Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Plans to restrict child benefit 
Author Message
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10972219/Plans-to-restrict-child-benefit-could-appear-in-Tory-manifesto.html

Quote:
Parents will not be able to claim child benefit for more than four children, under plans expected to appear in the Conservative manifesto.

Benefit payments would in future be reduced for every child after the first, Policy Exchange, a think tank with close links to the Conservative Party said.

However, it is understood that senior figures in the Conservative Party are pressing the Prime Minister to go even further by ending benefit claims after the second child.

Child benefit is currently paid at £20.50 a week for the oldest child, and £13.55 for any additional children.


So long as that is all new claimants I ahve no issues with this

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:42 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
I can't really see an issue with this at the 'four child' level tbh. Two seems to be too few, although the point probably is if you set it too high you end up saving hardly any money. I'd like to see some data on the distribution of family size in the UK, I expect the vast majority are three or less anyway - so it ends up as one of those policies they can announce that make it look like they're doing something when in fact the actual effect is approaching zero.

Jon


Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:35 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
I'd stop it at two or three.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Sun Jul 20, 2014 6:54 am
Profile WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:53 pm
Posts: 8603
Location: location, location
Reply with quote
Two is the sensible cap but the difference it makes would potentially still be minimal.
Most people with 3 or more children seem to be either fairly well off (so no benefits anyway as you lose it if one of you earns £50k) or out of work/very low earners so it'd be paid as a different sort of benefit to avoid hardship.
The "average earning couple" seem to stop at 2 children and would feel the effects if it was capped lower than 2.

_________________
Support X404, use our Amazon link
Get your X404 tat here
jonlumb wrote:
I've only ever done it with a chicken so far, but if required I wouldn't have any problems doing it with other animals at all.


Sun Jul 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Profile WWW
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
i think that a better way would be via tax deductions/allowances
example
1st child tax reduction from standard rate to 15%
2nd child tax reduction to 10%
3rd child tax reduction to 5%

any tax after standard rate is still payable with NI contributions

that way only working families get the family tax benefit
all others on benefits will be paid accordingly to then current rate of support ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:55 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5836
Reply with quote
Total crap, frankly.

The idea of child benefit is that it is given directly to the parents to try to guarantee that, unlike my grandparents, each child can eat and go to school in a pair of shoes. Child benefit costs the square-root of cock-all compared to the rest of our public spending. One billion over the life of the next parliament? Is this where we've sunk to that normally clear-thinking people can reach the conclusion that this is sensible?

How's about this for an idea. Let's instead get the tax we're owed every year off just Vodafone. That's 6 billion over the life of the next parliament. If we did that every year with the multi-nationals that should pay and don't, we could buy universal optical internet, many new NHS hospitals, enough JCBs to construct a replica of Israel in Azerbijian and still have enough left over for everyone to have a lifetime's supply of sherbet dib-dabs.

But we won't, will we? Because companies buy parties and children don't vote.

_________________
Jim

Image


Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:33 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
Total crap, frankly.

The idea of child benefit is that it is given directly to the parents to try to guarantee that, unlike my grandparents, each child can eat and go to school in a pair of shoes. Child benefit costs the square-root of cock-all compared to the rest of our public spending. One billion over the life of the next parliament? Is this where we've sunk to that normally clear-thinking people can reach the conclusion that this is sensible?

How's about this for an idea. Let's instead get the tax we're owed every year off just Vodafone. That's 6 billion over the life of the next parliament. If we did that every year with the multi-nationals that should pay and don't, we could buy universal optical internet, many new NHS hospitals, enough JCBs to construct a replica of Israel in Azerbijian and still have enough left over for everyone to have a lifetime's supply of sherbet dib-dabs.

But we won't, will we? Because companies buy parties and children don't vote.

Your stating two arguments
Firstly child benefit is an anachronism that imho should be got rid off. The idea behind the universal benefit is great, implimentation crappy as always with governments.
As for tax, unless you want to change the whole tax system of the UK, eu and the world. Companies will stick to paying the minimum the law says they have to.

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:23 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
That's the problem with the tax situation, companies are paying all the tax they have to. Of you think they should pay more, you have to close the loopholes that let them do that.

As to child benefit, my fiancé was surprised how little money parents in the UK get.

Germany pays 184 for the first 2 children, 190 for the fourth and 250 for each subsequent child, per month.

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:17 am
Profile ICQ
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
How's about this for an idea. Let's instead get the tax we're owed every year off just Vodafone. That's 6 billion over the life of the next parliament.

But we won't, will we? Because companies buy parties and children don't vote.


While I have seen that (and other figures up to and over £10 billion from various pressure groups I have never seen any similar figures from more independant sources.

In the end the Co will (like me) pay the tax it is leagally required to. I minimise my tax bill by paying into a pension and an ISA - if I could legally reduce it further I would

The problem is its very easy to say and very difficult to impose. In the end the consumer is king - if enough people really cared then they would not shop at Amazon, buy coffee from starbucks or use Vodaphone (and I hope you shun all of those companies) - BUT most people shop on price

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Last edited by hifidelity2 on Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:44 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5836
Reply with quote
Again, not true.

The reason I mentioned Vodafone is that they didn't pay the tax that they are legally required to because HMRC did a deal over dinner that allowed them to get away with it.

_________________
Jim

Image


Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:20 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
When I say restrict child benefit to two children, I mean all benefits. Housing etc too. People shouldn't have children to milk the system.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:48 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 11 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.