Benefits.., Are you for or against the proposed cuts? Options

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Me. I agree with them.

Why should the likes of Colleen Rooney be entitled to child benefit? It's ridiculous.
£44,000 is an arbitrary figure but you can only really work this on single incomes. A combined income figure is too complex and would require far too much admin.

Maximum benefits of £26,000. Quite right. Why should people decide to milk the system by having 15 kids so that they can get a massive house etc when they don't work.

This is only the start of the cuts. At least its good to see they are hitting the rich (and relatively well off) as well.

[DrPepper]

Me. I agree with them.

Why should the likes of Colleen Rooney be entitled to child benefit? It's ridiculous.
£44,000 is an arbitrary figure but you can only really work this on single incomes. A combined income figure is too complex and would require far too much admin.

Maximum benefits of £26,000. Quite right. Why should people decide to milk the system by having 15 kids so that they can get a massive house etc when they don't work.

This is only the start of the cuts. At least its good to see they are hitting the rich (and relatively well off) as well.

44K is the 40% tax bracket hence that figure (actually it's £43,875 to be exact!).

Agree also that 26K is more than enough for any family to live off, probably more than many working families take home as £26,000 benefits equate to a salary of about £35,000

[Biker1]

Probably opening a can of worms here!

The argument will depend on whether you are a receiver or a payer.

I know that some are both especially with child benefit.

The real emphasis with the cuts should be on the the cheats and those who do not need or deserve.
The problem here is it is a hard and costly to implement but most of those who work and pay are fed up with paying for those who scrounge.

[Iommi]

The problem with a single maximum national figure, is that different parts of the country have a different cost of living.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Probably opening a can of worms here!

The argument will depend on whether you are a receiver or a payer.

I know that some are both especially with child benefit.

The real emphasis with the cuts should be on the the cheats and those who do not need or deserve.
The problem here is it is a hard and costly to implement but most of those who work and pay are fed up with paying for those who scrounge.

Some people in Westmister who are living in accomodation provided by the council would need to earn over £300,000 to live in the houses they have been given. That is proposterous.

[Bloggo]

Well, I agree with this benefit cut as well. However I hope the emphasis will be on the benefit cheats and not those that are really in need.
I heard a crazy thing the other day about British pensioners living in Spain getting the fuel allowance and even the extra funding. These people don't even have a fire.
This sort of waste has to stop.

[Bofem]

Well, I agree with this benefit cut as well. However I hope the emphasis will be on the benefit cheats and not those that are really in need.
I heard a crazy thing the other day about British pensioners living in Spain getting the fuel allowance and even the extra funding. These people don't even have a fire.
This sort of waste has to stop.

Spanish winters are very chilly, as the houses are built to keep cool not warm. Bless em

[Phil_D11102]

I don't agree with this benefit cut at all. How many families in the Newbury/Thatcham area have a wage earner in the 40percent bracket. I would imagine quiet a few.

I work full time, and 40 percent of everything I earn is taken from me. My wife works part time so she can be home with the kids, one of them is just under a year old. We get no other tax credits, etc. When you take away what we are taxed each year, we are below the 43K limit. It's not fair that two income families that earn more than us will keep the benefit.

I pay into private pensions because it's known that the state pension will not be enough when we retire, that is if the state pension is still around. Do we now start cutting back on our contributions to meet this loss we will be facing from the loss of the child benefit, which in the future will further drain the system? Council tax is constantly increasing, petrol tax, taxes on home heating and electricity, taxes on any money we manage to save. At the end of the year they constantly change my tax code. The harder I work, the less money I earn.

When my son goes to secondary school, who will pay for his bus transportation, me. Who is required to pay for his required school uniforms, me. Who is required to pay for his lunch, me. When he goes to university, who will be required to fund the 10K per year that will be the cost of his tutition, which by the way will be more than resident city or state tutition fees in the U.S.

If the gov't would say we won't give you the money, but we will not tax you the money you used to get, then fine.

How about stopping the benefits being sent out of the country. If your family is not in the UK, you don't get it. How much will that save per year? How about cutting out foreign aid for six months or a year. How much debt was written off, would that amount stop this farce?

