Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html en-gb 30 Thu 10 Jul 2014 11:27:13 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html threerivers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2891 This post has been Removed Fri 08 Oct 2010 10:13:38 GMT+1 threerivers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2890 Like most responsible people my husband and I waited to start a family until we could afford to.Sadly we were unable to have children. This was in the mid seventies when expectations were very different .I spent my working life teaching other people's children.The idea of personal responsibility and making choices about what YOU, not the state, can afford seems to have gone out the window. Yesterday a brave individual ventured to suggest that families struggling to live on benefits should not have additional children. Shock! Horror! Well he was right- they should not.I have seen too many children born into dysfunctional fractured homes where there is a generational culture of not expecting to have to work for a living.Responsible families who find themselves in difficulties deserve, yes, DESERVE our support. We, the tax payer do not deserve to see our hard-earned taxes squandered on individuals who are taking us for a free ride. Woolly minded liberals will scream about children suffering if there is a cap on benefits. Well they won't suffer if they are not conceived.Enough is enough. Fri 08 Oct 2010 10:13:06 GMT+1 paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2889 2873. At 10:14am on 08 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Paul writes: "Totally irrelevant what they earn, they are not funded from the Public purse, people enter the union freely and pay their subs and politcal levy if they want to."Yet I have not yet seen Paul make this same argument with respect to bankers.I wonder why?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nice to get an easy one.When Unions are bailed out by the Tax payer I may review my viewpoint.Banks who did not require state aid are free to do what they wish as far as Bonuses and Remuneration packages as far as I am concerned.Investors can choose if the bank they are with deserves to look after their cash hard earned or otherwise :-) Fri 08 Oct 2010 10:12:02 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2888 2885. At 10:47am on 08 Oct 2010, bestoftherest wrote:No children no future unless you want more immigrants ****Had to reply to this - what's happening is Immigrants arriving with small children or having children soon after arriving..I wonder why :-) so we get them both you see - immigrant children & british born children & most of them are state dependant so i don't think there is any link between falling birth rates in this country (yeah right) & a need for taking any immigrants..we just need proud hard working people but they seem to be in very short supply these days!--------------------------The birth rate and number of children starting school now has rocketed in the last 5 to 6 years. This is due to unchecked EU immigration primarily and of course every child born here irrespective of length of time living here by the parents gets child benefit.This policy was supposed to be announced and as we have been softened up alrady for these type of cuts, was menat to just be accepted.Its been presented so badly and has clearly had no thought put into it and thats what has irked people. Then you get wind bags, like Baroness Warsi going on about fairness, when you only have to be able to count to 85 to work out that its not fair at all. The woman is such a liability, and she only has the job as a token. Fri 08 Oct 2010 10:09:40 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2887 This post has been Removed Fri 08 Oct 2010 10:09:19 GMT+1 bestoftherest http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2886 The welfare system was invented for the "abolition of want", for those people with nothing who had fallen on hard times** & now-a-days it is being completely abused by lazy irresponsible people who dont want to play the game of life & just expect from others...would love to see how many of these people would suddenly develop a backbone & some self-respect & start actually living & contributing if there was no welfare state :-( Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:55:47 GMT+1 bestoftherest http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2885 If you choose to be childless then fair enough but where do all the firefighters, nurses, policemen, doctors and other essential workers come from to "serve" them in their lonely, twisted and bitter dottage?*Please :-)The jobs you are referring to are highly unlikely to be carried out by children of parents that relied on the state, more likely to be from Parents who actually thought about what they were doing, were responsible - didnt have children until they could afford them & then gave them the best opportunity in life without expecting funding from other people! Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:51:41 GMT+1 bestoftherest http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2884 No children no future unless you want more immigrants ****Had to reply to this - what's happening is Immigrants arriving with small children or having children soon after arriving..I wonder why :-) so we get them both you see - immigrant children & british born children & most of them are state dependant so i don't think there is any link between falling birth rates in this country (yeah right) & a need for taking any immigrants..we just need proud hard working people but they seem to be in very short supply these days! Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:47:23 GMT+1 chrisk50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2883 If we keep going on this post it may break the record set by :-What does Pope Benedict XVI's UK visit mean to you?Last post on that one was:-3483. At 3:31pm on 30 Sep 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:and it looks as he copied and pasted the previous 3482 in it.Anyway - I know you lot like your stats.And if you are reading this get back to work, or go and get a job. My excuse I'm on a well earned holiday.Children are our future they will be supporting us, but for some children are the present and they are already providing for them. Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:40:16 GMT+1 Anne Finn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2882 Choosing to have children SHOULD be a lifestyle choice. You are responsible for them not the state and if you cant afford to keep them then dont have them - simple. Children are expensive to bring up especially these days, so people should be very mindful of this when thinking of starting a family - Harsh but true 'its all about the money' however unkind this may seem its the reality we live in. I do not think the Governments strategy here is fair,EVERYONE who gets child benefit and a joint income salary over the higher tax rate should loose child benefit. The reason this is not happening is because it would prove to costly to instigate ,need more not less public sector employees to administer the changes required and totaly defeat what this government is aiming to achieve eg less public sector employees not more.We now live in a society created by sucessive governments where the expectation that the 'State' will provide has grown 'like Topsy' through poor management and bad governance of policy. Universal child benefit is unsustainable . Should the State be encouraging people to have more children are we not an over populated island already ? On the other hand what happens when we need these children as workers of the future to pay the taxes that provide the State pension for our rapidy increasing aging population ? Anyone seen the film 'Soylent Green' ? Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:39:17 GMT+1 pintsizedgirlie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2881 Piper at the gates of dawn wrote :Once again MellorSJ demonstrates, with his outdated philosophy buried in the Me Me Me 80’s graveyard of good practice, why not only did his own business fail which led to his friends joining the dole dependency he seems to hate. Bit also why the country was on the brink of financial disaster and now in the mess his particular ideology of greed has caused.The “Sod every one else, I’m alright, attitude demonstrated in his posts has let to the situation we have now.Sadly he is so blindly indoctrinated that he can’t see; thankfully his attitude is in the minorityCould not have said it better myself. Thank god not everyone in Britain is like you ! and as for this comment : MellorSJ wrote : Pintsizegirlie writes: "My partner is on a relatively low income. I don't see why i should forgo having children or bag myself a rich man ( surely its better to marry for love than money?) just to appease the middle classes."Let me tell you, pintsize: BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD THEM.Well actually I am at university at the moment due to graduate soon so don't think my kids will do too badly eventually. Also I lost my job when i was pregnant so what exactly did you want me to do with my child seeing as she was almost born? You have no valid arguments. You seem to think because you had your own business this makes you some kind of saint. Yes , we do need people to start their own businesses for their to be jobs available but that works both ways. Succesful companies need good workers aswell so your argument is precisely what? You have nothing of worth to say yourself so you just pick holes in others arguments. And what is your obcession with foreign workers? MellorSJ writes Literally true,.But those children will come from outside the UK.Erm how do you work that one out? There might be an awful lot of immigrants but you also seem to think poor BRITISH people have too many chldren they can't afford so how exactly are all the british tax payers going to dissapear in the british work force. Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:29:28 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2880 2869. At 09:46am on 08 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote://"Answer me this question. How do you justify a banker who, amongst many others are directly reponsible for the recession we are in, being payed millions in salary plus further millions for screwing up?"Silly silly boy. I don't have to justify it. That 's like asking me to justify gravity. The fact is, these "bankers" entered into willing contracts and were paid according to those contracts. The only people who need to justify them are the signatories.You, and all your little friends have nothing to say in the matter. And they don't have to justify anything to you.//Silly MellorSJBy your illogical and irrational assumptions, if two folk or a group engage in a willing 'contract' to murder millions of people, or rob a bank, or steal, or anything they desire...then they only need justify their actions to themselves?Your analysis actually abdicates all responsibility for the consequence of actions and also makes the unfounded assumption that capitalist relationships, or contractual obligation does not posses a MORAL dimension! BUT capitalism and all social/economic relationships have a rational moral dimension - in fact capitalism is defined as a rational moral system. It is precisely that fact that each individual MUST justify the morality of their actions in a social economic context. AND any person whom would champion free markets and capitalism MUST necessarily be morally justified in their actions, they must be moral actors........Capitalism IS Rational Morality - its not exploitative or mindless egoistical thief - even if such thief is 'legal' and sanctioned by corrupt governments.In denying these essential elements of WHAT CAPITALISM IS, and in suggesting people can just 'get away with it' you merely confirm yet again that your 'interpretation' is of the fake, a counterfeit, merely another interpretation of the Doctrine of Sacrifice - justifying immoral activity like ALL mystics of materialism and defines one as the seeker of the ZERO. Shame on you! Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:28:10 GMT+1 yorkshirelady http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2879 "2759. At 12:39pm on 07 Oct 2010, The Phoenix from repair of reeds wrote:· 2755. At 12:21pm on 07 Oct 2010, scotty1694 wrote: heres a really really simple idea!!!al the single mothers whinging and winging that couples get more well fair enough i say is it really that hard and big a deal for you to at some point in your childs life from birth to 18 that you may! now stay with me MAY! find somebody to live with within 18 years? seriously?this is a good thing because it encourages people to stay together and its a fact a child is generally better off with 2 parents (even a step parent) than just a single parent.and considering theres a tax break coming in for being married i dont see what the big deal is?its not exactly hard to find a partner nowadays with internet dating etcso let me ask againwhat is your problem? there encouraging you to find a partner maybe even get married and you will benefit massivly finacially and mentally and so will the children.####################### This one is interestingGive a few examples of “single mothers whinging and winging that couples get more”On this HYS?"***I know, I think he posted on the wrong forum! LOLAnyway Scotty, seriously??? Have you *tried* internet dating? I did a few years ago (before getting married, having a child, then being left by husband and becoming a non-moaning working single mother), and believe me, there was no-one on there who was suitable even before I had a child, let alone afterwards! In fact, I did redo my profile after getting divorced, mentioning that I have a child, and the interest I received was zero! Not many *decent* men in my age bracket (30s) wanted to take on a woman who they presumed was simply looking for a husband and father replacement (I wasn't, she still sees her dad regularly). Do you want single mothers simply to hook up with the first idiot who comes along and is willing to marry her?? I'd been single three years before I met my current BF, who is a single dad whose child is in my daughter's class, because I was too busy working and looking after my child to go out man-hunting! If I'd been out every weekend *looking for a husband*, I'd have been considered a bad mother!So, get back to whichever HYS you *thought* you were posting on, and don't assume that just because a woman is a single mother she will cling onto the first lowlife who'll have her simply to have some financial stability! Most of us would rather be single and skint, thanks! And, btw, it's usually men who doesn't want to get married, not woman; if you can convince my bf to hop on the plane to Vegas with me, I'll be grateful for your assistance, ;@) Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:25:28 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2878 Lordy, lordy, lordy! Here comes another one! This time with this: "2875. At 10:17am on 08 Oct 2010, AlexisWolf wrote:It doesn't go far enough.What about the 42 Billion of uncollected tax? some say it's closer to 130 Billion!"Evidence, sweetie. Evidence! Go on! Give it a try... Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:25:16 GMT+1 Kaiho http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2877 "2810. At 7:19pm on 07 Oct 2010, samantha wrote:.. IN THIS COUNTRY ITS ALWAYS BEEN THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POORER GETS POORER. ITS ABOUT TIME THINGS CHANGED. ..."Well that isn't true at all. The poor are also richer, when compared with the past. It is the gap that keeps on getting bigger. I blame those % salary increases. A % of a higher salary is bigger than a % of a lower salary, and so the gap grows, year on year. Same goes for those % bonuses. Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:22:15 GMT+1 chrisk50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2876 2868. At 09:44am on 08 Oct 2010, Kickstart wrote:"What we need isn't large numbers of kids with the vague hope a few will be productive, rather concentrate on a productive workforce. Put in terms of shopping, if when buying 5lbs of potatoes you find 4lbs are inedible, do you solve this by buying another 20lbs of mostly inedible potatoes or chose more carefully and buy 4 lbs of edible ones?"This system can go further.The commodity Bank buys 20 tons of potatoes, 15 tons are inedible, solution charge the customer more and keep buying inedible potatoes, sit back and gain a self rewarded bonus. Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:21:08 GMT+1 th3_0r4cl3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2875 2804. At 6:35pm on 07 Oct 2010, The Phoenix from repair of reeds wrote:· 2792. At 5:03pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote: 2790. At 4:26pm on 07 Oct 2010, WyomingPat wrote:Hi - now living in the USA for 8 years it gives one a different perspective. Although many things in the USA are better some are not. NO Child Benefit, NO Housing benefit, NO support for keeping your house if you are unemployed. Little employment protection or rights. NO healthcare if you cannot pay for it (except going to the ER). NO free prescriptions if you are unemployed or retired.In the USA you get none of these benefits that in the UK are regarded as "FREE". I think the government has a real problem to educate people that these are NOT FREE but come out of taxes.