Child Benefit to be scrapped for higher earners

145791012

Comments

  • seren nos wrote (see)

    If you want to reduce benefits then you need to provide jobs.....................

    people can't move as their house prices are the lowest in the country..............only jobs are over 20 miles away and minimum wage would cover the transport costs...............


    I actually feel genuinely angry when i read shit like that Seren.

    In case you had not noticed, the country has hundreds of thousands of workers that have travelled from all over the world to work in the UK. There are many first and second generation immigrant millionaires in this country, presumably you think that they have been afforded opportunitues not made available to people from your town? 

    I'd like to encourage some sort of immigrant swap shop, for every hardworking ambitious immigrant we admit to the country we should be able to deport one person who thinks that jobs should be "provided" or that travelling 20 miles for work is unreasonable.

  • That's a bit like arguing that someone can complete a marathon in a handful of minutes over  2 hours - why can't everyone else.   
  • no it isn't. 

    the "cheapest homes" argument is presumably along the lines "why should we move somewhere more prosperous and get a job and have to [shock horror] RENT, when we can buy a house for 10p in a shithole where there's no demand for houses because there's no work?  We want to keep our 10p house, and have jobs brought over to us.  Only ones we like, obviously.  And preferably lots of high paid jobs, so less blinkered people than ourselves move over here to get work, and housing demand goes up, and our 10p property is worth millions!  Home ownership is essential!  THATCHER IS OUR GOD!"

  • But isn't the government's latest policy to move unemployed and/or disabled people who rent to where there are no jobs? EG Out of Central London and into the burbs?

    Re the workers coming over here nicking our jobs - well, they are. They're doing exactly the same as me and some of my mates did in the 1980s when we pissed off to Germany last time there was a Tory government and nicked the German jobs.

    They probably live the way we did - 9 of us sharing a 5 bed caravan; hot bedding (Please!) paying fuck all rent and living on pot noodles and spending all our wages back in England.



  • i used to watch you on TV when I was 12!

    were you Oz, or Neville?!

  • Moxy.. der scouser
  • arsonist.  must have been the hot bedding.

    did you see what i did there?  with the added second level of the double entendre, too.  bob monkhouse would be quaking in his boots, if he wasn't dead

  • popsider wrote (see)

    That's a bit like arguing that someone can complete a marathon in a handful of minutes over  2 hours - why can't everyone else.   

    no it isnt- its like sitting at home on your arse having never so much as walked further than from the sofa to the corner shop and moaning that other people are able to run a marathon when you are not.

  • BarklesBarkles ✭✭✭

    Isn't it interesting that society can be so easily divided in times of stress.?

    We're in a phase that has all the signs of a depression - fewer jobs, so wages can fall, there's a change in the nature of work required, but much of the workforce has not changed skill-set and so can't make the jump...

    We have a long-standing benefits culture that allows people to ' elect' ( in some cases) to not work... and we have an influx of foreign labour.

    This produces a very divided nation. We aren't interested in the fact that the imigrant workers are undertaking jobs that the indigenous workforce has refused, we trot out the ' they're over here taking our jobs' routine, the food of extreme politics.

    The working, shun the non working and assume all are scroungers, which patently isn;t true, but those who are, wreck the system for all.  The lower paid workers hate the high income bracket, and the high income bracket resent paying taxes that provide services they may opt out of.

    Society is diverse. In good times, there is less stress on the system and people concentrate on the positives, when bad times come ( and this is just the tip of the iceberg, I think) the divisions are magnified.

    I point all to the ' Rivers of blood' and ' No lame ducks' speeches in recent British History. I would counsel all to consider the lessons from history. As I've said before, the veneer of civilization is very thin.

  • "Maggie got rid of the jobs in the valleys...............there is no industry at all"

    sorry Seren - that's incorrect

    much as I hate Thatcher and everything she stood for, she didn't close the Welsh pits or steelworks - economic conditions did that. the pits were close to worked out and with the cost of extraction increasing, then the coal became too pricey. similar for the steel - the works were there as a hangover from history when iron was mined in SWales and coal was used to fire the furnaces. that again become uneconomic when production costs shot through the roof.

    they kept the mines and steelworks working as long as they economically could but the writing had been on the wall for decades


    as for the immigrants coming to steal jobs - here's what I see from a recruiter's view.

    probably 75%+ of all CVs I see now are from immigrants or 1st generation children of immigrants. these people want to work and the vast majority of equally qualified Brits no longer compete for the jobs - they want someone to hand them a job, they can't be arsed to compete for them. that's one of Thatcher's legacies - greed and laziness

    and I am becoming very good at pronouncing foreign names
  • well you shopuld stop being lazy FB, get off your arse, and send some of those jobs to wales**.  the houses there are well cheap!