When I was laid off in 2002, I was given 25 pounds a week in jobseekers allowance. I got no other assistance or credit. When I had to miss an meeting at the job office due to having to attend the funeral of a family member, my money was stopped because I wasn't looking for a job. I only got the 25 pounds a week because I did prepare for a rainy day. It didn't matter that I was out of work for over a year, and we managed to keep the wolves at bay.

I don't mind paying tax, it's a fact of life, but now it's starting to be a case of going to a month to month existence.

We did not bail out the banks, the gov't did without consultation from the people. Stop the spending on others and focus on those who elected you into power, the ordinary tax payer, regardless of what tax bracket they are in.

[JeffG]

I work full time, and 40 percent of everything I earn is taken from me.

Really?? You have no allowances, and don't pay the 20% rate on the first £37,400?

My wife works part time so she can be home with the kids, one of them is just under a year old. We get no other tax credits, etc.

However, it's just been announced that there will be a tax break for married couples in just this situation, so hopefully it will not be as bad as you think in the end.

When you take away what we are taxed each year, we are below the 43K limit.

I think you are doing the sums twice here. You might as well say that someone earning £x after tax is below the tax threshold of £x so shouldn't pay tax.

[Phil_D11102]

Really?? You have no allowances, and don't pay the 20% rate on the first £37,400?

To be honest I am not sure, but what I pay a year in taxes is quite a bit.

However, it's just been announced that there will be a tax break for married couples in just this situation, so hopefully it will not be as bad as you think in the end.

yes, two years after the stop the child benefit, and will it be close to the same amount we are losing?

I think you are doing the sums twice here. You might as well say that someone earning £x after tax is below the tax threshold of £x so shouldn't pay tax.

For those who pay tax, shouldn't what you get in benefits be based on what you have left after the gov't gets their share? After all, you paying into that system. This is why I am angry that the one benefit that was universal is now being pulled.

Again, I am not against paying tax, but the tax system should be fair and across the board. If I made a million quid a year, then I could afford a good accountant to help me hide the money, but I don't and I can't.

[Phil_D11102]

Really?? You have no allowances, and don't pay the 20% rate on the first £37,400?


To be honest I am not sure, but what I pay a year in taxes is quite a bit.

I do pay 20 percent on the first 37,400. Saying that, two people on 37,400 will be earning more and will still get the benefit, and we who earn less will not get the benefit.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I don't agree with this benefit cut at all. How many families in the Newbury/Thatcham area have a wage earner in the 40percent bracket. I would imagine quiet a few.

I work full time, and 40 percent of everything I earn is taken from me. My wife works part time so she can be home with the kids, one of them is just under a year old. We get no other tax credits, etc. When you take away what we are taxed each year, we are below the 43K limit. It's not fair that two income families that earn more than us will keep the benefit.

I pay into private pensions because it's known that the state pension will not be enough when we retire, that is if the state pension is still around. Do we now start cutting back on our contributions to meet this loss we will be facing from the loss of the child benefit, which in the future will further drain the system? Council tax is constantly increasing, petrol tax, taxes on home heating and electricity, taxes on any money we manage to save. At the end of the year they constantly change my tax code. The harder I work, the less money I earn.

When my son goes to secondary school, who will pay for his bus transportation, me. Who is required to pay for his required school uniforms, me. Who is required to pay for his lunch, me. When he goes to university, who will be required to fund the 10K per year that will be the cost of his tutition, which by the way will be more than resident city or state tutition fees in the U.S.

If the gov't would say we won't give you the money, but we will not tax you the money you used to get, then fine.

How about stopping the benefits being sent out of the country. If your family is not in the UK, you don't get it. How much will that save per year? How about cutting out foreign aid for six months or a year. How much debt was written off, would that amount stop this farce?

When I was laid off in 2002, I was given 25 pounds a week in jobseekers allowance. I got no other assistance or credit. When I had to miss an meeting at the job office due to having to attend the funeral of a family member, my money was stopped because I wasn't looking for a job. I only got the 25 pounds a week because I did prepare for a rainy day. It didn't matter that I was out of work for over a year, and we managed to keep the wolves at bay.

