Child Benefit - Letter From The Tax Office?
18 December 2012, 10:51 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or just man up and not let it become relevant?
18 December 2012, 10:57 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
No.
If her earning are low then the fairest thing is that she pays very little if any income tax.
Food, books and children's clothes are already VAT free.
The child's education and healthcare is also provided free of charge via the state.
There should be no further incentive or reward for having children.
18 December 2012, 11:18 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.
If her earning are low then the fairest thing is that she pays very little if any income tax.
Food, books and children's clothes are already VAT free.
The child's education and healthcare is also provided free of charge via the state.
There should be no further incentive or reward for having children.
If her earning are low then the fairest thing is that she pays very little if any income tax.
Food, books and children's clothes are already VAT free.
The child's education and healthcare is also provided free of charge via the state.
There should be no further incentive or reward for having children.
correct me if im wrong but recent legislation removes benefit if a single parent earns under 50k, yet continues if the combined parents eranings fall below a threshhold?
no change in opinion, have kids under any evnt, and state support should be limited to basics of life. food, clothing, housing? just a question mate.
18 December 2012, 11:41 PM
#36
........Hmm
Just mulling over the £780 school trip fee for "necessary" info for A level history.
believe me having kids shreds the bank balance and they will pay the tax you need to keep you in your old age, police the streets, educate the next generation etc.....
having no kids is the cheap option IMHO
Shaun
Just mulling over the £780 school trip fee for "necessary" info for A level history.
believe me having kids shreds the bank balance and they will pay the tax you need to keep you in your old age, police the streets, educate the next generation etc.....
having no kids is the cheap option IMHO
Shaun
19 December 2012, 03:10 AM
#37
If you remove any child benefit then you need to reduce tax.
If not people just wont work and will claim for everything.
Child benefit is the only reason my wife and I have managed to progress to a point in our careers that we can manager without it.
If you wait to that point before having kids you lose out a lot on being young enough to enjoy them.
If not people just wont work and will claim for everything.
Child benefit is the only reason my wife and I have managed to progress to a point in our careers that we can manager without it.
If you wait to that point before having kids you lose out a lot on being young enough to enjoy them.
19 December 2012, 06:44 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
i see your point, yet in genuine cases of nonabuse ifeel entitlement could be higher,
correct me if im wrong but recent legislation removes benefit if a single parent earns under 50k, yet continues if the combined parents eranings fall below a threshhold?
no change in opinion, have kids under any evnt, and state support should be limited to basics of life. food, clothing, housing? just a question mate.
correct me if im wrong but recent legislation removes benefit if a single parent earns under 50k, yet continues if the combined parents eranings fall below a threshhold?
no change in opinion, have kids under any evnt, and state support should be limited to basics of life. food, clothing, housing? just a question mate.
Low income earners should pay little if any tax and I'd be happy to see their tax fall further if needed.
They could even get child care at tax payer funded reduced rates to help the parents to find work etc.
Perhaps tokens etc for milk, baby food for say the first three years of life.
Tokens for say children's books.
But a straight forward cash payment for having kids? Not a good idea imho, it is a perverse incentive.
19 December 2012, 11:43 PM
#39
would it not worry you the number of youngsters growing up with so little, and then trying to "claim back" in later years, maybe being involved in crime or just not even getting an equal education, other kids ridiculing you due to dressing issues ect. school yard politics can carry on into adult life. do you think a bad childhood expreiemce would negativley affect you as a grown adult? or affect your chances of employment ect?
or just man up and not let it become relevant?
or just man up and not let it become relevant?
Bask to the topic in hand though, DD has it bang on, doling out what amounts to cash bribes to bail people out of a situation essentially of their own making, or worse yet as a means of persuading them not to behave badly, is the classic moral hazard.
19 December 2012, 11:54 PM
#40
I think what I mean Jef is that there should be provision to make sure children have a decent start in life, or at least society should do what it can.
Low income earners should pay little if any tax and I'd be happy to see their tax fall further if needed.
They could even get child care at tax payer funded reduced rates to help the parents to find work etc.
Perhaps tokens etc for milk, baby food for say the first three years of life.
Tokens for say children's books.
But a straight forward cash payment for having kids? Not a good idea imho, it is a perverse incentive.
Low income earners should pay little if any tax and I'd be happy to see their tax fall further if needed.
They could even get child care at tax payer funded reduced rates to help the parents to find work etc.
Perhaps tokens etc for milk, baby food for say the first three years of life.
Tokens for say children's books.
But a straight forward cash payment for having kids? Not a good idea imho, it is a perverse incentive.
19 December 2012, 11:56 PM
#41
I think what I mean Jef is that there should be provision to make sure children have a decent start in life, or at least society should do what it can.
Low income earners should pay little if any tax and I'd be happy to see their tax fall further if needed.
They could even get child care at tax payer funded reduced rates to help the parents to find work etc.
Perhaps tokens etc for milk, baby food for say the first three years of life.
Tokens for say children's books.
But a straight forward cash payment for having kids? Not a good idea imho, it is a perverse incentive.
Low income earners should pay little if any tax and I'd be happy to see their tax fall further if needed.
They could even get child care at tax payer funded reduced rates to help the parents to find work etc.
Perhaps tokens etc for milk, baby food for say the first three years of life.
Tokens for say children's books.
But a straight forward cash payment for having kids? Not a good idea imho, it is a perverse incentive.
