[quote]I suppose another point is why should anyone receive child benefit? If you can't afford kids, don't have them - why should non-breeders pay for other people's children? [/quote]
Have you thought about who the people are that will be paying for your retirement via taxes? Have you thought about who'll be wiping your arse when you're 87 and suffering with parkinsons? Have you thought who'll be paying for your hip replacement and new cartilage for your bad knee so you can still get out to the pub or allotment through your 70s? Shall I tell you who or have you worked it out already?
That's right: other peoples' kids.
Child Benefit
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Child Benefit
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Child Benefit
[quote]After the benefit is gone, maybe the breeders will think a little more carefully about their lifestyle choices.[/quote]
And if they decide they want a large family anyway, who pays for the children if they can't? You suggesting mass sterilisation where you have to pass a fucking credit check to get your eggs/sperm back?
Use your brain.
And if they decide they want a large family anyway, who pays for the children if they can't? You suggesting mass sterilisation where you have to pass a fucking credit check to get your eggs/sperm back?
Use your brain.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Child Benefit
Breeding licences would be a good idea. Workhouses for those who slip through the net.
We have need of you again, great king.
Re: Child Benefit
I'll have to disagree with you there Sam. I reckon I've paid enough tax so far in my life to cover my future care. I've even paid UK tax and rates/council tax when I've been out of the country for long spells.
I remember when single men paid a higher rate of tax than married men which I thought was unfair.
I remember when single men paid a higher rate of tax than married men which I thought was unfair.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad/Peter/Universal Benefits
It's always quaint to see the Victorian era attitude to child poverty being expressed in the 21st century.
If your ideas are implemented, no doubt we can look forward to the re-introduction of child chimney sweeps and the return of street corner shoeshine kids.
And in1848 Lord Ashley referred to more than thirty thousand 'naked, filthy, roaming lawless and deserted children, in and around the metropolis.
Oh happy days!
On a more serious note, getting rid of the concept of universal benefits which is what the Tories have just done, introduces the "where do you stop" question.
Why should people with a certain amount of dosh in the bank, get a pension subsidised by the less well-off etc etc.?
It will be interesting to see the results of the study into how to fund universities which I think comes out next week. This is expected to increase substantially the amount of fees students pay to attend college. If that proves to be the case, a family with a single worker and 2 kids getting ?44K will drop about ?30K in child benefit during their childhood and that figure could go up to ?100K if the two kids decide to go to college. At the moment the average debt per student is about ?20K+ as far as I know.
I hope some bright spark in the Treasury is considering the cumulative impact of all these cuts going on across departments on individual earnings sectors.
Based on the cackhanded way this cut in child benefit appears to work, I suspect not!!
Cheers
D
If your ideas are implemented, no doubt we can look forward to the re-introduction of child chimney sweeps and the return of street corner shoeshine kids.
And in1848 Lord Ashley referred to more than thirty thousand 'naked, filthy, roaming lawless and deserted children, in and around the metropolis.
Oh happy days!
On a more serious note, getting rid of the concept of universal benefits which is what the Tories have just done, introduces the "where do you stop" question.
Why should people with a certain amount of dosh in the bank, get a pension subsidised by the less well-off etc etc.?
It will be interesting to see the results of the study into how to fund universities which I think comes out next week. This is expected to increase substantially the amount of fees students pay to attend college. If that proves to be the case, a family with a single worker and 2 kids getting ?44K will drop about ?30K in child benefit during their childhood and that figure could go up to ?100K if the two kids decide to go to college. At the moment the average debt per student is about ?20K+ as far as I know.
I hope some bright spark in the Treasury is considering the cumulative impact of all these cuts going on across departments on individual earnings sectors.
Based on the cackhanded way this cut in child benefit appears to work, I suspect not!!
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Nikonman
Hiya
An extract from the wikipedia entry.
"In the UK, child benefit is administered by Revenue and Customs Child Benefit Office in Washington, Tyne and Wear. As of April 2010, ?20.30 per week is paid for the first child (including the eldest of a multiple birth) and ?13.40 per week is paid for each additional child [3]. The same amount is currently paid without reference to earnings or savings, although higher-rate taxpayers will not receive this benefit from 2013.[4] More than 80% of children are in families also eligible for means-tested child tax credit.
The system was first implemented in August 1946 as "family allowances" under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s, and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s for the third and subsequent children. By 1955, some 5,000,000 allowances were being paid, to about 3,250,000 families.[5]
It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed "child benefit" and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth ?4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings.[6] In 2010, the benefit made headlines when rumours circulated that it could be phased out for children over 16 under the budget deficit reduction plans.[7]
Cheers
D
An extract from the wikipedia entry.
"In the UK, child benefit is administered by Revenue and Customs Child Benefit Office in Washington, Tyne and Wear. As of April 2010, ?20.30 per week is paid for the first child (including the eldest of a multiple birth) and ?13.40 per week is paid for each additional child [3]. The same amount is currently paid without reference to earnings or savings, although higher-rate taxpayers will not receive this benefit from 2013.[4] More than 80% of children are in families also eligible for means-tested child tax credit.
The system was first implemented in August 1946 as "family allowances" under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s, and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s for the third and subsequent children. By 1955, some 5,000,000 allowances were being paid, to about 3,250,000 families.[5]
It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed "child benefit" and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth ?4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings.[6] In 2010, the benefit made headlines when rumours circulated that it could be phased out for children over 16 under the budget deficit reduction plans.[7]
Cheers
D
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Child Benefit
[quote]I'll have to disagree with you there Sam. I reckon I've paid enough tax so far in my life to cover my future care.[/quote]
This may be true of you. I don't know. Given the average wage of around ?23,000pa the average person in the UK pays around ?800pa in taxes. For that you get a police service, national security, the NHS, an education, a fire service..........I could go on. You get my point I'm sure.