==============Smartest comment on here. People don't understand the only thing free is air.Air is no longer free, green taxes!Co2 output to be taxed, no Co2 no air. Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:19:09 GMT+1 AlexisWolf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2874 It doesn't go far enough.What about the 42 Billion of uncollected tax? some say it's closer to 130 Billion! Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:17:40 GMT+1 Mark http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2873 How can anyone support child benefit cuts !!!What these Tories are doing is making my blood boil with absolute seething anger. Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:16:13 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2872 Paul writes: "Totally irrelevant what they earn, they are not funded from the Public purse, people enter the union freely and pay their subs and politcal levy if they want to."Yet I have not yet seen Paul make this same argument with respect to bankers.I wonder why? Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:14:03 GMT+1 paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2871 2822. At 8:20pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote" What a load of rubbish.You have Union leaders living in £750K houses, earning almost half a million quid a year and calling themselves working class"*****************************************************************Totally irrelevant what they earn, they are not funded from the Public purse, people enter the union freely and pay their subs and politcal levy if they want to.Only Union members should have an axe to grind if they think the man they employ is paid too much.Mr Bean (or Ozzie to his pal) should just make the benefit cut fair and count Joint income as opposed to income per parent. Possibly by doing this they could raise the cut off point from £44K.Having children is not a way to make a living. Its about time people thought more carefully about the responisibilty that comes with deciding to have children there are far too many children that are not cared for or brought up in a decent manner they should not be used to supplement a parents "fag money" Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:07:16 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2870 Silly Sevarian thinks he scored a point when s/he writes: "2837. At 11:19pm on 07 Oct 2010, Severian wrote:Sorry Shaun but you should join the real world. Other people's children are going to pay for your pension, benefits and healthcare in old age."Literally true,.But those children will come from outside the UK.This "I have children so they'll look after you in old age" is precisely analogous to the output of a doubly incontinent. Fri 08 Oct 2010 09:02:02 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2869 It's All Thatchers Fault (AKA Piper at the gates of Dawn) scribbles: " Once again MellorSJ demonstrates, with his outdated philosophy buried in the Me Me Me 80’s graveyard of good practice, why not only did his own business fail which led to his friends joining the dole dependency he seems to hate. Bit also why the country was on the brink of financial disaster and now in the mess his particular ideology of greed has caused.The “Sod every one else, I’m alright, attitude demonstrated in his posts has let to the situation we have now.Sadly he is so blindly indoctrinated that he can’t see; thankfully his attitude is in the minority"Which is to say, the usual mix of outrageously faulty interpretation of the facts and outrageously bizarre conclusions drawn from these distorted facts.I have no intention of justifying or "explaining" facts about my life that I choose to share on HYS, but I shall not accept repeated lies about them.What I said (and remember, I should know) is that my business went through hard times; it was necessary to let people go; abutnd eventually the business recovered well enough that it could be sold. That is hardly "failure." It is the natural development of things.As for Thatcher's misguided interpretations, well, there's little to be done about them. Until he steps up and tells us what might reasonably be done to stop claimants from assuming they can have as many children as they like, for they shall be supported by the rest of us, well, why bother? Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:56:37 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2868 Peter Whatever writes: "Another naive attitude."So you say. Once again, without a shred of evidence or justification."Answer me this question. How do you justify a banker who, amongst many others are directly reponsible for the recession we are in, being payed millions in salary plus further millions for screwing up?"Silly silly boy. I don't have to justify it. That 's like asking me to justify gravity. The fact is, these "bankers" entered into willing contracts and were paid according to those contracts. The only people who need to justify them are the signatories.You, and all your little friends have nothing to say in the matter. And they don't have to justify anything to you."If I had done my job this well, I would have been fired, and rightly so."Indeed. But that's up to the employer, isn't it?"From your comments [rest of rubbish deleted]"Again, no evidence, no justification. Just an unsupported opinion. "they now have been replaced with accountants and other such people who have none of these attributes an are concerned only with profit."Hallelujah! Someone who is actually carrying out their fiduciary duty!"I agree, entrepreneurs deserve good rewards but there comes a time when the progress of their companies resolves upon the expertise of their employees and they are the ones who drive the company and earn the money."So? What's your point? Without the originating idea, no one has a job."Think about it"Good idea. Off you go. Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:46:29 GMT+1 Kickstart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2867 2837. At 11:19pm on 07 Oct 2010, Severian wrote:Sorry Shaun but you should join the real world. Other people's children are going to pay for your pension, benefits and healthcare in old age.The real world is that with current subsidies for parents plenty will produce so little tax over their entire lives that they are not going to pay for any pension, benefit or health care for anyone. Check the amount due to a single parent of 2 kids on £22k working 35 hours a week. They pay £4900 tax a year but receive £10800 in benefits. Assuming 18 years of benefits and tax at that level they need to work for 39 years just to pay enough tax to cover the direct benefits they have received, let alone contributing to pensions, education, roads, defense, health care, etc.What we need isn't large numbers of kids with the vague hope a few will be productive, rather concentrate on a productive workforce. Put in terms of shopping, if when buying 5lbs of potatoes you find 4lbs are inedible, do you solve this by buying another 20lbs of mostly inedible potatoes or chose more carefully and buy 4 lbs of edible ones? Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:44:24 GMT+1 chrisk50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2866 For all who are complaining they should not be paying tax for someone else's kids.I'm quite happy to have kids without paying tax.The government has set this red herring to put people up in arms against each other, the reason they need to adjust the tax system and to justify paying tax. Reality is income tax is not necessary.Income tax costs 70% to administer the complicated system and the rest is squandered.All tax should be gained by what people spend, it then becomes an option.National insurance should remain or increase to support the health system, this is a benefit that everyone uses maybe not directly.People moan about losing £2k per annum but quite happily drive 90mph in their 3 litre BMW giving the government 10p a mile in tax, or drowning their sorrows in a pub at nearly £1 per pint tax and if you smoke add £3 per pack tax.All goods cost 60% or more in tax, this is due to the tax gained through the process to get it to sale, which includes income tax of the employees at each stage amongst all the other business taxes. The end result is the final sales tax and VAT becomes tax upon tax. Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:35:34 GMT+1 John not of Lapworth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2865 It must be terrible to have to manage on £40,000 plus. Get real , most of us have to get by on half of that. After 40 years work I never got close to the average wage.John Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:32:15 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=99#comment2864 2824. At 8:42pm on 07 Oct 2010, shaun wrote:I don't think the changes have gone far enough, all child benefits should be axed. Theres no way people with children can justify receiving benefits. If people have children, they should pay for them and thats the end of it, thats fair, why should the tax payer have to pay for other peoples children?. I work a 64 hour week, I don't have children, should I be entitled to some sympathy cash? or course not. How else are you going to pay back your "share" of the huge and growing debt we are passing on to our children and grandchildren? If you don't have children yourself the least you can do is contribute to the support and development of the children of others who will have to pay back YOUR share of this debt. We can all argue we didn't want nor were party to the decisions that incurred this debt, but that's abdicating responsibility and you wouldn't want to do taht now would you?So, as well as paying taxes, providing the economic activity that pays your pension when you need it, emptying bins, stacking supermarket shelves, providing healthcare and clearing away bodily excretions when you are in a care home, you need the children of other people to pay back the debts incurred by society on your behalf. Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:21:36 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2863 2816. At 7:51pm on 07 Oct 2010, PaulR wrote:2805. At 6:35pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sheb76 wrote:"Comparing the cost of ownership of a Ferrari with the cost of having children is the meanest sort of bloodless, soul-dead ignorance I have ever heard. What a moronic statement."I'm not so sure. Let's delve deeper into that comparison:Average financial cost of having a child in the UK: £200,000 (Source: Guardian, Feb 23, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/23/cost-raising-child )Cost of a new 2010 Ferrari: Between £143,870 and £217,775 (Source: Carpages.com, http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/ferrari/ )Reasons to have children: Biological imperative, emotional development, someone to support you in old age, friendship, public image, prolonging a social order of "family values", romantic ideal of a partnership ventureReasons to have a Ferrari: Social status, a maintenance and development project, fun to drive around in, sponsoring the Ferrari brand and the Economy, resale value (long-term investment), utility of having a car, the ideal of aesthetic valueDownsides to having Children: sleepless nights, obligations of parenthood, marriage difficulties, the knowledge that your kids will have to live with your influence for the rest of their lives.Downsides to having a Ferrari: Insurance, dealing with repairs, security measures, snide remarks from jealous colleagues.Seems like quite a plausible value judgement, no?Good comparison. The key difference, however, is if you decide you no longer want or can no longer afford the Ferrari, you can dispose of it (possibly for a good price). You cannot do this with children: they are a lifetime (or at least 20ish year) commitment. Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:14:22 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2862 532. At 1:12pm on 04 Oct 2010, ChaosMagick wrote:@Baldlea"And before those without children moan that they shouldn't have to support those who do, consider who will be policing your streets, building your roads and wiping up your dribble when you are sat in your retirement home"What about those with children who pay for them already but also paying the children of others? My partner and I earn around £30,000 together but we still paid for the private school to send our child because that is what any loving, caring, responsible parent would be doing already. Why wouldn't any parent want to do this?Don't they love their children?Do they only love the human beings that they voluntarily chosen to bring into existence as long as it is other people who are paying for them?Well, the rest of us are subsidising your (step) child.However, you appear in this and later posts to advocate stopping ALL state funded education. So 93% of children will then no longer have the state providing education to them. On a combined income of £30K, the tax you would save would be modest (let's say it cuts your tax bill by £2K a year - that would be optimistic). However, all those middle class higher income earners would now have to pay for their kids to be privately educated. They can afford (though may not want to) much higher private school fees than you currently pay, so you would find yourself priced out of the private education market by higher earners who currently send their kids to state school (perhaps as much motivated by ensuring their kids know what real life is like and not shelter them in the schools of the most privileged in society - molly coddling your step child is a bizarre form of "love", actually).In your world of no state education provision you will find that the £10K you probably pay now won't get you the price, choice and exclusivity you currently (think you) get. The tax cut you think you'd get won't make up the difference as those on higher incomes will gain more and have more to spend than you to fund private education.Whilst much of the state education provision would switch to the private sector, the current private schools would be the ones charging the premium over these schools and you'd be left with paying for your precious to go to a former state school but at the price you're currently paying for private education.As I keep saying: be careful what you wish for, you might get it. In this particular case, I don't see any mainstream party even remotely suggesting the abolition of state education. I guess the UK equivalent of the "Tea Party" might be but then they don't subscribe to your diagnosis of environmental catastrophe.Certainly sheltering your step daughter from the realities of the world in the privilege of private education of what must be a minor independent school (major ones would take ALL your income) could be construed as not adequately preparing them for the real world and she may not appreciate the sacrifices later in life. Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:04:37 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2861 2858. aka_bluepeter: The Public Sector led by the Welfare State has become a voracious plague of locusts, slowly eating away at the fabric of British society.I agree strongly with the point you are making but not your choice of words. This sort of language turns the issue into an attack on public sector weorkers which is very unfair. Public sector workers are as much the victims of Labour's empire building as are the taxpayers.Yes, the public sector has become expensive and hugely bloated; but the true picture is far worse. Too much of the private sector exists to support the public sector and has become fat from the excess public spending. management consultancies being a prime examples but there are many many more. Brown has built a huge pyramid of services proping up other services. In fact the distinction between public and private sector is becoming rather blured with companies taking over the running of schools, councils and even our hospitals. Cuts in the public sector will also bring down parts of the private sector.I would love to know how many people depend on public sector money for their livelyhood compared with, say, the 1980s. This will include not only public setor workers but all of thiose service industries in the private sector. I expect the numbers will be eye watering. Fri 08 Oct 2010 07:50:27 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2860 2815. At 7:36pm on 07 Oct 2010, DoleBoy wrote:2793. At 5:04pm on 07 Oct 2010, pb wrote:Speaking personally, I am not enslaved by my job - which is making my CEO and his chums very wealthy, I am made free by it. I have money, food on the table and independence. I do not have to worry where the next meal comes from. It is a trade - my time, skill and experience for money. It is a transparrent arrangement - I know I'm getting the market rate.