     ** but only easy jobs, obviously, and ones that allow a siesta from 10am - 2pm, because they have a right to watch daytime televison

  • For society to work we need to have a strong private sector (inc manufacturing, banking etc) supported by a strong public sector (education to provide the workforce, health to look after the population etc). One sector can not work without the other.

    Society also needs people to function at all levels and may work better if we have a pyramid shaped society in terms of education etc. We need people who can do the less glamerous jobs and the less well paid jobs as much as we need the people at the top. To be honest more of the population would notice if the bin men went on strike than if a neurosurgeon did (unless of course you or one of your loved ones needed the neurosurgeon)

    In my precvious post it wasn't the shutting of the pits I was upset bout just the vacum that was left behind. I am worried that history is about to repeat itself with the public sector in south yorkshire.

  • oxymoron wrote (see)
    popsider wrote (see)

    That's a bit like arguing that someone can complete a marathon in a handful of minutes over  2 hours - why can't everyone else.   

    no it isnt- its like sitting at home on your arse having never so much as walked further than from the sofa to the corner shop and moaning that other people are able to run a marathon when you are not.

    Except it's not is it.   Plenty of people have worked for decades - worked hard even if they weren't raking in fortunes for it - and then find themselves without work or without work that pays enough to support their family.   These are not people who have sat on their arses all their lives and expect others to provide for them. 

    To imply that because a few immigrants have come from very little to become millionaires that those who are struggling economically are just a bunch of lazy wasters is naive and analagous to arguing that because Paul Tergat can run sub 2.10 anyone that can't only has themselves to blame.   

  • As Nam pointed out the original aim of family allowance was to encourage people to have children after the war years depleted the population - whatever it is now called we are overcrowded so it has served its purpose and it needs to go.

    The plans are a step in the right direction but I do agree it should be on household income not individual that is just wrong

  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭
    Corinthian wrote (see)
    But isn't the government's latest policy to move unemployed and/or disabled people who rent to where there are no jobs? EG Out of Central London and into the burbs?

    I travel from outside London (about 35 miles) to my job each day, and so do thousands of other people. 

    It's way cheaper to live outside London and pay the train fare.

  • The other policy change that hasn't been mentioned so much is the one to cap total benefits at £500 a week. 

    That will make it impossible for those with larger numbers of children to live in central London on benefits.

    Any comments?

    <stands well back>

  • MikeFrog Justgiving.com/MikeforCrisis wrote (see)

    The other policy change that hasn't been mentioned so much is the one to cap total benefits at £500 a week. 

    That will make it impossible for those with larger numbers of children to live in central London on benefits.

    Any comments?

    <stands well back>

    Send them to Wales ?
  • Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)
    MikeFrog Justgiving.com/MikeforCrisis wrote (see)

    The other policy change that hasn't been mentioned so much is the one to cap total benefits at £500 a week. 

    That will make it impossible for those with larger numbers of children to live in central London on benefits.

    Any comments?

    <stands well back>

    Send them to Wales ?

    NOOOO - we have enough chavs as it is thank you very much and less jobs

  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭

    If the median salary is around £24k, which I presume plently of people have to live on (or indeed less), then capping benefits at £26k doesn't seem draconian.

    In fact, as it's still more than a lot of working people's income, it seems generous.  I had no idea that you could get that much on benefit. 

  • Wilkie wrote (see)

    If the median salary is around £24k, which I presume plently of people have to live on (or indeed less), then capping benefits at £26k doesn't seem draconian.

    In fact, as it's still more than a lot of working people's income, it seems generous.  I had no idea that you could get that much on benefit. 

    Well that's because it includes the housing benefit. If you have 7 children and are getting your rent paid, a few of them (it says in The Times this morning) are getting £800 a week.
  • Bearing in mind benefits are tax free 500 quid per week is the take home and therefore equivalent of a much higher salary
  • Two sides to it aren't there.   Nobody likes seeing people milking the system - having more and more kids with no intention of ever providing for them other than through benefits.

    On the other hand if you have a large family and suddenly lose your income (could be unemployment, could be bereavement or illness or disability) a relatively few families are going to be in abject poverty arguably because this govt wants to be seen to be tough on the people who are milking the system as a lifestyle choice.     

    There needs to be some kind of flexibility to recognise that not everyone getting large amounts of benefits is milking the system.   

  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭

    There are a lot - a LOT - of people who work here who earn less than £24k.

    There are quite a few people here (central London, with London Weighting) who earn less than £20k.

    It seems wrong to pay for people to live in "nice" areas, whereas working folk have to live where they can afford to live.