20 December 2012, 12:02 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster, S. Yorks.
Posts: 21,415
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so you arent against parents getting some assistance to look after kids but it shouldnt just be cash, I can understand that and I think that concept should be extended to all benefits, cash is just a convenient, easy, lowest common denominator but perhaps it shouldnt be as it does make it too easy, for those inclined to spend it on things it isnt intended for.
Agreed, and DD's points are nail on head for me.
But until this 'human rights' thing is addressed, you can't just swap families benefits for food vouchers or books etc. even if it is a better idea.
20 December 2012, 12:14 AM
#43
I dont see why it is a human right to be given cash, I think in the past there was more int he way of common sense, if you needed glasses the National Health provided them and they were ugly and made you look a bit speshul, you got the eyesight correction but nobody expected some Boss/Rayban/Police frames with low index lenses and various coatings. My Great Grandma has a National Health Hearing aid and kids got given milk at school.
At the moment private companies make a fortune from selling stuff to the government, perhaps if things were taken in hand private comapnies wouldnt provide wheat free bread at £20 plus a loaf for Coeliacs.
The scope has crept of the welfare state, it includes more and more and people get dependant and cant live without it, noboddy should be able to buy **** and alcohol with benefits money, if you dont work you dont get luxuries like that, you get enouygh stuff to stay well and warm, with a roof over your head, perhaps if stuff was provided in govermental wrappings it may stop people seeing benefits as a lifestyle, perhaps a bit of stigma would be a good motivation, would be complex to sort out but i think it woukld avoid the fraudulent claims as who really wants a warehouse full of goverment baby milk, they want cash as cash will buy anything if you scam enough, genuine claimants would probably just be grateful.
I really dont know how anyone on benefits affords to smoke, drink or run a car, or is that a myth that they do, easy to come across a bit Daily Mail.
At the moment private companies make a fortune from selling stuff to the government, perhaps if things were taken in hand private comapnies wouldnt provide wheat free bread at £20 plus a loaf for Coeliacs.
The scope has crept of the welfare state, it includes more and more and people get dependant and cant live without it, noboddy should be able to buy **** and alcohol with benefits money, if you dont work you dont get luxuries like that, you get enouygh stuff to stay well and warm, with a roof over your head, perhaps if stuff was provided in govermental wrappings it may stop people seeing benefits as a lifestyle, perhaps a bit of stigma would be a good motivation, would be complex to sort out but i think it woukld avoid the fraudulent claims as who really wants a warehouse full of goverment baby milk, they want cash as cash will buy anything if you scam enough, genuine claimants would probably just be grateful.
I really dont know how anyone on benefits affords to smoke, drink or run a car, or is that a myth that they do, easy to come across a bit Daily Mail.
20 December 2012, 12:52 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster, S. Yorks.
Posts: 21,415
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont see why it is a human right to be given cash, I think in the past there was more int he way of common sense, if you needed glasses the National Health provided them and they were ugly and made you look a bit speshul, you got the eyesight correction but nobody expected some Boss/Rayban/Police frames with low index lenses and various coatings. My Great Grandma has a National Health Hearing aid and kids got given milk at school.
At the moment private companies make a fortune from selling stuff to the government, perhaps if things were taken in hand private comapnies wouldnt provide wheat free bread at £20 plus a loaf for Coeliacs.
The scope has crept of the welfare state, it includes more and more and people get dependant and cant live without it, noboddy should be able to buy **** and alcohol with benefits money, if you dont work you dont get luxuries like that, you get enouygh stuff to stay well and warm, with a roof over your head, perhaps if stuff was provided in govermental wrappings it may stop people seeing benefits as a lifestyle, perhaps a bit of stigma would be a good motivation, would be complex to sort out but i think it woukld avoid the fraudulent claims as who really wants a warehouse full of goverment baby milk, they want cash as cash will buy anything if you scam enough, genuine claimants would probably just be grateful.
I really dont know how anyone on benefits affords to smoke, drink or run a car, or is that a myth that they do, easy to come across a bit Daily Mail.
At the moment private companies make a fortune from selling stuff to the government, perhaps if things were taken in hand private comapnies wouldnt provide wheat free bread at £20 plus a loaf for Coeliacs.
The scope has crept of the welfare state, it includes more and more and people get dependant and cant live without it, noboddy should be able to buy **** and alcohol with benefits money, if you dont work you dont get luxuries like that, you get enouygh stuff to stay well and warm, with a roof over your head, perhaps if stuff was provided in govermental wrappings it may stop people seeing benefits as a lifestyle, perhaps a bit of stigma would be a good motivation, would be complex to sort out but i think it woukld avoid the fraudulent claims as who really wants a warehouse full of goverment baby milk, they want cash as cash will buy anything if you scam enough, genuine claimants would probably just be grateful.
I really dont know how anyone on benefits affords to smoke, drink or run a car, or is that a myth that they do, easy to come across a bit Daily Mail.
Unfortunately I'm related to some of the dreggs and you'd be surprised how often on things like Facebook you see them drinking and going out several times a week, and then complaining the next day their "arthritis" or "bad back" is playing up. Makes me sick as I'm doing things the right way by providing for my family on one average wage but these bloodline relations with their broods of kids seem to have an overinflated social life and the financial means in which to live like that.
How the **** is it possible???????
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post