Daily Mail accuses DEFRA of attempting to cover up £2m in benefits paid to Richard Benyon Options

[Phil_D11102]

Then you would put yourself in the same camp as Bob Crow and his cronies, threatening to hold the country to ransom if British Rail tried to make any efficiency savings.

What would you suggest, writing to the MP's? I did that one and got a somebody's gotta suck it up letter in response.

If there was some sort of fairness to this madness, then direct action would not be an answer. However, the decision seems to have been made without any sort of consultation. I am tired of constantly being hit for more and more and getting less and less in return.

Has the NWN or the WBC actually done a study and find out how many household's the loss of child benefit will affect in this area? I would imagine this area would be hit pretty good, not that our MP cares, or show's he cares.

If I don't act on my behalf, who then will???

[JeffG]

OK, so how about retired people like me with savings who have been hit since March 2009 with a record low interest rate of 0.5%, while people like you (presumably) with mortgages have been enjoying vast benefits from the same low rates.

There are swings and roundabouts with everything. As an aside, do you have the figures for the percentage of the population that benefits from the "dual income less than 40%" anomaly? I agree that's not totally fair, but how many does it affect?

[Phil_D11102]

OK, so how about retired people like me with savings who have been hit since March 2009 with a record low interest rate of 0.5%, while people like you (presumably) with mortgages have been enjoying vast benefits from the same low rates.

There are swings and roundabouts with everything. As an aside, do you have the figures for the percentage of the population that benefits from the "dual income less than 40%" anomaly? I agree that's not totally fair, but how many does it affect?

There are other ways to invest money other than savings. Have you looked into that, and I would assume you would benefit from the tax breaks as well.

As for the dual incomes that less than 40%, I am not sure of the number, but they are already paying less tax already, and still keeping their child benefits, as well as probably getting tax credits...

[Penelope]

Simple answer is to abolish all child benefit. Simple really. Stop the inherent unfairness. I thought people had kids cos they wanted them, not to get the cash benefits. People will go back to stuffing them up chimneys to make up the shortfall.

How many people whinging about this have 2 cars ,flat screens, and still manage to go out to the pub I wonder. Need or want, there is a difference.

[Andy Capp]

I thought people had kids cos they wanted them, not to get the cash benefits.

And a certain overpowering primeval instinct.

People will go back to stuffing them up chimneys to make up the shortfall.

There's not enough menial work for adults, let alone kids!

How many people whinging about this have 2 cars ,flat screens, and still manage to go out to the pub I wonder.

Judging by the 'government's pub closure program': not many!

[Penelope]

Good point.

[Phil_D11102]

Simple answer is to abolish all child benefit. Simple really. Stop the inherent unfairness. I thought people had kids cos they wanted them, not to get the cash benefits. People will go back to stuffing them up chimneys to make up the shortfall.

How many people whinging about this have 2 cars ,flat screens, and still manage to go out to the pub I wonder. Need or want, there is a difference.

If the gov't would change the tax laws and have children as a deduction, thus lowing the the tax I pay (as in the U.S.), then yes, abolish the child benefit.

We use our child benefit for things such as paying for our oldest's bus fare, as the WBC doesn't provide a bus you would expect with the money paid via council tax. Also, there are things such as braces, and the impeding amount of money we will be paying for their university education.

Two cars are needed in our household, as I use my car to go to work as it's more cost effective than using public transport. BTW, what's a pub. We are lucky if we can afford one day out a month with the kids.

I really am grateful for being able to afford a home, food, and ensuring my kids are clothed properly. I would imagine that I could cut back on the amount of money (3%) I put into my pension each month, but then what would be the effect in the long term?

However when you start to single out a sector of the country without putting alot of thought into what is fair, that is when people start to get angry.

[Simon Kirby]

Phil, you're argument is flailing so wildly it's hard to give it much serious thought. I believe both in free public transport to school and that the state should pay university fees and a subsistence allowance, but only for the brightest 5% with everyone else doing on-the-job training, but goodness, that's two complex arguments there and we haven't even got to child benefit. Explain to me why I should be taxed to pay for your child benefit because from where I'm standing I can't for the life of me see why you're more deserving of my hard-earned cash than I am, and if you can explain to me what it's got to do with Richard Benyon's farm subsidy that would be good too.

[user23]

Perhaps he thinks giving a little bit now, to support the generation that will be working in twenty years time and therefore who's tax will be supporting those who are retired then, is a positive thing.

[Penelope]

But he's taking not giving. I just hav a mental image of people standing with a pregnancy testing kit in one hand and a "how to claim your benefits" booklet in the other.

[Phil_D11102]

I believe both in free public transport to school and that the state should pay university fees and a subsistence allowance, but only for the brightest 5% with everyone else doing on-the-job training, but goodness, that's two complex arguments there and we haven't even got to child benefit

I believe that at minimum my council tax should also be used to get my child to school if they have to use a bus. As for on the job training, I did it, but it turns out my kids will probably be smarter than me and if they have a chance to go to university, I want to make sure they do...

Explain to me why I should be taxed to pay for your child benefit because from where I'm standing I can't for the life of me see why you're more deserving of my hard-earned cash than I am, and if you can explain to me what it's got to do with Richard Benyon's farm subsidy that would be good too.