…………………………………………….I totally understand your point, do you understand mine? Its simple, the only thing I have is the ability to sell my labour. I cannot decide when I work, who I work for, where I work, how much I get paid, when I take a break. My employer decides all these things for me; He/She tells me what to do and I do it, I have to because I only have the “ability” to sell my labour, my pay is decided by someone else not me, I own nothing of what I produce. The important point is the “My employer decides all these things for me”! I only have the ability, I do not own my own labour or what I produce from it, or own none of the profit that is made from my labour that produces the goods that I make, hence why your chums are very wealthy. Its wrong, I want to own my own labour, and the means of production, decide when I work, where I work and how long I work, sounds unreal, but wait, I am also totally responsible for my own existence, I need no one else to take responsibility for me. What is the point in banging the drum about benefit dependency when you yourself are dependent on someone else to decide for you when you work, where, how much you get paid, going rate whatever etc, see what I mean.You say that you will not challenge this ideology, and like many workers who, like you, felt secure, putting chips on the table and wallop on the dole! There is a price to pay for this ideology and workers have been paying it for centuries, they are wage slaves, or the polite word is employee! Oh! And being on the dole is light-years away from freedom.-----------------------------------------------You can have the freedoms you want by being your own employer but ironically you might find yourself with even less freedom to enjoy life. Many self employed work far more hours on admin, VAT returns, marketing their business etc. There is even a risk that you might become an employer and depending on your business you might even find yourself dictating what others do, when they do it and where they do it. If your business is successful you might even find yourself being labelled a 'fat cat'.Freedom to chose what you do, when you do it and where you do it sounds really nice but isn't practical for most of us. The world doesn't work that way. Even the most humble peasant farmer somewhere out there with a bit of land and a couple of cows can't dictate when the sun rises or sets, he can't chose when his cows need milking, he can't dictate when his little bit of maze is ready to be harvested. As a consumer of services, I want my windows cleaned at my convenience, as an office worker I want someone at the supplies company at the end of the phone when I am in the office.On a more mundane level, demand for most jobs generally outstrips supply so you don't always get to dictate the terms.It's a nice idea but that is what it will always be.I wish you luck, I really do - but advise you to be prepared for some disappointment along the way. Fri 08 Oct 2010 07:41:55 GMT+1 Stephenpuk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2859 I understand that in these difficult times we have to make difficult decisions and a little reluctantly I agree that those that are better off should support those that are not. I have many concerns with this decision though.Firstly, the loss of child health benefit will be dependent upon completion of a tax return. There are many, many, higher rate tax payers who do not complete tax returns and when the onus is on people to make a positive declaration it will only be the conscientious minority who will take the initiative to do this.Secondly, CHB records are based upon a mothers details but where the loss of entitlement rests on a partners earnings, many of whom will be unmarried, it strikes me that this will be extremely difficult to police and enforce unless there are other benefit records, such as working tax credits, where the records are in some way linked.Furthermore, tax returns are completed up to 9 months after the tax year, what will happen to monies already paid? What impact will it have on the tax system?As has already been highlighted, families with combined income of up to £88,000 could continue to receive the benefit where those with disproportionate earnings, but much lower earnings, will lose out. That is not a case of those with, subsidising those without. Single earner families already pay higher tax than families with more proportionate earnings. This decision will add to that inconsistency.I believe the outward simplicity of this cutback hides an extensive opportunity to get this badly wrong.Will mothers (particularly single mothers) lose CHB for children of a previous relationship because their previous partner is a high rate tax payer? What is to prevent men making a declaration that sees their ex-partner deprived. If a relationship dissolves how long will it take to get CHB reinstated for the single mother? Conversely, it seems likely mothers will lose CHB for children of a previous relationship, where their current partner (potentially unmarried) is a higher rate tax payer?It was said that this approach was taken for the sake of simplicity rather than means testing all families, but isn't the capacity and the infrastructure for means testing of all families something that exists in the tax credits and PAYE system?All this points to either a simple but potentially very unfair change or a need to have yet another system, set of rules and layer of complexity to our tax system. Based upon past performance (and personal experience), I am not that comfortable with the ability of our tax system to get this right.I would also add that the change proposed also does nothing to address the "benefit culture" that we are so often reminded is growing in the UK. A proposal to limit the payment of CHB to 2 children, if not retrospectively, then in the future, has been overlooked.It is one thing to say those that are better off should support those that are not, but surely there should be a limit to the number of times we have to put our hands in our pockets and surely it should be all those who are better off, not just those with children? Surely a much simpler change would have been to add to the income tax burden, a change that would affect all higher earners, whilst at the same time restricting the payment of CHB to 2 children? Fri 08 Oct 2010 07:36:51 GMT+1 U14566093 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2858 Once again MellorSJ demonstrates, with his outdated philosophy buried in the Me Me Me 80’s graveyard of good practice, why not only did his own business fail which led to his friends joining the dole dependency he seems to hate. Bit also why the country was on the brink of financial disaster and now in the mess his particular ideology of greed has caused.The “Sod every one else, I’m alright, attitude demonstrated in his posts has let to the situation we have now.Sadly he is so blindly indoctrinated that he can’t see; thankfully his attitude is in the minority Fri 08 Oct 2010 07:20:24 GMT+1 aka_bluepeter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2857 Aboslutely definitely. A system that encourages out of work people to have babies to increase their income is negligent. It neglects the parents, the babies they introduce into a world of state dependency and it neglects the taxpayer.To not make changes would be a neglect of the Governments sworn duty to observe their fiduciary duty to the country they serve.Labour and Union bleatings are hollow with the echo of their words bouncing off their guilty consciences. They are guitly of keeping people in the poverty trap and cynics might suggest deliberately to secure their votes.The Public Sector led by the Welfare State has become a voracious plague of locusts, slowly eating away at the fabric of British society.The Government has to manage the media as they will jump on what they think are populist ideals spouted by the noisy few.Cameron and Co need to tap into the silent majority who deplore the way state benefits lead unwitting people into the dead end, souless trap of state dependency.It is a rescue mission in the making requiring stout heart and courage.David should read and take to heart Rudyard Kipling's words of wisdom, beginning: 'If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you,If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but can make an allowance for their doubting too, If you can wait and not be tired by waiting nor tire of being lied about, don't deal in lies, nor being hated don't give in to hating and don't look too good nor appear too wise' Not only will you become a man my son, you will have become a true leader of this country. Fri 08 Oct 2010 07:20:19 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2856 2849. At 03:56am on 08 Oct 2010, Peter Dewsnap wrote:2702. At 08:09am on 07 Oct 2010, pb wrote:2697. At 03:41am on 07 Oct 2010, Peter Dewsnap wrote:I doubt few, if any, remember the old tax scheme in Britain before it degenerated by becoming Americanised. It was called PAYE, Pay As You Earn. You paid income tax directly from your pay and that tax level was on a logarithmic scale. ( I don't remember the actual income levels, it was so long ago). However, the top braket was 19/6 in the pound (97.5%) This really socked it to the mega rich who made more money than they possibly couls earn. We need to go back to that.Peter D South Carolina.------------------------------------------------------------------------It is such a pity that we can't tax stupidity as easily as we can tax success.I hate all this ridiculous bile and spite against those that do well. I would point out that many of the high-waged individuals are creating employment opportunities for the rest. They are also a cash cow for the government providing money for schools, education, health - and benefits! So you want to have us tax success - sorry but we now live in a global economy so it is not that simple. If it was a choice between 97.5% tax here or work overseas you would not see my heels for dust. Good riddance you might say, but along with me will be our best and brightest tallent, the future innovators, the futuire captains of industry - England would become an industrial wasteland who's only contribution to the world economy would be a source of cheap labour. It would be the UK population sewing jeans for the supermarkets and not people in the back streets of India and Africa. Our health service and education system would be in the mire too. Being able to benefit from the rewards of hard work does help to drive our economy; to have the rewards stolen by the tax man would turn us into a commercial / industrial backwater. If we all got paid around the same, why work harer, why accept responsibility, why accept stress and time away from family - you might as well stack shelves and always get home on time.If you can't stand the idea of people doing well for themselves ask yourself why. I have encountered many that resent high-wages who themselves have not shown any will to better themselves, have not taken advantage of their education, are plain lazy. I come from a humble northern background and was brought up by a single mum. I have broken through the glass ceiling of a poor secondary modern education. Thousands upon thousands of low waged could do the same. For those above school age it might start with taking up education again instead of wallowing on the sofa watching East enders. You don't have to go back to college, sign up for distance learning. Just do SOMETHING.What a very naive reaction. Do I take it then that you are perfectly happy with bankers receiving millions in bonuses after virtually trashing the country?Also I suppose you approve CEOs running companies are worth millions in salaries and bonuses. I have no objection to people doing very well as a result of their efforts. I do object to people getting what they possibly cannot have earned and simply get their remuneration from the efforts of others. Bill Gates, as he is today, would fall into this category. I, on the other hand as a retired research scientist developed processes which are still making vast profits some 30 and more years later. I was paid a reasonable salary, but never was given a bonus and there's a lot of others like me. I rest my case.Peter D South Carolina----------------------------------------------------------------That's capitalism for you - it't is far from perfect but attempts to do something better have always failed. There is ALWAYS exploitation somewhere in the system and some privileged group at the top. Humans are selfish and greedy by nature. No, I do not mind top CEOs earning billions; take your one example - Bill Gates and Microsoft have had an incredible impact on society and by making the Office Suite a defacto standard dealt with the chaos of the early 90s with every company producing documents in non-compatible formats. He amassed great wealth, but look what he is now doing with it - fighting malaria amongst other things.Another reason I don't mind these guys making a fortune is that it could have been me! I was climbing the corporate ladder but took a decision that the price you have to pay to be there is a price I was not willing to pay. I had other priorities - such as time with family. We are very two-faced about the bankers. In the UK the Financial sector was a cash cow. The bankers made huge profits, got huge salaries anb bonuses but that was OK. We were all quids-in. The industry wasn't regulated because it needed to be free to make these profits and the government sat back. Today, a very different story. However, we need the banks to start making those profits again, we need them to start lending despite demanding them to have greater capital reserves. We need the very best skills and experience - so if the banks help drive recovery then let them have their bonuses!I can understand your resentment having contributed to developing processes that generate millions and for which you get no reward. Today things might be a little different - academics are more commercially astute in their dealings with their universities and industry. In the UK we see professors setting spin-off companies in which, I'm sure, they retain some interest. Hindsight is an exact science. If I'd kept certain share options then I'd be worth a few million by now (deep sigh!) Fri 08 Oct 2010 07:08:28 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2855 2811. At 7:19pm on 07 Oct 2010, Kevin Orr wrote:2795. At 5:22pm on 07 Oct 2010, Fitz13 wrote: "Maybe in your delusional world everyone works for free and for the love of what they do and for the greater good. However in the real world people work to earn money to buy and do things that they want. If you find something that you love doing and pays you money all the better"---------------------------------------------------------------The "real world" of which you speak is clearly one of greed. Vile, unapologetic greed. If you're happy with that world it is a sad indictment of yourself.many people work hard for a pittance. Others work moderately hard for more money than they can ever spend. In this "recession" that level of selfishness is unforgiveableGood luck in your vile planet---------------------------------------------------------------You folk should really define your terms of reference!There is a marked difference between immoral irrational selfishness and a Moral Rational Selfishness!In fact selfishness is survival IF it is grounded in a Rational morality!The 'real world' demands that one's primary concern is self preservation; that means being rationally morally selfish! Selflessness is the unforgivable act of an irrational self destructive fool! Sacrificing one's self to benefit a stranger is verging on insanity.Now that's a radical idea! Fri 08 Oct 2010 07:07:39 GMT+1 Peter Dewsnap http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2854 2851. At 06:41am on 08 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Peter Dewsnap scribbles: "What a very naive reaction. Do I take it then that you are perfectly happy with bankers receiving millions in bonuses after virtually trashing the country?Also I suppose you approve CEOs running companies are worth millions in salaries and bonuses. I have no objection to people doing very well as a result of their efforts. I do object to people getting what they possibly cannot have earned and simply get their remuneration from the efforts of others. Bill Gates, as he is today, would fall into this category. I, on the other hand as a retired research scientist developed processes which are still making vast profits some 30 and more years later. I was paid a reasonable salary, but never was given a bonus and there's a lot of others like me. I rest my case.Peter D South Carolina"And what an dreadfully poor case it is! In fact, there isn't one at all.Just envy, a complete lack of understanding of who actually pays the bills, poor negotiating skills, and, well, stupidity.BTW, what's the tax rate in SC?Another naive attitude. Answer me this question. How do you justify a banker who, amongst many others are directly reponsible for the recession we are in, being payed millions in salary plus further millions for screwing up? If I had done my job this well, I would have been fired, and rightly so. From your comments, I understand you have no direct experience with these executives. I have, over a long period of time and, whereas they used to be people who had risen through the company as a result of their knowledge of the products, processes and workers, they now have been replaced with accountants and other such people who have none of these attributes an are concerned only with profit.I agree, entrepreneurs deserve good rewards but there comes a time when the progress of their companies resolves upon the expertise of their employees and they are the ones who drive the company and earn the money.Think about it Fri 08 Oct 2010 07:02:17 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2853 2841. At 00:03am on 08 Oct 2010, chrisk50 wrote:Union leaders 2008/09 salaries, Not quite the "half a million quid" quoted, but at least 3 times what they are worth.Dave Prentis Unison £127,436Christine Blower NUT £124,483Derek Simpson Unite £120,328Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £115,804Mark Serwotka PCSU £111,112Bob Crow RMT £105,679--------------------------------------------------------------------I hope that these numbers make the many deluded 'Old Labour' come to their senses. Look also at the net worth of some Labour members Blair, Brown, Kinnock, Prescot. To me this says it all. Maybe MPs first enter Parliament or workers join the Union top table with good intention but somewhere it goes wrong. Status, power, money! It smacks of Animal Farm and some being more equal than others. I bet the people the union leaders represent would love to have their incomes - and pension pots no doubt.Harking back to the industrial action of the 70s and car plants brought to a standstill; much industrial action was the result of an ideological war waged by those top of the unions against the capitalist bosses fueled by the egos of those at the top. The workers were willing foot soldiers who had been conned into believing that the leaders were fighting for them and only them. Fri 08 Oct 2010 06:51:04 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2852 As I said, how DO these people cope having to bring up kids on £40K? Fri 08 Oct 2010 05:55:28 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2851 Pintsizegirlie writes: "My partner is on a relatively low income. I don't see why i should forgo having children or bag myself a rich man ( surely its better to marry for love than money?) just to appease the middle classes."Let me tell you, pintsize: BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD THEM. Fri 08 Oct 2010 05:43:38 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2850 Peter Dewsnap scribbles: "What a very naive reaction. Do I take it then that you are perfectly happy with bankers receiving millions in bonuses after virtually trashing the country?Also I suppose you approve CEOs running companies are worth millions in salaries and bonuses. I have no objection to people doing very well as a result of their efforts. I do object to people getting what they possibly cannot have earned and simply get their remuneration from the efforts of others. Bill Gates, as he is today, would fall into this category. I, on the other hand as a retired research scientist developed processes which are still making vast profits some 30 and more years later. I was paid a reasonable salary, but never was given a bonus and there's a lot of others like me. I rest my case.Peter D South Carolina"And what an dreadfully poor case it is! In fact, there isn't one at all.Just envy, a complete lack of understanding of who actually pays the bills, poor negotiating skills, and, well, stupidity.BTW, what's the tax rate in SC? Fri 08 Oct 2010 05:41:40 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2849 In a torrent of nonsense, pintsizedgirlie actually says something sensible.Namely, "If you can't afford children dont have them basically equates to poor people shouldn't have children."Now there's an idea! Fri 08 Oct 2010 05:34:51 GMT+1 Peter Dewsnap http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2848 2702. At 08:09am on 07 Oct 2010, pb wrote:2697. At 03:41am on 07 Oct 2010, Peter Dewsnap wrote:I doubt few, if any, remember the old tax scheme in Britain before it degenerated by becoming Americanised. It was called PAYE, Pay As You Earn. You paid income tax directly from your pay and that tax level was on a logarithmic scale. ( I don't remember the actual income levels, it was so long ago). However, the top braket was 19/6 in the pound (97.5%) This really socked it to the mega rich who made more money than they possibly couls earn. We need to go back to that.Peter D South Carolina.------------------------------------------------------------------------It is such a pity that we can't tax stupidity as easily as we can tax success.I hate all this ridiculous bile and spite against those that do well. I would point out that many of the high-waged individuals are creating employment opportunities for the rest. They are also a cash cow for the government providing money for schools, education, health - and benefits! So you want to have us tax success - sorry but we now live in a global economy so it is not that simple. If it was a choice between 97.5% tax here or work overseas you would not see my heels for dust. Good riddance you might say, but along with me will be our best and brightest tallent, the future innovators, the futuire captains of industry - England would become an industrial wasteland who's only contribution to the world economy would be a source of cheap labour. It would be the UK population sewing jeans for the supermarkets and not people in the back streets of India and Africa. Our health service and education system would be in the mire too. Being able to benefit from the rewards of hard work does help to drive our economy; to have the rewards stolen by the tax man would turn us into a commercial / industrial backwater. If we all got paid around the same, why work harer, why accept responsibility, why accept stress and time away from family - you might as well stack shelves and always get home on time.If you can't stand the idea of people doing well for themselves ask yourself why. I have encountered many that resent high-wages who themselves have not shown any will to better themselves, have not taken advantage of their education, are plain lazy. I come from a humble northern background and was brought up by a single mum. I have broken through the glass ceiling of a poor secondary modern education. Thousands upon thousands of low waged could do the same. For those above school age it might start with taking up education again instead of wallowing on the sofa watching East enders. You don't have to go back to college, sign up for distance learning. Just do SOMETHING.What a very naive reaction. Do I take it then that you are perfectly happy with bankers receiving millions in bonuses after virtually trashing the country?Also I suppose you approve CEOs running companies are worth millions in salaries and bonuses. I have no objection to people doing very well as a result of their efforts. I do object to people getting what they possibly cannot have earned and simply get their remuneration from the efforts of others. Bill Gates, as he is today, would fall into this category. I, on the other hand as a retired research scientist developed processes which are still making vast profits some 30 and more years later. I was paid a reasonable salary, but never was given a bonus and there's a lot of others like me. I rest my case.Peter D South Carolina Fri 08 Oct 2010 02:56:34 GMT+1 pintsizedgirlie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2847 and @shaun not all of my post was at aimed at you ,although i diagree with your viewpoint, it was aimed at some of the other posters on here who have said far worse than you so sorry if it appears unduly harsh ! I think we can agree to disagree . Fri 08 Oct 2010 01:38:21 GMT+1 pintsizedgirlie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2846 I am sick to death of hearing the words " if you can't afford them don't have children" . Society is unfair. We worship those with money. They get away with murder (sometimes in the literal sense) Bankers are getting 7 billion in bonuses after they caused this mess!but thats ok because they pay high taxes! We give an unfair advantage to children of the rich , they get better education, can use mum and dads connections to find work, can afford more educational trips and software, private tutors ect.Doesn't matter that a poor child might have the potential to be much better at a more highly skilled and paid job but can't do so because their trapped in an endless cycle of poverty.You have some of the middle class constantly living outside of there means.( by the looks of some of the comments on the news like we need child benefit. we already shop in primark , as if you need to shop there on 44 grand a year unless your living outside of your means elsewere ie trying to pay for nannys or private education) ( oh no my child benefit has gone how will we afford 2 holidays a year now) and ( am not saying your all like this but am targetting anyone on 44k who thinks they need £20 a week) Really they want better wages themselves and so keep aspiring to a better lifestlye when really they can't afford it.It is refreshing to hear some high earner saying " i don't mind i didnt need it" ( their obviously decent human beings and are grateful to be in a good financial situation) Try fixing some of the inequalities in society then people really can say that everyone ends up with an equal chance of doing well. Most of us know this is not true. At the moment low income children can go to university (and most of them drop out after the first year because its financially unfeasable for them to continue ) but the torys are slowly making it harder for this to happen by possibly putting up university fees so only the rich and super rich can afford to send their kids. Thus making high paid jobs available not to the best candidate but the candidate with the richest parents. It is disgusting ! So to anyone who uses the argument we should abolosh child benefit altogether i say make the educational system much fairer and allow every child an equal chance so that people in higher paid jobs actually deserve to be their. Realise someone has to do low paid jobs and pay them benefits without moaning about it ( or put their pay up!) by all means make it hard for people who are long term unemployed(key word long term- not people who are made redundant) not have good lifestyles but give their children a fairer chance of having more opportunity. Fri 08 Oct 2010 01:26:48 GMT+1 foxyeric http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2845 No children no future unless you want more immigrants Fri 08 Oct 2010 00:48:01 GMT+1 pintsizedgirlie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2844 @shaun wrote:"I don't think the changes have gone far enough, all child benefits should be axed. Theres no way people with children can justify receiving benefits. If people have children, they should pay for them and thats the end of it, thats fair, why should the tax payer have to pay for other peoples children?. I work a 64 hour week, I don't have children, should I be entitled to some sympathy cash? or course not. "Just to point out a few things. It is more expensive to have children than to be a single person without children so why would you even contemplate moaning that you don't get sympathy cash (possibly as your expenditure is less so you wouldn't need it) Also childless people could potentially cost other tax payers money as you have no children to look after you in your old age so if you can't afford private care the state will have to fund you. The cash that is spent on children comes back through business ( ie buying prams, highchairs , uniform and thus creating business) so though your paying tax it is still coming back into the economy. It comes back when children begin working and paying tax and thus paying your pension.If you can't afford children dont have them basically equates to poor people shouldn't have children ( in which case who is going to do lower paid jobs.Can't somehow see the children of middle class parents doing it? afterall mummy and daddy didn't spend all that cash on education to see their child working as care workers or bin men !) My partner is on a relatively low income. I don't see why i should forgo having children or bag myself a rich man ( surely its better to marry for love than money?) just to appease the middle classes. Our child benefit has always been spent on our children. There are probably people who spend it on fags or booze but their the exception not the rule . Newspapers take one story of someone on benefits raking it in and suddenly were all like that ( and no were not on jobseekers but technically were still on benefits because we get tax credits) I don't see why people moan about aboloshing child benefit altogether because it is something GOOD that your taxes pay for. Am sure the government could find a nice wasteful use for it. afterall you don't think your taxes are going to go down if they abolish it do you?And as for your comment saying theres no way people with children can justify recieving benefits. well yes they can. They pay out an awful lot of money and it is hard to survive on a low income wage. me and my partner both lost our jobs when i was pregnant with our first so best laid plans don't always work out. You can plan all you like but life has a habit of throwing a spanner in the works. I can justify it because unless your prepared of finding some way for childcare costs to be reduced then don't expect me to return to work anytime soon. Your looking at 700 to a thousand pounds a month for full time nursery depending on your location in the uk. It was the government who chose to make school age 4/5 not mothers . This renders most people unable to work because childcare costs are so high. You can of course claim tax credits to help pay if your on a low income but according to you this is a bad thing? ( you did use the word "benefit" which would include tax credits!) this would mean MORE people on unemployment benefit. sick of posters and the general public using the argument of "if you can't afford them don't have them" . That would literally mean half the population would be banned from having children. And what do you do if you lose your job. Children don't dissapear if you fall on hard times ! My friend has not worked for a while now and relies on her husband to bring in all the cash. Because he earns a high salary she thinks she can use the argument if you cant afford them don't have them and yet it is not her who is paying for her child but her husband so if he chooses to leave her , she's going to be talking about herself.I wont apologise for falling in love and starting a family with a man on a low wage. I also wont see my children starve rather than take a benefit. And I also teach my children to be caring and kind towards others. I can't stand the attitudes of some of the posters on here. Your welcome to your high wages because having money doesn't make you a good person. My daughter will never judge someone who is poor and struggling when she gets older and that holds more worth for me than her earning a tidy sum. she will also know the value of working hard (something her dad does everyday) but according to you he doesn't deserve children because his hard work is not reflected in his pay packet ! ( Maybe the government should do something about the fact most jobs are part time now)Also if child benefit is abolished were are you proposing people who have already made the decision to have children do? are you going to start free childcare places so we can work instead? are you going to let my children live in a cycle of poverty because i can't afford to better their opputunities in life because someone like you has decided nobody should have benefits. should i teach my child that it isn't your intelligence or your ability to work hard that will get you a good life but your parents ability to pay for things. Ie a good education. disadvantaged children are already a year behind those whose parents earn good money at age three.( If we abolished private schools and put all children into the state system it would: a) stop rich people from always taking the top jobs because simply put they can get into the best schools and have an astonishingly higher chance of a better life than disadvantaged children.