And most will be raising useful citizens. This isn't who the comment is aimed at - at all.

My sister is a nurse, my brother a police officer, my mum was a book keeper, my dad an engineer. My kids are at the local comprehensive primary school, I have a 10 year old passat and live in a 3 bed semi.

I can't afford to be a snob.



Didge.

I know what you meant with this that comment.

ERM WTF is happening to the post editor! Everytime I type a letter it scrolls to the bottom then back to the top! ARGH I don't like it!

sorry not possible
i have to live with them and there families
and it just not exist within my mind set ...

I had a colleague at a previous job who had two young children who were roughly two years apart age wise. Both her and her husband worked. A quick 'back of a beermat' calculation led us to the conclusion that her entire net income was consumed in paying for childcare. If she had stopped working she would have been no worse off in terms of the cash in her pocket.

The question therefore was 'why work'? her response was that she liked working, she liked her job and she thought it would have been harder to find another job once her kids were old enough to cope for themselves. So she much preferred to keep her job and struggle for a couple more years.

There is also the point that if a family has two working parents they are probably paying more tax and NI than a family with only one working parent which will offset against the child benefit they will get. In terms of which it is better for the country to have (as oppose to which is better for the individuals concerned), it's far from clear.

To put it bluntly, the argument that a couple with two workers may actually earn more than a couple with only one higher earner and yet still claim benefit is true only provided you look at a very limited picture of family finances (i.e. purely consider income rather than turnover as it were) and only under a limited 'window' of earnings even given that very limited focus. It's a particularly crude and rather artificial situation to use as an example, and anyone using it probably isn't doing so for entirely objective reasons.

Jon

Well, sorry to say it but you can't really have any say in this thread because of that.

You can argue however much you like about the fairness of distribution of money but if you won't do anything about someone who is basically stealing money every month then you have no say here.

Move along please.

thats why i stated on household incomes not single salaries
also the school network is available for childcare if used wisely

but i repeat all benefits should be means tested ...

bollox
if you are found out to be 'grass' where i live and you and yours are dead ...

Pretty much the same reason my wife will continue to work. However, I can't blame anyone for being in that situation and choosing not to work.

I really think there should be some sort of council crèche scheme. The government wants as many people working as possible, so why not make it easier for them?

Not for the first few years it isn't.

then that must change
just as the system is about to change ...

Agreed.

Nonetheless, in all honesty, we're just not going to agree on the Child Benefit thing. I think I'll stop before I cause a falling-out.

Besides which, I sincerely suspect that most of the hysteria has been whipped up by journalists who are themselves in the higher tax band

Edit: IIRC there was an announcement about transferable tax allowances that would solve this issue anyway.

Then we shall agree to disagree.

Didge.

I am in favour of fully transferable allowances and crapping child benefit all together. So if a man or woman is the sole breadwinner they could add their partners allowance and any allowances for the first two kids. Though if the personal allowance goes up to £10 000 that would mean people start paying tax at £40000 if they are the sole bread winner for a family of 4. It might need some adjustment but would be intrinsically fair. If two people are working they get the same allowances spread equally. It also means that kids allowances could help some families as well. the whole system could be changed but there will be losers and it is amazing how the rich scream loudly when they lose any benefits.

Really? What about single parents then?

Reminds me of their attack on single mums back in the 80's, just with a new twist.

The way it's set up they'll end up spending all the savings on kickbacks for those who are married. They don't need to do this, just work on household income like they do for every other benefit. Cameron kept saying it's the same as how two people may be earing under the 40% tax bracket and in another house one person may be earning over 40% but it's not. When benefits are concerned they always look at household income even if you're not married.

They should look at winter fuel allowance. I heard Alan Sugar saying he phoned up to ask for his to be stopped just to be told that it was impossible to do so.