  • If you are adding up benefits if you have 7 kids - child benefit is going to be well over £100.   Free school meals - do they count ?   If so that could be another what £50 plus a week.   You can see how it adds up.   

    On the tax free bit - I think if you had a household income of 26k and 7 kids then you'd be getting a lot of tax credit - I don't know but maybe even if you were earning it you'd not be paying much income tax anyway so it may not actually be equivalent to a much higher salary. 

  • There isn't anybody down south - its a myth...image

    I drove clockwise round the M25 from the M1 to the M3 junction for Southampton (don't even ask) and I was amazed at all the open fields and countryside! I thought you lot were living on top of each other?image

    Crowded my arse! Come and have a look at the M62 corridor where I live!image

  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭

    They had a bit (but only a bit) of consideration for the people of the south east when they built the M25.

    They put it in the country-side, rather than flattening a load of towns (or putting a motorway right next to them).

    Chavsville is a town of 121,000 people, about 7 miles from the M25.

  • popsider wrote (see)

    Two sides to it aren't there.   Nobody likes seeing people milking the system - having more and more kids with no intention of ever providing for them other than through benefits.

    On the other hand if you have a large family and suddenly lose your income (could be unemployment, could be bereavement or illness or disability) a relatively few families are going to be in abject poverty arguably because this govt wants to be seen to be tough on the people who are milking the system as a lifestyle choice.     

    There needs to be some kind of flexibility to recognise that not everyone getting large amounts of benefits is milking the system.   

    Well said
  • Well, the system we’ve got depends upon on mass unemployment to work properly. It’s a very necessary tenet of neo-liberal political and economic ideology. The media’s job is to normalise this and as it is owned by the mega rich and run for the benefit of the mega rich it will blame the very people the system makes unemployed for being ‘workshy’ and cuts their benefits.

    But wait a minute - We also pay an extraordinary amount of money to keep people in work subsidising employers who pay minimum wage, zero hours contracts and all that kind of gubbins. I don’t hear anyone decrying skinflint employers as ‘benefit cheats and scroungers’ sponging money off the state to increase their profit margin.

    Also, unemployment is cyclical - most people out of work have usually found a job within 6 months of being made unemployed - well... that’s about to change... and big time.

    You might be asking yourself why now? Why are they enacting these cuts right now? - the reason is to cope with the real mass unemployment about to swamp the Anglo-Saxon economies. It’s already here in America - and it’s just about to be unleashed upon you. (whoo hooo just in time for Xmas!)

    Those who have been lucky enough in the past to be able to ride out he previous storms; those who are in the main entirely divorced from the reality of the post-industrial economic vandalism of the worst kind which has been enacted on this country over the last 30 years who are scared or dim enough, to fall for this kind of neo-liberal laissez faire bullshit - might just not like the society it will have produced. We have truly arrived at the place of Orwell's nightmare.

    War is peace. Poverty is a lifestyle choice - do you really, really think so?

    Tell you what, I’ve a solution - why don’t you Mr and Mrs ‘Middle Class’ in secure employment (At the moment) swap places with a ‘benefit scrounger’ for six months of the year. Let them have your job. Look on it as a government training scheme to condition you for the mass unemployment to come, let them inherit your lifestyle and your problems - and you can have theirs... and lets see how you get on. It’s only fair and for the good of the nation and economy, you should be proud to be doing your bit... after all - we’re all in this together.

    We’re months away from a probable severe and long lasting economic depression - and when that happens it won’t be the people caused this nightmare who will be taking a glance over their shoulder waiting for the grim reaper of unemployment - it could be YOU next.

    Personally, I can’t wait to see the look on your face when reality hits home!

    Welfare scrounger
  • Badly Drawn Bloke wrote (see)
    popsider wrote (see)

    Two sides to it aren't there.   Nobody likes seeing people milking the system - having more and more kids with no intention of ever providing for them other than through benefits.

    On the other hand if you have a large family and suddenly lose your income (could be unemployment, could be bereavement or illness or disability) a relatively few families are going to be in abject poverty arguably because this govt wants to be seen to be tough on the people who are milking the system as a lifestyle choice.     

    There needs to be some kind of flexibility to recognise that not everyone getting large amounts of benefits is milking the system.   

    Well said

    Its choice again, surely they chose to have a large family!!!

    Why should the rest of hard working society pay for other peoples choices?

  • My dad was one 9, they didnt have housing benegit, child benefit or anything else, they got buy because both my grandparents worked night and day.

    They didnt expect society to feed them, buy the kids the latest gadgets or fund all their kids through school and university.
Sign In or Register to comment.