( and there not anymore intelligent just easier to get into cambridge if you went to a private school than if you said you came from somewere more normal) b) mean that success was based on ability not mummy and daddys ability to pay for private tutors and educational trips. c) might actually mean we have the right person for the job not just someone who go it by default through title, family connections or went to a more favourable educatioal institute. I won't apologise for having children anymore than you should have to for choosing not to. Fri 08 Oct 2010 00:39:19 GMT+1 Diana Osborne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2843 I cannot believe that so many selfish people live in this country, frankly many families dream of a £44,000 salary, (me included and I run my own business) but no, they want to keep their benefit at the cost to whom ? This country is living beyond its means and has done for years, when will any one realise that the government has to withdraw luxury benefits that we as a nation can simply not afford. We don`t hear the poor pensioners who live on very small pensions continually complaining, and they are a vulnerable part of our society who really do need more.Children have never had it so good compared to growing up in the 60`s it will do them good to have to make some sacrifices, and probably show them the value of money.I agree cut it now, no need to wait. Thu 07 Oct 2010 23:12:49 GMT+1 neilscomments http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2842 This is stupid. Firstly the rule should be changed so that its household income of 44k, so that single parents of two parents makes no different. Secondly if you ear 44k you earn more than enough to bring up your children, have a house and own the car and take holidays away. Anyone who moans about how they pay their taxes and its unfair should look at the world and realise they are lucky to have what they do and earn a decent wage. There's enough people who you see every day who earn minimum wage and they still have a house, they still get by and dont complain. Anyone who thinks this is a bad thing is stupid. Secondly they also need to make sure that the 'scroungers' are hassled and that you only pay for say 4 children and no more. They government should force some people to work. Yes it is hard to find a job that you want or that you like or that earns alot, but its not hard to find a job that pays. Thu 07 Oct 2010 23:11:19 GMT+1 boskamp1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2841 you can argue the rights and wrongs, about these things, but we all know that this system has been abused.i know a single mother who has not worked for 16 years, got free housing etc, now she is up in arms, child money has stopped, and now thinks she is being persecuted to get a job , for gods sake she hasnt done a tap for 16 years, and she thinks she is a victim , to me that sums it all up. we just give money to all the low life , and say go forth and breed and we will pick up the tab Thu 07 Oct 2010 23:10:41 GMT+1 chrisk50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2840 Union leaders 2008/09 salaries, Not quite the "half a million quid" quoted, but at least 3 times what they are worth.Dave Prentis Unison £127,436Christine Blower NUT £124,483Derek Simpson Unite £120,328Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £115,804Mark Serwotka PCSU £111,112Bob Crow RMT £105,679 Thu 07 Oct 2010 23:03:06 GMT+1 1L19 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2839 2823. At 8:28pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote: Lots and this…….The rest of your post are just the ramblings of the left who hark to a idealic scenario where the state own everything, there is full employment, no crime, the sun shines every day, the leaders are morally incorruptable. Then you wake up and look at what this ideolism brings, CUBA is the last real one standing. Why are people prepared to drown in the Gulf of Mexico to get away from this?…………………………………I have no idea what you are saying, your interpretation of my comment is nothing about what I talk about. I have not mentioned any of the above; do you really believe that I would endorse communist dictatorships in one breath and talk about the emancipation of workers in another? I have understood fully your comment, I do not need to be an economist other than to prove again and again that the current ideological based system is as corrupt as the one you describe above. There is little point in me addressing the other issue you raise.2826. At 8:49pm on 07 Oct 2010, John_Bull wrote:Doleboy, of course you can view the world from this perspective if you CHOOSE to. However, the world is not going to change and embrace Marxism, if for no other reason than the fact that those who benefit most from the Status Quo hold all the cards. As such you walk futile path.From reading your posts, it is clear to me that you are a capable fellow. Instead of dwelling on this Marxist nonsense, why not start your own business? If you can't beat them join them!……………………………………..Thank you for the advice, and I already have my own business, obviously I can’t be a Marxist, I can, as you say, think about the perspective. I am equally as interested in the perspective raised by The Ghosts of John Galt, and the conclusion from a past discussion, which we both agreed, was that neither socialism or capitalism actually exist, but that does not mean they never will, what we have now are versions of something else which uses the language of both but is actually neither of the two. I really hold the belief that we can do a flippin better job than what the so-called governments have done up to now, that’s all. Unfortunately I am old enough to realise that we have gone full circle a number of times, and I have had the same discussions and arguments many times, and wise enough to know that we will be here again before you know it. Thu 07 Oct 2010 23:01:14 GMT+1 Kevin Orr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2838 2831. At 9:38pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote:2830. At 9:33pm on 07 Oct 2010, Kevin Orr wrote:2822. At 8:20pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote" What a load of rubbish.You have Union leaders living in £750K houses, earning almost half a million quid a year and calling themselves working class"----------------------------------------------------------------------How many? Who are they? Who do they represent?Can we google this? Because you have clearly done research---------------------------"The leader of Unison"--------------------------------You used the plural. "Leaders".Names please? Thu 07 Oct 2010 22:27:10 GMT+1 Cat_tap http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2837 "Because you earn over £44K, your husband can afford to stay at home and look after the children. A hardworking couple earning £25K each does exceed a household income of £44K, but cannot afford for one of the couple to stay at home with a child. So therefore would have to pay for child care. They need the child benefits more than a couple who gets child care for free (in the form of a housewife/husband)."-----------------------------------------But what about two people earning £40,000 each... where do you draw the line? Thu 07 Oct 2010 22:26:40 GMT+1 Severian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2836 @shaun wrote:"I don't think the changes have gone far enough, all child benefits should be axed. Theres no way people with children can justify receiving benefits. If people have children, they should pay for them and thats the end of it, thats fair, why should the tax payer have to pay for other peoples children?. I work a 64 hour week, I don't have children, should I be entitled to some sympathy cash? or course not. "I fully agree Shaun. And when you finally finish working 64 hour weeks and need an income to live in retirement I'm sure you will be happy to accept that no-one else's children's taxes should be used to pay for it.YOU might not want children, but sure as eggs is eggs you are going to need them in the future. As a society we are living longer and longer, and saving less and less. State provided pld age pensions are not funded out of savings, they are funded out of current taxpayers. And in 20 years time "current taxpayers" means the children we are bringing into the world and paying to bring to adulthood. Not only that but I am making sure that my kids are well educated, work hard, and will do their bit to contribute to society. They will probably pay more than the average tax, and so YOU will get a pension on the back of the extremely hard work of MY daughter.The alternative is clear. We have no kids, and people who end their working life (by which I do not mean retirement) and have no savings will have to fall back on what the Victorians had - poor relief in the workhouse.Sorry Shaun but you should join the real world. Other people's children are going to pay for your pension, benefits and healthcare in old age. Thu 07 Oct 2010 22:19:14 GMT+1 sueemc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=98#comment2835 We will lose our child benefit (have 2 children, 7 and 9). It is right, I agree with the policy. I understand the anomaly, but not the reaction. It is very difficult to track family income now as so many aren't married or are divorced. People should be asked to voluntarily give up child benefit if their total joint income exceeds the 40% tax threshold. We can all spend all our income, but in a situation where we are so in debt, those on higher incomes should not be taking from the state. Benefits were not set up for this. It is a very sad society where it is every man for himself and 'if he gets it then I want it'. We need courses for children now on living within your means, and learning to be satisfied with that! Thu 07 Oct 2010 22:08:53 GMT+1 lovelyonthewater http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2834 I am not ashamed to admit I earn more than £44,000. Just. I work hard, have built my career to where it is now, and am rewarded for it. However, my husband is a house husband - we chose that I would work, and he would stay at home and look after our children. I can accept that we will not receive child benefit from 2013 - we will miss the money, but by cutting out certain things, life for the children will not be vastly different. What annoys me most is that 2 parent families where each adult earns slightly less than me will continue to get the benefit.When applying for child benefit, the question will be asked "Do you earn more than £44,000"? Therefore, why can the question not be changed to "Is your household income more than £44,000"? It's still one question, and I don't see how the government can say it would cost more to implement.-------------------------------------------Because you earn over £44K, your husband can afford to stay at home and look after the children. A hardworking couple earning £25K each does exceed a household income of £44K, but cannot afford for one of the couple to stay at home with a child. So therefore would have to pay for child care. They need the child benefits more than a couple who gets child care for free (in the form of a housewife/husband). Thu 07 Oct 2010 22:03:28 GMT+1 cerasuolo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2833 What is evident already from the Condem shambles is that they don't know what they're doing. Anyone who believes it's fair that a household earning £45k shouldn't get benefit when one earning £80k plus can just beggars belief. They should all just have stayed on the playing fields of Eton and left the real world to the people that have experience of it. Most of the key people in government now still haven't earned a living that wasn't funded by taxpayers. Thu 07 Oct 2010 21:58:09 GMT+1 Anna http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2832 child benefit should be cut more than has been announced. if i wanted to keep dogs (as a for instance!) would it make sense for other taxpayers to help pay for them?! Of course not. Same goes for children. If ytou want them, dont expect the state/ taxpayers to pay for them. i guess that the policy announced is for simplicitys sake in its administration. But it doesnt go far enough in my opinion. Thu 07 Oct 2010 21:57:58 GMT+1 Cat_tap http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2831 I am not ashamed to admit I earn more than £44,000. Just. I work hard, have built my career to where it is now, and am rewarded for it. However, my husband is a house husband - we chose that I would work, and he would stay at home and look after our children. I can accept that we will not receive child benefit from 2013 - we will miss the money, but by cutting out certain things, life for the children will not be vastly different. What annoys me most is that 2 parent families where each adult earns slightly less than me will continue to get the benefit.When applying for child benefit, the question will be asked "Do you earn more than £44,000"? Therefore, why can the question not be changed to "Is your household income more than £44,000"? It's still one question, and I don't see how the government can say it would cost more to implement. Thu 07 Oct 2010 21:04:16 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2830 2830. At 9:33pm on 07 Oct 2010, Kevin Orr wrote:2822. At 8:20pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote" What a load of rubbish.You have Union leaders living in £750K houses, earning almost half a million quid a year and calling themselves working class"----------------------------------------------------------------------How many? Who are they? Who do they represent?Can we google this? Because you have clearly done research---------------------------The leader of Unison Thu 07 Oct 2010 20:38:12 GMT+1 Kevin Orr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2829 2822. At 8:20pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote" What a load of rubbish.You have Union leaders living in £750K houses, earning almost half a million quid a year and calling themselves working class"----------------------------------------------------------------------How many? Who are they? Who do they represent?Can we google this? Because you have clearly done research Thu 07 Oct 2010 20:33:17 GMT+1 Kevin Orr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2828 This post has been Removed Thu 07 Oct 2010 20:18:58 GMT+1 Kevin Orr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2827 2817. At 7:54pm on 07 Oct 2010, Fitz13 wrote "You can wallow in your own self pity saying that it's just not fair that some people earn that much and the world is full of vile greedy people, or you can accept that that is the way it is and get on with your own life and make the best of the lot that you have.If you really want to do something about it why don't you try and change the way humans behave all around the World"-------------------------------------------------------------Unlike the world of selfish, reprehensible greed-mongers that you obviously aspire to, my pity is not for myself. It is in fact for OTHERS.That concept may be alien to those on planet Whogivesadamn.The decent people on this planet at least try to behave in a dignified fashion where, say, a surgeon who can save a human life, or a scientist who invents a cure for cancer is shown a bit more respect than a banker who may or may not invest money wisely (luck), but get paid more money than God while those around him live in abject poverty.The real world you refer to is, in fact, corrupt, and you are attempting to justify an unfairness even the hideous Tory Party would be loathe to support.But good luck in your vile world anyway Thu 07 Oct 2010 20:17:05 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2826 2826. At 8:49pm on 07 Oct 2010, John_Bull wrote:-------------------------------------------------------------Doleboy, of course you can view the world from this perspective if you CHOOSE to. However, the world is not going to change and embrace Marxism, if for no other reason than the fact that those who benefit most from the Status Quo hold all the cards. As such you walk futile path.From reading your posts, it is clear to me that you are a capable fellow. Instead of dwelling on this Marxist nonsense, why not start your own business? If you can't beat them join them!========================What a sensible idea Thu 07 Oct 2010 20:00:44 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2825 2815. At 7:36pm on 07 Oct 2010, DoleBoy wrote:2793. At 5:04pm on 07 Oct 2010, pb wrote:Speaking personally, I am not enslaved by my job - which is making my CEO and his chums very wealthy, I am made free by it. I have money, food on the table and independence. I do not have to worry where the next meal comes from. It is a trade - my time, skill and experience for money. It is a transparrent arrangement - I know I'm getting the market rate.…………………………………………….I totally understand your point, do you understand mine? Its simple, the only thing I have is the ability to sell my labour. I cannot decide when I work, who I work for, where I work, how much I get paid, when I take a break. My employer decides all these things for me; He/She tells me what to do and I do it, I have to because I only have the “ability” to sell my labour, my pay is decided by someone else not me, I own nothing of what I produce. The important point is the “My employer decides all these things for me”! I only have the ability, I do not own my own labour or what I produce from it, or own none of the profit that is made from my labour that produces the goods that I make, hence why your chums are very wealthy. Its wrong, I want to own my own labour, and the means of production, decide when I work, where I work and how long I work, sounds unreal, but wait, I am also totally responsible for my own existence, I need no one else to take responsibility for me. What is the point in banging the drum about benefit dependency when you yourself are dependent on someone else to decide for you when you work, where, how much you get paid, going rate whatever etc, see what I mean.You say that you will not challenge this ideology, and like many workers who, like you, felt secure, putting chips on the table and wallop on the dole! There is a price to pay for this ideology and workers have been paying it for centuries, they are wage slaves, or the polite word is employee! Oh! And being on the dole is light-years away from freedom.-------------------------------------------------------------Doleboy, of course you can view the world from this perspective if you CHOOSE to. However, the world is not going to change and embrace Marxism, if for no other reason than the fact that those who benefit most from the Status Quo hold all the cards. As such you walk futile path.From reading your posts, it is clear to me that you are a capable fellow. Instead of dwelling on this Marxist nonsense, why not start your own business? If you can't beat them join them! Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:49:58 GMT+1 Lynn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2824 Being a mother, I can understand the concerns of wives. It is not always easy for wives to get 'child benefits' from their husbands, e.g. in some families, the husbands are not the genetic fathers of the kids.What the government should do is continuously paying child benefits directly into all mothers' accounts as usual, and then deduct the amount from those husbands whose income are over £44000.By this way, everybody will be happier, because there will be no “child benefits” cut off. It is only that high earners will have more responsibilities to look after his own family'. Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:49:05 GMT+1 shaun http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2823 I don't think the changes have gone far enough, all child benefits should be axed. Theres no way people with children can justify receiving benefits. If people have children, they should pay for them and thats the end of it, thats fair, why should the tax payer have to pay for other peoples children?. I work a 64 hour week, I don't have children, should I be entitled to some sympathy cash? or course not. Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:42:50 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2822 2802. At 6:21pm on 07 Oct 2010, DoleBoy wrote:2791. At 4:42pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote:re 2787. 2734. 2712. 2704. 2703Get a sense of reality rather than believeing what The Mirror tells you.……………………………………….What are you banging on about? Maybe if you actually read my point instead of giving all and sundry a lecture about how much you know about the Tax System, which is really interesting by the way, you will notice that my point is this, why should workers pay for the consequences of a failed corrupt system, it does not work, hence why most of the world is in some kind of recession or other. I really do object to your suggestion that I only read The Mirror meaning you think I’m thick, suggesting in fact that all such people who do are somehow lower down the chain.The problem with your approach is your institutionalised Tory inequalities, the Holier than though attitude because you have a few bob! The ideology you endorse is a false reality, and if anything prevents the majority of people ever fulfilling their potential. Why would that be so threatening?This minority elitist ideology serves only the rich, by rich I mean the ones that profit from the work done by others, the rich that have never done a days work in their entire lives. Your anger at having to pay for people who chose not to work is incongruent, your huge resentment towards this minority group of individuals makes no sense, and most people who claim benefit are genuine, DoleBoy implies to you that I’m on the dole, it could mean other things! Interestingly the benefit bill has not risen hardly at all between successive governments, the biggest rise being under the Tories in the early 80’s.The current corrupt system has been reformed and tweaked for centuries and always ends up as a failed system, not because of economics, but because it is owned by corrupt thugs who have no morals or ethics. My suggestion that they could pay off the national debt is not that crazy, the reason why they wont is because they make more money from a country in debt than if it was in full honest working production, would you not agree? And this type of thinking has been nationally institutionalised, filtering down, that selfish immoral thuggish behaviour is normal! The evidence is all around us! Indeed, if we did live in an economic system that was not corrupt and not owned by thugs we would not actually be in this position, comprende!Would you not agree that ideally we share the same concerns, we want what’s best for the country, a place where there is genuine opportunity, not short-term job handouts, a place that is safe, secure and everyone feels part of, and can make an honest living. If you agree then you will also agree that this ideology, the one you call reality, has never come close. =============================And the band continued playing.You havent the faintest idea what an ideological Tory is, because people don't want to know what they are. Reason: They the way almost anyone thinks, but the left wing media have managed to poison this. I am prepared to help anyone who is prepared to get off their backside and help themselves. Don't be fooled by the so called Tory leadership, they are as much Tories as I am from Mars. Real Tories would never have even contemplated this change in child benefit.The lesson on the tax system clearly has not sunk in, because you do not understand contribution in the financial sense. I would suggest you google it. Maybe you will understand it in a more everyday scenario. We go to the pub and have three drinks, I buy two and you buy one. I have subsidised you by half a pint. But under your logic it is you who has subsidised me.The rest of your post are just the ramblings of the left who hark to a idealic scenario where the state own everything, there is full employment, no crime, the sun shines every day, the leaders are morally incorruptable. Then you wake up and look at what this ideolism brings, CUBA is the last real one standing. Why are people prepared to drown in the Gulf of Mexico to get away from this? Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:28:36 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2821 « Previous | Main | Next »Do you support child benefit changes?09:13 UK time, Monday, 4 October 2010Child benefit is to be axed for higher rate taxpayers from 2013, Chancellor George Osborne has announced. What is your reaction?Parents earning over about £44,000 who pay 40% tax and above will be affected. Currently child benefit is paid to all families with children and it is estimated the change will affect about 15% - 1.2m - of families.Mr Osborne said he expected the public to accept that it was not fair to tax someone earning £18,000 a year to pay child benefit to someone earning £50,000.Are the changes to child benefit fair? Will you be affected? What would be the alternative? * Bookmark with: * del.icio.us | * Digg | * Newsvine | * NowPublic | * Reddit * - What's this?CommentsPost your commentYou are currently signed in as Sat_tire. Sign out. * Previous * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 * 9 * 10 * 11 * 12 * 13 * 14 * 15 * 16 * 17 * 18 * 19 * 20 * 21 * 22 * 23 * 24 * 25 * 26 * 27 * 28 * 29 * Next * 2801. At 6:21pm on 07 Oct 2010, rkjm wrote: It is not often that I am driven to write to comments boards, but the announcement egarding the withdrawal of Child Benefit for high rate tax payers has truly incensed me. Firstly, I but not my wife am a high rate tax payer, and yes we have 3 children, albeit only one is now eligible to receive Child Benefit and that will cease prior to the announced changes in 2013. So hopefully that dispels the 'You are only complaining because your losing out!' because I am not! So why am I so incensed as I would appear to have no vested interest? It is because the nation's future depends upon the children of today growing up and taking on the responsibilities, and yes that includes paying tax, that you and I currently bear. This was summed up quite eloquently by by Frank Field MP when he said: "Ultimately the debate around child benefit boils down to the way society views children. On the one hand, they can be seen as a choice taken by some couples, and not by others. Or children can be seen by what economists would call a 'merit good' - which mean they have a value to others too, as future taxpayers and workers. I may not have children; but I need someone to have them if my pension is to be paid.". So, like it not there is an incentive for some if not all of us to bring up children. Great! Lets get on with it! Alas, for those of you who do not have any ankle biters they cost a great deal to bring up. No, we parents do not expect the State to fund our ankle biters, but as I can get a tax` allowance for all manner of things from uniform to membership fees for professional bodies, how about a tax break for the HUGE amount we as parents push back into this economy, not least bringing up the future tax payers! Child support in the UK has a long history, first being introduced in 1788, and although it was abolished in 1805 it was subsequently reintroduced in 1909. There was always the concern that providing support as a tax allowance to the father was not the most effective way of ensuring the money reached the pockets of the mother. This situation was addressed in the Family Allowances Act 1945, a bill campaigned for by Eleanor Rathbone MP, and introduced ironically by the Coalition Government. Although, it was only following an amendment proposed by Eleanor Rathbone that the allowance was finally to be paid to the mother. In May 1975 the Child Benefit Bill was introduced by the Labour Government with all party support. The benefit was to be paid for all children, including the first. As it was tax free all families would benefit, although the only advantage to those on means-tested benefits was that "a larger part of their income" would be received "from benefits as of right". In 1979 the Child Tax Allowances were phased out completely, placing the provision of support for children as a public expenditure rather than as a tax allowance or tax relief. It is perhaps this situation that makes it more palatable to remove the benefit from those who appear well off enough not to needit. However, in my opinion that is to miss the point of acknowledging both the future value of children and the universal cost to parents of providing for them. Using Mr Osborne's logic, why provide high tax payers with any tax allowance whatsoever? Surely they do not need the small savings in tax that the £6745 tax allowance provides? Or uniform allowance, or subscription to professional bodies or the hunbdreds of other allowances! However, the universal tax allowance is provided as a means of being fair. I think it grossly unfair that the additional cost of bringing up children who will eventually shoulder the responsibility of the nation is not universally acknowledged in the allowance system. To that end, let no one tell me as a parent receiving child benefit that I TAKE from the State, I can assure you as parents we put way way more back in! Complain about this comment * 2802. At 6:21pm on 07 Oct 2010, DoleBoy wrote: 2791. At 4:42pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote: re 2787. 2734. 2712. 2704. 2703 Get a sense of reality rather than believeing what The Mirror tells you. ………………………………………. What are you banging on about? Maybe if you actually read my point instead of giving all and sundry a lecture about how much you know about the Tax System, which is really interesting by the way, you will notice that my point is this, why should workers pay for the consequences of a failed corrupt system, it does not work, hence why most of the world is in some kind of recession or other. I really do object to your suggestion that I only read The Mirror meaning you think I’m thick, suggesting in fact that all such people who do are somehow lower down the chain. The problem with your approach is your institutionalised Tory inequalities, the Holier than though attitude because you have a few bob! The ideology you endorse is a false reality, and if anything prevents the majority of people ever fulfilling their potential. Why would that be so threatening? This minority elitist ideology serves only the rich, by rich I mean the ones that profit from the work done by others, the rich that have never done a days work in their entire lives. Your anger at having to pay for people who chose not to work is incongruent, your huge resentment towards this minority group of individuals makes no sense, and most people who claim benefit are genuine, DoleBoy implies to you that I’m on the dole, it could mean other things! Interestingly the benefit bill has not risen hardly at all between successive governments, the biggest rise being under the Tories in the early 80’s. The current corrupt system has been reformed and tweaked for centuries and always ends up as a failed system, not because of economics, but because it is owned by corrupt thugs who have no morals or ethics. My suggestion that they could pay off the national debt is not that crazy, the reason why they wont is because they make more money from a country in debt than if it was in full honest working production, would you not agree? And this type of thinking has been nationally institutionalised, filtering down, that selfish immoral thuggish behaviour is normal! The evidence is all around us! Indeed, if we did live in an economic system that was not corrupt and not owned by thugs we would not actually be in this position, comprende! Would you not agree that ideally we share the same concerns, we want what’s best for the country, a place where there is genuine opportunity, not short-term job handouts, a place that is safe, secure and everyone feels part of, and can make an honest living. If you agree then you will also agree that this ideology, the one you call reality, has never come close. Complain about this comment * 2803. At 6:31pm on 07 Oct 2010, Hortitechie wrote: This is a modern society, people are capable of making and also be responsible for their own life style choices. That is also includes those who choose to have children, that is their God given choice. I am afraid that I cannot see why there is a benefit at all. Complain about this comment * 2804. At 6:35pm on 07 Oct 2010, The Phoenix from repair of reeds wrote: · 2792. At 5:03pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote: 2790. At 4:26pm on 07 Oct 2010, WyomingPat wrote: Hi - now living in the USA for 8 years it gives one a different perspective. Although many things in the USA are better some are not. NO Child Benefit, NO Housing benefit, NO support for keeping your house if you are unemployed. Little employment protection or rights. NO healthcare if you cannot pay for it (except going to the ER). NO free prescriptions if you are unemployed or retired. In the USA you get none of these benefits that in the UK are regarded as "FREE". I think the government has a real problem to educate people that these are NOT FREE but come out of taxes. ============== Smartest comment on here. People don't understand the only thing free is air. ########################## People fully realise that it is not free and that it is paid for by taxes. That is what separates a civilised society from the mob It is the small minority of the population that think that the only person on the planet that maters is themselves, that is the problem_____________What a load of rubbish.You have Union leaders living in £750K houses, earning almost half a million quid a year and calling themselves working class.There are small number of people who don't think they the only person on the planet who matters.We are animals and its survival of the fittest. Its not necessarily right, but its the way it works. Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:20:00 GMT+1 vba123 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2820 I agree that £44,000 is not a huge salary these days especially with families with children. People on this salary are treated the same as someone earning £100,000 plus that's not fair. Pity the children now with a government who doesn't care for their welfare and leaves their schools to decay. A decent environment is important to us all especially our children at school. They must feel pretty fed up, with no sense of worth. We should be investing in our children, they are theyare our future. Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:03:01 GMT+1 sparkyjim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2819 How about stopping immigration and deporting illegal immigrants first. Also deport anyone here on a visa who is claiming benefits.Why should people who are paying taxes lose child benefit while more people just arrive in the country and get benefits doled out to them for nothing! Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:00:07 GMT+1 sheila coleman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2818 Just seen a comment to no 96. I would like to point out that when child was born in 1975 there was no family allowance for a first child, it was only for two or more children. My husband and myself had only two children because that was how many WE could afford and also felt we could give them all the love, time and attention they deserved and needed. Nowadays the idea seems to be to have large amounts of children and moan that not enough given to bring them up and allow them to run riot, it about time that responsibility was put firmly back in to the parents hands, Labour should have done this years ago but they CHOSE not to which is why action needs to be taken now. Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:59:03 GMT+1 George http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2817 A sensible idea, but please dont waste the savings on scroungers or girls who jut get pregnant to get a free flat [thay should stay at home with their parents] Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:54:58 GMT+1 Fitz13 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2816 2811. At 7:19pm on 07 Oct 2010, Kevin Orr wrote:2795. At 5:22pm on 07 Oct 2010, Fitz13 wrote: "Maybe in your delusional world everyone works for free and for the love of what they do and for the greater good.However in the real world people work to earn money to buy and do things that they want. If you find something that you love doing and pays you money all the better"---------------------------------------------------------------The "real world" of which you speak is clearly one of greed. Vile, unapologetic greed. If you're happy with that world it is a sad indictment of yourself.many people work hard for a pittance. Others work moderately hard for more money than they can ever spend. In this "recession" that level of selfishness is unforgiveableGood luck in your vile planet-------------------------------The real World is full of greedy people, it's human nature to be greedy to some extent. I'm not saying I'm happy with that but I'm not going to kid myself that that is not the case.The amount of people on here saying that it unfair that they've taken away a £1-2k from people who earn over £44k whilst families survive on nearly half that amount in this country is a testament to that.You can wallow in your own self pity saying that it's just not fair that some people earn that much and the world is full of vile greedy people, or you can accept that that is the way it is and get on with your own life and make the best of the lot that you have.If you really want to do something about it why don't you try and change the way humans behave all around the World.Good luck in your make believe planet Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:54:21 GMT+1 PaulR http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2815 2805. At 6:35pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sheb76 wrote:"Comparing the cost of ownership of a Ferrari with the cost of having children is the meanest sort of bloodless, soul-dead ignorance I have ever heard. What a moronic statement."I'm not so sure. Let's delve deeper into that comparison:Average financial cost of having a child in the UK: £200,000 (Source: Guardian, Feb 23, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/23/cost-raising-child )Cost of a new 2010 Ferrari: Between £143,870 and £217,775 (Source: Carpages.com, http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/ferrari/ )Reasons to have children: Biological imperative, emotional development, someone to support you in old age, friendship, public image, prolonging a social order of "family values", romantic ideal of a partnership ventureReasons to have a Ferrari: Social status, a maintenance and development project, fun to drive around in, sponsoring the Ferrari brand and the Economy, resale value (long-term investment), utility of having a car, the ideal of aesthetic valueDownsides to having Children: sleepless nights, obligations of parenthood, marriage difficulties, the knowledge that your kids will have to live with your influence for the rest of their lives.Downsides to having a Ferrari: Insurance, dealing with repairs, security measures, snide remarks from jealous colleagues.Seems like quite a plausible value judgement, no? Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:51:31 GMT+1 1L19 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2814 2793. At 5:04pm on 07 Oct 2010, pb wrote:Speaking personally, I am not enslaved by my job - which is making my CEO and his chums very wealthy, I am made free by it. I have money, food on the table and independence. I do not have to worry where the next meal comes from. It is a trade - my time, skill and experience for money. It is a transparrent arrangement - I know I'm getting the market rate.…………………………………………….I totally understand your point, do you understand mine? Its simple, the only thing I have is the ability to sell my labour. I cannot decide when I work, who I work for, where I work, how much I get paid, when I take a break. My employer decides all these things for me; He/She tells me what to do and I do it, I have to because I only have the “ability” to sell my labour, my pay is decided by someone else not me, I own nothing of what I produce. The important point is the “My employer decides all these things for me”! I only have the ability, I do not own my own labour or what I produce from it, or own none of the profit that is made from my labour that produces the goods that I make, hence why your chums are very wealthy. Its wrong, I want to own my own labour, and the means of production, decide when I work, where I work and how long I work, sounds unreal, but wait, I am also totally responsible for my own existence, I need no one else to take responsibility for me. What is the point in banging the drum about benefit dependency when you yourself are dependent on someone else to decide for you when you work, where, how much you get paid, going rate whatever etc, see what I mean.You say that you will not challenge this ideology, and like many workers who, like you, felt secure, putting chips on the table and wallop on the dole! There is a price to pay for this ideology and workers have been paying it for centuries, they are wage slaves, or the polite word is employee! Oh! And being on the dole is light-years away from freedom. Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:36:48 GMT+1 sheila coleman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2813 In some of the 'Your stories' some say they have three children and can't afford to lose child benefit as money goes on nappies etc {should use towelling ones as cheaper and washable] but these people DID chose to have more children than they could afford which is why cutting these allowances is a good idea, hopefully they will get the message that they need to take a responsible attitude as to how large a family they have. Over population of this country is far too high for a start. I do find it odd that those earning higher still get the allowance, perhaps a much higher tax would be the answer at this level. At the other end of the problem is the so called deprived who will still be allowed benefits do to the fact that they just will not work, stricter measures need to be taken and one way is to pay child allowance for a maximum of two children only regardless of how many children the father or mother has. This will stop many fraudulent claims and another is to stop all benefits to immigrants who send it abroad to their families {why are these people allowed it at all]. I know it is a coalition but the conservatives got the higher vote and some good ideas are coming through, but they need to bring them in very soon and not wait for two years or so. Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:33:08 GMT+1 Paul Papadopoulos http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2812 It's time even Socialist governments consider scrapping the host of costly and largely inefficient social support programmes in favour of a universal miniumum guarranteed income plan which would eventualy even replace state pensions.This would serve the purpose of helping only the needy and for the rest allow a substantial cut in income tax for those above the taxable income level. All kinds of indirect taxes such as VAT could be reduced from their present ridiculous levels to the benefit of all.The snag is that no politician would accept such a plan as they would have nothing left to promise electors except good govermment (the one thing they are incapable of delivering).The other downside would be the temptation to waste the savings on gandioise spending projects such as the Dome and the Olympic Games. Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:25:52 GMT+1 mildenhalljohn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2811 People on higher incomes should pay more tax, but there has to be a sensible limit. Do remember, they are already paying a higher rate of tax. Lets clamp down on the no workers brigade. They contribute nothing but take everything, thats why the country is broke. Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:21:24 GMT+1 Kevin Orr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2810 2795. At 5:22pm on 07 Oct 2010, Fitz13 wrote: "Maybe in your delusional world everyone works for free and for the love of what they do and for the greater good. However in the real world people work to earn money to buy and do things that they want. If you find something that you love doing and pays you money all the better"---------------------------------------------------------------The "real world" of which you speak is clearly one of greed. Vile, unapologetic greed. If you're happy with that world it is a sad indictment of yourself.many people work hard for a pittance. Others work moderately hard for more money than they can ever spend. In this "recession" that level of selfishness is unforgiveableGood luck in your vile planet Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:19:27 GMT+1 samantha http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2809 SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS ARE FAIR AND THE REST ARE JUST..WELL I CANT SAY IT. MOST OF YOU ARE COUPLES WHO BOTH WORK ETC. WELL SOME OF US ARE LONE PARENTS WHO DONT/CANT WORK DUE TO CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CHILD BENIFIT I GET FOR MY SON IS FOR MY SON I DONT USE IT FOR MYSELF. IF I EARNED 44 GRAND A YEAR THEN I WOULDENT MAKE HALF THE SONG AND DANCE MOST OF YOU ARE MAKING. IN THIS COUNTRY ITS ALWAYS BEEN THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POORER GETS POORER. ITS ABOUT TIME THINGS CHANGED. ALSO A FEW STATEMENTS ABOUT DONT HAVE KIDS IF U CANT AFFORD TO KEEP THEM??? I MEAN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING? IF THATS THE CASE THEN DONT HAVE ANY TEETH/GLASSES IF YOU CANT AFFORD TO KEEP THEM EITHER. I DONT THINK ITS FAIR IF THOSE WITH A HIGHER INCOME WILL STILL GET THE CHILD BENIFIT MIND. MAYBE THE MONEY THE GOVERMENT SAVES COULD GO IN OUR COUNTRY FOR ONCE LIKE THE NHS,SCHOOLS AND MAKING THE COUNTRY SAFER. AND STOP LETTING EVERY ASYLUM SEEKER IN THE COUNTRY TOO THAT WOULD SAVE MONEY Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:19:18 GMT+1 Billythefirst http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2808 2703. At 08:21am on 07 Oct 2010, Reiver wrote:They should also target the women who have made producing illegitimate children a career choice.--------------------------------------------------------------------------I think many share that sentiment where this is genuinely the case - how would you resolve it? Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:08:57 GMT+1 Billythefirst http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2807 2713. At 09:09am on 07 Oct 2010, Fitz13 wrote:How much should some who's been responsible for making £3.95 billions for his company in six months be paid then?Just want to know what you think a fair amount is?I'd say he's certainly more deserving that footballers who get paid that amount for basically kicking a ball around a field a few times a year!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------If a Chelsea player could cause me to lose my job because of his selfishness, criminal irresponsibility, lack of integrity and greed it might be possible to have that particular debate. Hope the auditors are keeping an eye on exactly how that 3.95 billion was "made" - in fairness, after the bank induced collapse and resultant obliteration of share values, it might well be possible that large profits could be made relatively easily and, after all, why should bonuses reflect effort eh? On the other hand, how do bank customers and shareholders feel about Big Bob's stellar performance?Are personal customers happy with the minute level of interest paid on their savings or the 40 fold increase they pay the bank when borrowing?Do business customers feel they've been supported in the way that the tories have suggested they should be?Are shareholders happy that they've seen a 50% decline in the value of their shares during the last 5 years? Does Bob's remuneration package reflect that fact in any way shape or form? ; me, I'm struggling to find a correlation between pay and performance here, or, to continue the football analogy, I'd have flogged my season ticket by now.Why support a non performer?Perhaps it's a tad old fashioned to believe that a primary objective of the CEO is to increase the share value of the company - I believe it's referred to as a key performance indicator.I know the bank apologists will cite market conditions, relative sector performance etc but in any other business these senior bankers would have been getting a boot up the rear - and the purse strings would have been tightened to reflect poor share values.The current situation is madness. Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:05:24 GMT+1 Michellem55 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=97#comment2806 I am not in that bracket but I could be by the time it is brought in. I have spent a few thousand and a lot of time and energy studying to gain a career and earn better wages to support my family. I think this is unfair to limit it to the higher earners. They have said it would cost too much to means test everyone. I worked out a way to make it fairer and a way to pay for it too. I say scrap Child Benefit and pay some similar payment through Child Tax Credits. This way they can put a threshold on household income rather than a single high earner which should increase the savings on those already proposed. They can also make savings from closing another government office that would not be required. SORTED!!! Thu 07 Oct 2010 18:00:22 GMT+1 Hunuman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2805 The government is correct in their thinking. However, I cannot understand their method of providing child benefit. Allow me to explain: A household with a working individual earning over £44k will receive no benefit. However, if a household with two working individuals each earning £35k will receive child benefit. This method of assessment is ludicurious. The household with two earners have a total income of £70k and the are eligible for child benefit, yet the household with a total income of £44k does not qualify. I guess George Osborne must have had a few bevvies before he thought this through, because even the village idiot would have come up with a more feasible solution. But then again, we have the well off Tories and the lame duck Lim-Dems governing this land so one can expect half baked ideas. I thought that labour were morons, but I am beginning to think that the Tories and the Lib-Dems are from the same school. God help us all!!!!! Thu 07 Oct 2010 17:37:14 GMT+1 Sjeh76 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2804 23. At 09:51am on 04 Oct 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:Simple answer, if you cannot afford children, then like a Ferrari, go without.__________________________Comparing the cost of ownership of a Ferrari with the cost of having children is the meanest sort of bloodless, soul-dead ignorance I have ever heard. What a moronic statement.Do you not suppose your taxes go some way towards buying someone else a Ferrari, anyway? Or at least some other sort of luxury item? For those exact people who are taking the money away in the first place? Hmm?What's more, you talk about how people 'manage'. So the fact that they will have to 'manage' on much less actual money - that doesn't even trip a switch for you, does it.It's not about 'managing'. It's not about 'coping' or 'making do'. It's about fairness. It's about the Haves taking money from the Have Nots. Again. It always is.If Dave had thought it through properly, the benefit would be based on the gross income of the household rather than the highest earner. There is actually nothing wrong with having two or more children - this isn't China, after all. (no, I'm childless before you start wondering about ulerior motives.) What with the cost of childcare, if you aren't fortunate enough to have a decent support network around you in the form of family, one of you is going to have to stop work or at least significantly reduce your hours.This is supposed to be about pragmatism, not ruthlessness. Besides which, I don't think that Child Benefit is one of the things that kicked the economy to the floor in the first place. Swing and a miss, Dave. You can't skint everyone in the land and blame Labour when you're the ones doing it, matie. If there's a hole, fill it by cracking down on your pals who caused the mess in the first place. Don't start by punishing people who've worked hard to get where they need to be in order to start a family. That's just cruelty. It's quite clear from what Dave's been saying, we aren't all in this together. At least, HE'S not in it with US... Thu 07 Oct 2010 17:35:38 GMT+1 U14571380 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2803 · 2792. At 5:03pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote: 2790. At 4:26pm on 07 Oct 2010, WyomingPat wrote:Hi - now living in the USA for 8 years it gives one a different perspective. Although many things in the USA are better some are not. NO Child Benefit, NO Housing benefit, NO support for keeping your house if you are unemployed. Little employment protection or rights. NO healthcare if you cannot pay for it (except going to the ER). NO free prescriptions if you are unemployed or retired.In the USA you get none of these benefits that in the UK are regarded as "FREE". I think the government has a real problem to educate people that these are NOT FREE but come out of taxes.==============Smartest comment on here. People don't understand the only thing free is air.########################## People fully realise that it is not free and that it is paid for by taxes. That is what separates a civilised society from the mobIt is the small minority of the population that think that the only person on the planet that maters is themselves, that is the problem Thu 07 Oct 2010 17:35:16 GMT+1 Hortitechie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2802 This is a modern society, people are capable of making and also be responsible for their own life style choices. That is also includes those who choose to have children, that is their God given choice. I am afraid that I cannot see why there is a benefit at all. Thu 07 Oct 2010 17:31:51 GMT+1 1L19 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2801 2791. At 4:42pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote:re 2787. 