If you work 50 years then (let's ignore inflation) you'll have paid in ?40,000 over your working life. How much is a standard state pension? Let's say it's ?100pw or ?5200pa (with allowances and other stuff it's more than ?100pw but I'm being conservative so you know I'm not exaggerating to back up my point). Now, according to my calculations you'll have had your ?40,000 back in just over 7 years. So, if you die before you're 73 and suffer no illnesses the government might be able to say they broke even............might. The average age people die these days is 79 and rising.
Given these figures your average person doesn't pay in more than they get out, unless you either die an early uncomplicated death, or you're on more than the average wage and pay 3 or 4 times the tax of most people. Even then, the high tax payers will still not have to live too long or become seriously ill or suffer from some common disorder like diabetes, parkinsons disease or cancer.
I know what you're thinking: "but Sam, you're only talking about taxes. What about my NI contributions?!" Well, again, that would only give you another 8 years of uncomplicated, ill-free life. It costs the NHS around ?2-3000 per child you have in your life (2-3 kids on average) and that's just for the anti-natal appointments and birth (with no complications). Then there's the post-natal check-ups and inoculations to consider. Broke your leg/arm playing football or when you got pissed at your 40th? That cost the tax payer up to ?4000. Your wife get breast cancer? That's ?20,000+ for a single year's treatment. Any other cancers? One in three of us will get some form of cancer at some point in our lives. Chemotherapy or radiotherapy costs the NHS ?35,000 per patient, and again, that's only for those who don't suffer any other side-affects/complications.
Again, I could go on. You might be burgled/mugged and need the police. You might have to be rescued from a house fire or cut out of some wreckage on the motorway, have paramedics give you heart massage and whisk you off to intensive care for a week or two. Cost to taxpayer? Thousands.
Like I said, you may be someone who'll end up paying more in that they get back but until you're dead you can't ever say for sure, can you?
This may be true of you. I don't know. Given the average wage of around ?23,000pa the average person in the UK pays around ?800pa in taxes. For that you get a police service, national security, the NHS, an education, a fire service..........I could go on. You get my point I'm sure.
If you work 50 years then (let's ignore inflation) you'll have paid in ?40,000 over your working life. How much is a standard state pension? Let's say it's ?100pw or ?5200pa (with allowances and other stuff it's more than ?100pw but I'm being conservative so you know I'm not exaggerating to back up my point). Now, according to my calculations you'll have had your ?40,000 back in just over 7 years. So, if you die before you're 73 and suffer no illnesses the government might be able to say they broke even............might. The average age people die these days is 79 and rising.
Given these figures your average person doesn't pay in more than they get out, unless you either die an early uncomplicated death, or you're on more than the average wage and pay 3 or 4 times the tax of most people. Even then, the high tax payers will still not have to live too long or become seriously ill or suffer from some common disorder like diabetes, parkinsons disease or cancer.
I know what you're thinking: "but Sam, you're only talking about taxes. What about my NI contributions?!" Well, again, that would only give you another 8 years of uncomplicated, ill-free life. It costs the NHS around ?2-3000 per child you have in your life (2-3 kids on average) and that's just for the anti-natal appointments and birth (with no complications). Then there's the post-natal check-ups and inoculations to consider. Broke your leg/arm playing football or when you got pissed at your 40th? That cost the tax payer up to ?4000. Your wife get breast cancer? That's ?20,000+ for a single year's treatment. Any other cancers? One in three of us will get some form of cancer at some point in our lives. Chemotherapy or radiotherapy costs the NHS ?35,000 per patient, and again, that's only for those who don't suffer any other side-affects/complications.
Again, I could go on. You might be burgled/mugged and need the police. You might have to be rescued from a house fire or cut out of some wreckage on the motorway, have paramedics give you heart massage and whisk you off to intensive care for a week or two. Cost to taxpayer? Thousands.
Like I said, you may be someone who'll end up paying more in that they get back but until you're dead you can't ever say for sure, can you?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Child Benefit
Yes but they'll be paying that irrespective of whether they get child benefit. Do you really think people have children so that they can pay tax to benefit other people?
Re: Child Benefit
That must be one of the silliest responses ever. Do you seriously believe that parents spend all child benefit on feeding their children? You don't think some parents spend it on themselves?
Look around you - how many "starving" children do you see in Britain? What we regard as poverty would be untold luxury for millions of people around the world.
Kids we are constantly told are getting fatter and will die before their parents. If this is true, perhaps cutting child benefit might help them cut back on stuffing their fat faces...
Look around you - how many "starving" children do you see in Britain? What we regard as poverty would be untold luxury for millions of people around the world.
Kids we are constantly told are getting fatter and will die before their parents. If this is true, perhaps cutting child benefit might help them cut back on stuffing their fat faces...
Re: Essex Lad/Peter/Universal Benefits
David, David - i usually agree with your posts but get real.
You are too intelligent to really believe that cutting child benefit would result in kids being sent up chimneys. Who has chimneys anyway these days? Nor would you see kids going to school barefoot or in rags - that's nonsense.
There are almost no cases of child malnutrition reported today - quite the reverse. We are told kids are too fat...
Even those die-hard left-wingers don't suggest that we will see poor kids starving on the streets if child benefit is abolished...
You are too intelligent to really believe that cutting child benefit would result in kids being sent up chimneys. Who has chimneys anyway these days? Nor would you see kids going to school barefoot or in rags - that's nonsense.
There are almost no cases of child malnutrition reported today - quite the reverse. We are told kids are too fat...
Even those die-hard left-wingers don't suggest that we will see poor kids starving on the streets if child benefit is abolished...