What my wife receives in child benefit doesn't even make 10 percent in the overall amount of money I pay in taxes. When we use our medical benefits to jump the NHS (as they don't provide some treatments as they don't deem them necessary)and get medical treatment promptly when needed. I am not going to wait 6 to 8 months for treatment on arthretic shoulders and knees. This is where we are getting hosed, paying for the NHS and not being able to use it, then having to pay extra because we don't/can't use it. I don't get reimbursed for not using the NHS, but I end up paying more in taxes when something can't be provided promptly.

As for your paying for our child benefits, we pay for our child benefits, and I am also paying for your retirement, as I know **** well when it comes to me retireing I am sure that my retirement benefits would be slashed because I am preparing for the future. My comparision to our MP's farm subsidy, why would a multimillionaire need farm subsides provided by EU? That is the same as someone making 200K a year receiving child benefits. He has no issues taking BIG money for his family business. especially if they are entitled to it, but in the same line he tells me to suck it up.

Perhaps he thinks giving a little bit now, to support the generation that will be working in twenty years time and therefore who's tax will be supporting those who are retired then, is a positive thing.

I don't want to be a burden on my kids in my retirement, nor do I want to live hand to mouth. I want to be able to enjoy just a little bit my last years without having to worry about turning down the heat in the dead of winter. As for my kids, I don't want them to be burdened with large debts if they do go to uni. I didn't mind paying over 40 percent tax because the tution fees before they were raised to 9K a year were very managable. The fact is the squeeze is starting to really be felt, and it's gonna suck telling the kids sorry but we can't help you go to Uni.

But he's taking not giving. I just hav a mental image of people standing with a pregnancy testing kit in one hand and a "how to claim your benefits" booklet in the other.

When I was laid off in 2002, all I got in "benefits" was 25 quid a week. Why, because I had savings, and I received a redundancy payment. I guarntee you that I paid alot more in taxes than 25 quid a week.

To find another job we had to move to a different country because there was nothing here at the time, and only moved back due to an internal transfer with the same company after 3 years being aboard.

My wife is only getting what is entitled to us. I am sure with a clever accountant I could find a loophole and pay less tax, but that would be dishonest, even if is legal. All I am asking is for is fairness, not a handout. If your gonna take more aware from me, then at least give me the opportunity to recover some of it back for my family.

[Sherlock]

Meanwhile:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/newbury...rming-subsidies

In the light of this, the cuts in front line police and its demolition of the NHS the government should just give up on the idea that it has any principles.

[user23]

But he's taking not giving. I just hav a mental image of people standing with a pregnancy testing kit in one hand and a "how to claim your benefits" booklet in the other.

What I'm saying is I don't mind giving a bit now to support those who will be paying tax to fund my state pension and therefore supporting me, when I retire.

[Phil_D11102]

What I'm saying is I don't mind giving a bit now to support those who will be paying tax to fund my state pension and therefore supporting me, when I retire.

If your paying a higher rate of income tax, over 40%, then realistically you should be funding your own state pension, of the gov't was investing wisely. I personally have taken out a pension in every place I worked, and I know this will work against me when I retire, but I planned for it.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/newbury...rming-subsidies

Eventually Mr. MP is a long time compared to the 7 months we have left collecting our child benefit. I wonder if these subsides are taken into account in the farmers income, and whether they collect child benefits.

[user23]

If your paying a higher rate of income tax, over 40%, then realistically you should be funding your own state pension, of the gov't was investing wisely. I personally have taken out a pension in every place I worked, and I know this will work against me when I retire, but I planned for it.

I'm not paying a higher rate of income tax, I don't see where I might of insinuated I was.

All I'm saying is paying child benefit is investing in our future.

[Phil_D11102]

I'm not paying a higher rate of income tax, I don't see where I might of insinuated I was.

All I'm saying is paying child benefit is investing in our future.

The original comment was:

What I'm saying is I don't mind giving a bit now to support those who will be paying tax to fund my state pension and therefore supporting me, when I retire.

I am sorry if you got the impression I was implying you were paying the higher rate of tax, what I am saying is those of use who are paying that tax are paying for our own retirement. I am sure that you are contributing to your retirement as well.

It's unfair that those who are paying the higher rate of tax are being pushed to the limit at the moment with the various custs to child benefits and various other cuts to pension credits, etc. Again I don't mind paying, but the level of fairness is down to nothing...

[Adrian Hollister]

The original comment was:

I am sorry if you got the impression I was implying you were paying the higher rate of tax, what I am saying is those of use who are paying that tax are paying for our own retirement. I am sure that you are contributing to your retirement as well.

It's unfair that those who are paying the higher rate of tax are being pushed to the limit at the moment with the various custs to child benefits and various other cuts to pension credits, etc. Again I don't mind paying, but the level of fairness is down to nothing...

We should all try to pay our fair share, but there seems little fair in the removal of child benefit from middle income earners, especially when Benyon does his best to ensure his family estate keeps as much CAP payments as possible - it's not like they *need* it. The top 1% need to make a fair contribution, yet through the use of trusts, companies and tax avoidance they pay less than middle England. It's a simple thing - lets all pay fairly.

Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson is a good read on the subject of tax avoidance - opens the eye's to the dealings of the mega rich 1%.