I don't mind paying tax, it's a fact of life, but now it's starting to be a case of going to a month to month existence.

We did not bail out the banks, the gov't did without consultation from the people. Stop the spending on others and focus on those who elected you into power, the ordinary tax payer, regardless of what tax bracket they are in.

I pay a lot of tax and do not get a single benefit of any kind. I have ALWAYS had a job and have paid my stamp every month from the age of 18. You chose to have kids so why should you expect me to help pay for them???

[JeffG]

I think that the only unfair part is that someone £1 under the threshold will get the benefit, then if they earn £1 more they lose the whole of the benefit.

It's the step change that you get at the boundary that is unfair, but that's always happened in other cases.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I think that the only unfair part is that someone £1 under the threshold will get the benefit, then if they earn £1 more they lose the whole of the benefit.

It's the step change that you get at the boundary that is unfair, but that's always happened in other cases.

Do you not think some people on £44,000 will be asking for a £300 pay cut? or a £6000 rise - I would and I know what I'd get!

[Jayjay]

I agree with the cut in principal, if you are earning this kind of money you dont really need the extra £20 a week. What I think unfair is a two income family getting the benefit while earning £86K, but the widow across the road on one income, earning £43K missing out. When this system comes into force, people who are not entitled should not claim, if they do they will be paid the benefit then it will be taken off in tax. If this is the case, why would it be so difficult to add two incomes together and take the benefit back in tax? Unsure how child tax benefit works, but imagine it must be calculated on two incomes.

[Phil_D11102]

I pay a lot of tax and do not get a single benefit of any kind. I have ALWAYS had a job and have paid my stamp every month from the age of 18. You chose to have kids so why should you expect me to help pay for them???

I worked for over 20 years without a break until I was made redundant. While I was unemployed (which wasn't my choosing), I didn't get anything except for 25 quid a week, and I paid much more than that over the years. This is where the system is unfair.

The 130 quid a month we will lose may not seem much, but it's the prinicipal behind the matter. Yes, we chose to have kids, and it costs a lot more than the 130 quid we are entitled to. We get no tax breaks for having children, and now we are being penalised for working hard. Your decision was no to have kids, but how would you feel if you had kids? If suddenly you became unemployed, how would you like if I said why should I pay for your unemployment benefit when you are entitled to it.

They want to limit benefits to 26K a year, but if your on two incomes of 40K a year, your entitled to the child benefit.

What is happening is we are having to pay for bad decisions we didn't make. If they raised the 20% to 40K instead of 37.4, that would be a compromise.

Do you not think some people on £44,000 will be asking for a £300 pay cut? or a £6000 rise - I would and I know what I'd get

I would take the 6K as what would be left after the tax would be more than the child benefit, but the world doesn't work like that.

[Iommi]

You chose to have kids so why should you expect me to help pay for them???

'Cause you'll need a nurse or cashier to serve you one day.

[DrPepper]

'Cause you'll need a nurse or cashier to serve you one day.

Iommi - I agree with you

We are not paying taxes today for OUR old age etc, we are paying for today's pensioners, services etc, our children will be paying any benefits we may get in our old age. That is why we all need to make sure the next generation are as well educated and provided for as possible.

[GMR]

Me. I agree with them.

Why should the likes of Colleen Rooney be entitled to child benefit? It's ridiculous.
£44,000 is an arbitrary figure but you can only really work this on single incomes. A combined income figure is too complex and would require far too much admin.

Maximum benefits of £26,000. Quite right. Why should people decide to milk the system by having 15 kids so that they can get a massive house etc when they don't work.

This is only the start of the cuts. At least its good to see they are hitting the rich (and relatively well off) as well.

I certainly agree that the rich shouldn't get them. However, and here lies the problem; where do you cut off? That is what the real issue is. I believe there will be some anomalies. That could damage the Tory party.

[GMR]

The problem with a single maximum national figure, is that different parts of the country have a different cost of living.

Yes, that is another good point.