming every benefit known to man will be able to 'afford' to - This will lead to kids being in 1 of 2 camps - Chinless wonders & Pikey chavs. Is that an ideal society?).

Also, many families that could just about afford it under the last government will not be able to under the current [LIFTED].

You can't exactly send them back if you find your income is cut .

Didge

Unfortunately since our pensions are based on the taxes from future generations, then without children the taxes and savings on the current generation will have to go up much higher.

As far as benefits go, kids are a 18 year commitment. Are we to get out the crystal ball just to check if we can still afford to raise them five, ten, fifteen years down the line?

So, yes, there is a lot wrong with the " if you can't afford kids.." argument.

I'm no fan of the Chav Baby-Factory benefits scammers, but a sheepdip approach will do much more harm than good.

Basing benefit on household income makes sense to me, although there will be the argument that most people's income has risen to that level over time and small incremental increases tend to be soaked up, leaving the very real feeling that you're not all that well off despite earning £70k a year. That argument is [LIFTED] too, if you're pulling in that kind of money it must be a lot easier to tighten your belt, than it is for someone earning £20K.

Does that argument stand up though?

If you're on £45k, you're earning more than twice the average salary. Therefore you can afford it.

My boss at work is moaning because she won't have the extra money to put into her son's university fund.

I reckon she earns at least 3 times what I earan and both her kids (a son and a daughter) go to private school which she pays ridiculous fees for, she has a nice big expensive house and three cars in the household and has just splashed out over £5000 on a private number plate for one of them.

How can she complain about £20 a week!?!?

Well now that depends doesn't it.

45K a year in london is a VERY meagre salary for a family of 4 to live off.

45K a year, in say Stoke, is a very healthy salary for that same family. It all depends on you necessary outgoings.

23k a year may be average but is doesn't take into account cost of housing / employing tradesmen (ie how much an hour for a mechanic / plumber etc in central London .. how much in scotland / northern ireland / northern england.)

Question .. if you divide your income by 4 .. (4 people in my family) would it still seem adequate?

Didge,

Strikes me that she's the exact category of person that these cuts are aimed at.

In related news, Osbourne has also introduced a cap on the maximum amount of benefit any one family can claim, which should help with those that pop out sprogs as a form of income generation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11463435

Why don't they halve it?
£10 per parent rather than £20 per couple. If one parent earns over £40k, they lose that £10. It they both earn over £40k, they lose both lots of £10.

A little too complex for civil servants to implement.

Ah yes, reminds of the famous Find Arse with Roadmap Act 1927.

Source: http://www.conservatives.com
Speech
George Osborne: We will lead the economy out of crisis
Rt Hon George Osborne, Tuesday, October 6 2009

"We will never mend our broken public finances unless we start to fix our broken society.

The cost of broken families and broken communities is paid for by every hard working taxpayer.

That is why we are going to support marriage in the tax and benefit system.

That is why, as you heard yesterday, we are going to devote an enormous effort to help the unemployed and get Britain working.

Along with our reforms to incapacity benefit, we also have to take a realistic look at the benefits the rest of society receives.

We will preserve child benefit, winter fuel payments and free TV licenses. They are valued by millions."

Nice one George.

Didge,