2734. 2712. 2704. 2703Get a sense of reality rather than believeing what The Mirror tells you.……………………………………….What are you banging on about? Maybe if you actually read my point instead of giving all and sundry a lecture about how much you know about the Tax System, which is really interesting by the way, you will notice that my point is this, why should workers pay for the consequences of a failed corrupt system, it does not work, hence why most of the world is in some kind of recession or other. I really do object to your suggestion that I only read The Mirror meaning you think I’m thick, suggesting in fact that all such people who do are somehow lower down the chain. The problem with your approach is your institutionalised Tory inequalities, the Holier than though attitude because you have a few bob! The ideology you endorse is a false reality, and if anything prevents the majority of people ever fulfilling their potential. Why would that be so threatening? This minority elitist ideology serves only the rich, by rich I mean the ones that profit from the work done by others, the rich that have never done a days work in their entire lives. Your anger at having to pay for people who chose not to work is incongruent, your huge resentment towards this minority group of individuals makes no sense, and most people who claim benefit are genuine, DoleBoy implies to you that I’m on the dole, it could mean other things! Interestingly the benefit bill has not risen hardly at all between successive governments, the biggest rise being under the Tories in the early 80’s. The current corrupt system has been reformed and tweaked for centuries and always ends up as a failed system, not because of economics, but because it is owned by corrupt thugs who have no morals or ethics. My suggestion that they could pay off the national debt is not that crazy, the reason why they wont is because they make more money from a country in debt than if it was in full honest working production, would you not agree? And this type of thinking has been nationally institutionalised, filtering down, that selfish immoral thuggish behaviour is normal! The evidence is all around us! Indeed, if we did live in an economic system that was not corrupt and not owned by thugs we would not actually be in this position, comprende! Would you not agree that ideally we share the same concerns, we want what’s best for the country, a place where there is genuine opportunity, not short-term job handouts, a place that is safe, secure and everyone feels part of, and can make an honest living. If you agree then you will also agree that this ideology, the one you call reality, has never come close. Thu 07 Oct 2010 17:21:10 GMT+1 rkjm http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2800 It is not often that I am driven to write to comments boards, but the announcement egarding the withdrawal of Child Benefit for high rate tax payers has truly incensed me. Firstly, I but not my wife am a high rate tax payer, and yes we have 3 children, albeit only one is now eligible to receive Child Benefit and that will cease prior to the announced changes in 2013. So hopefully that dispels the 'You are only complaining because your losing out!' because I am not!So why am I so incensed as I would appear to have no vested interest? It is because the nation's future depends upon the children of today growing up and taking on the responsibilities, and yes that includes paying tax, that you and I currently bear. This was summed up quite eloquently by by Frank Field MP when he said: "Ultimately the debate around child benefit boils down to the way society views children. On the one hand, they can be seen as a choice taken by some couples, and not by others. Or children can be seen by what economists would call a 'merit good' - which mean they have a value to others too, as future taxpayers and workers. I may not have children; but I need someone to have them if my pension is to be paid.". So, like it not there is an incentive for some if not all of us to bring up children. Great! Lets get on with it! Alas, for those of you who do not have any ankle biters they cost a great deal to bring up. No, we parents do not expect the State to fund our ankle biters, but as I can get a tax` allowance for all manner of things from uniform to membership fees for professional bodies, how about a tax break for the HUGE amount we as parents push back into this economy, not least bringing up the future tax payers!Child support in the UK has a long history, first being introduced in 1788, and although it was abolished in 1805 it was subsequently reintroduced in 1909. There was always the concern that providing support as a tax allowance to the father was not the most effective way of ensuring the money reached the pockets of the mother. This situation was addressed in the Family Allowances Act 1945, a bill campaigned for by Eleanor Rathbone MP, and introduced ironically by the Coalition Government. Although, it was only following an amendment proposed by Eleanor Rathbone that the allowance was finally to be paid to the mother.In May 1975 the Child Benefit Bill was introduced by the Labour Government with all party support. The benefit was to be paid for all children, including the first. As it was tax free all families would benefit, although the only advantage to those on means-tested benefits was that "a larger part of their income" would be received "from benefits as of right". In 1979 the Child Tax Allowances were phased out completely, placing the provision of support for children as a public expenditure rather than as a tax allowance or tax relief. It is perhaps this situation that makes it more palatable to remove the benefit from those who appear well off enough not to needit. However, in my opinion that is to miss the point of acknowledging both the future value of children and the universal cost to parents of providing for them. Using Mr Osborne's logic, why provide high tax payers with any tax allowance whatsoever? Surely they do not need the small savings in tax that the £6745 tax allowance provides? Or uniform allowance, or subscription to professional bodies or the hunbdreds of other allowances! However, the universal tax allowance is provided as a means of being fair. I think it grossly unfair that the additional cost of bringing up children who will eventually shoulder the responsibility of the nation is not universally acknowledged in the allowance system.To that end, let no one tell me as a parent receiving child benefit that I TAKE from the State, I can assure you as parents we put way way more back in! Thu 07 Oct 2010 17:21:05 GMT+1 Mike D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2799 Interesting "Thought for the Day" on BBC radio 4 this morning. Basically the Bible regards the "Houshold" as the fundamental unit of Society, nurturing children and helping the elderly, whereas the Inland Revenue and Government taxes and hands out benefits to the individual.In my opinion this is a strong argument that it's the "Household" that should be looked at here and not the individual (ie tax and benefits calculated according to total income of the household and number of dependents). However this is obviously too complex for Boy George and Call me Dave who would rather we all ticked one box on a tax return. Thu 07 Oct 2010 17:19:22 GMT+1 braveraddish http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2798 reedcar no one on benefit gets 44000, if you recieve this then you arelucky, and to recieve a gift from someone on benefit then itsbecause they have done without to get it . Any gift is a blessing.I say to you this two pence is worth more than.. ee I wish my memorywas better.if you cant afford some play station games on 44000 its time to chuck it.there are plenty families who never got the chance to earn that amount, they just wouldnt know what to do with it.If you have an expensive mortgage I have no sympathy.I dont own a house, no mortgage, no children or debt.and would not purchase a house if I could not afford it.and especially not one at 5 or 6 times my salary.If government is cutting child benefit an equal amount should be directly deducted from the husbands salary and given in the same format. Thu 07 Oct 2010 17:01:22 GMT+1 Mercianknight http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2797 About time. Let's hope this is just the first step in abolishing the child benefit completely - and this from a single income household (50k) with child. Let those that think they genuinely need it claim it via some other benefit.I'm just glad we're finally tackling the excesses of the former Labour government. Thu 07 Oct 2010 16:53:14 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2796 2792. At 5:03pm on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote:2790. At 4:26pm on 07 Oct 2010, WyomingPat wrote:Hi - now living in the USA for 8 years it gives one a different perspective. Although many things in the USA are better some are not. NO Child Benefit, NO Housing benefit, NO support for keeping your house if you are unemployed. Little employment protection or rights. NO healthcare if you cannot pay for it (except going to the ER). NO free prescriptions if you are unemployed or retired.In the USA you get none of these benefits that in the UK are regarded as "FREE". I think the government has a real problem to educate people that these are NOT FREE but come out of taxes.==============Smartest comment on here. People don't understand the only thing free is air.-------------------------------------------------> People don't understand the only thing free is air.Don't speak too soon - I wouldn't put it past Libcon or Labour to tax the air we breathe Thu 07 Oct 2010 16:39:24 GMT+1 giuseppe bignardi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2795 David Cameron has stated that the withdrawal of child benefits, when one of the two parents is a top-rate taxpayer, is “tough but fair”. Apart from the obvious aberration resulting from not considering the combined family income, which means better-off two-income families may retain the benefit, this measure is anything but fair. This policy initiative must be seen in the context of the Conservatives aiming at reducing the tax rates before the next election and introducing a transferable tax allowance for married couples. So, there is not enough money to keep a universal child tax benefit but there is enough money to introduce a transferable tax allowance for married couples. Could a government be any more driven by ideology than fairness? Apart from the desire to penalise unmarried couples, the fact is getting together as a couple (whether married or not) does not increase one’s financial needs. It is raising children which creates new financial needs and which, surely, is to the benefit of the whole society as it will provide the plumbers, police officers and nurses we will all need in our old age. Despite being a top-rate taxpayer who is about to loose my child benefit in a few months anyway, when my younger son will be 18, I would like child benefit to remain for the benefit of other couples and, eventually, my children. I would not mind to forego the future tax cuts or transferable married allowance the conservatives are promising us. I would even accept a tax increase, if necessary. The universal child benefit is, de facto, a tax allowance: it is only fair that those raising children pay a slightly lower tax rate and it would certainly fairer that the intended enhanced allowance for formally married couples, childless or not. Thu 07 Oct 2010 16:38:28 GMT+1 Fitz13 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2794 2789. At 4:22pm on 07 Oct 2010, Kevin Orr wrote:2786. At 3:17pm on 07 Oct 2010, Fitz13 wrote:"Surgeons can earn £300,000 doing their job as it's a very highly skilled and difficult job. However there's a limit to how much they can earn for a hospital or private practice and so their salary reflects that. An investment banker can earn a similar amount for a similar amount of years experience, however they can generate a much larger amount of money for their company and their salary and bonus reflects this"-------------------------------------------------------------------Surgeons do not, and should not consider their skills as a profitible investment. It is about human life.And by your logic Sir Fred Goodwin should have paid BACK several million of the millions he LOST for RBS. Instead he got a golden handshake and a bonus and a whopping great pension.Therefore your point is wrong.I have a friend who does investments. He is utterly appalled by these obscene salaries. AND he's good at his job.Not one single individual is worth £11.5 million, no matter how good he is at his job---------------------------------Maybe in your delusional world everyone works for free and for the love of what they do and for the greater good. However in the real world people work to earn money to buy and do things that they want. If you find something that you love doing and pays you money all the better.My logic doesn't suggest that Mr Goodwin should pay back anything. He was employed by the Bank to do a job, and in his contract with the bank he had certain salary and benefits laid out. If all employees only got paid if their company made a profit the country would be a lot worst off than it is now. As that's not the case my point is right. Thu 07 Oct 2010 16:22:16 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2793 2789. At 4:22pm on 07 Oct 2010, Kevin Orr wrote:2786. At 3:17pm on 07 Oct 2010, Fitz13 wrote:"Surgeons can earn £300,000 doing their job as it's a very highly skilled and difficult job. However there's a limit to how much they can earn for a hospital or private practice and so their salary reflects that. An investment banker can earn a similar amount for a similar amount of years experience, however they can generate a much larger amount of money for their company and their salary and bonus reflects this"-------------------------------------------------------------------Surgeons do not, and should not consider their skills as a profitible investment. It is about human life.--------------------------------------------------------------------Some do - I have met a couple of them. Other reasons are 'status' and of course helping people.Historically consultants have been allowed to work for more than one different employer during the working week - many did very lucrative private work with the remainder of their time. Many consultants were part time NHS, but I confess that I've no idea how new contracts work. It has been alleged that some consultants have gone as far as abusing their NHS contracts through the amount of private practice they have undertaken. Unfortunately, some people still put doctors on pedestals. They are just human beings like the rest of us and are suceptable to the same vices. Thu 07 Oct 2010 16:17:11 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/do_you_support_child_benefit_c.html?page=96#comment2792 2787. At 3:18pm on 07 Oct 2010, DoleBoy wrote:2734. At 10:28am on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote:2712. At 09:09am on 07 Oct 2010, DoleBoy wrote:2704. At 08:29am on 07 Oct 2010, Sat_tire wrote:2703. At 08:21am on 07 Oct 2010, Reiver wrote:They should also target the women who have made producing illegitimate children a career choice.====================Spot on, the baby machines that live off us………………………………………………The people you ought to shout about are the rich minority who continue to make obscene amounts from our enslavement. Can you really not see this? The debt could be paid off in one lump sum, it is a mere 8% of the UK rich elites accumulated wealth, riches that they plunder from us daily, is this fair? They are your enemy.====================Well, if we shot the long term unemployed on their birthdays, then did the same to all other claimers of benefits in year two and have no welfare bill in year 3.Only the criminally insane would advocate that, and only people who have little understanding of the economy in general can make your suggestion.Lets take Lord Sugar. He is worth around £800 Million, but has a liquid worth (in his own opinion on a programme on the other side on saturday of £100 Million) If we took 8% of his so called worth that would be £64 Million, but its £64 Million of his £100 Million of liquidity. Or do we sell or expropriate his property portfolio, or his shares or whatever other investment he has?The posting of envy really have no sense of reality………………………………………………………….2745. At 11:25am on 07 Oct 2010, locust wrote:post 2712 by DoleBoy - how can you be enslaved when you don't even have a job? your hatred of the 'better off' is twisting you somewhat limited logic?those who earn more pay more to support the likes of youand to reiterate some earlier sensible posters - the govt does not own the banks they helped 'finance' - they hold shares that at some point in the future will be sold at a profit - thereby helping the exchequer!…………………………………………….Sat_ire, I’m sure Sugar is very grateful to every censored like yourself. People who can’t think for themselves, see out of the box, naïve beyond belief. You really cannot see it can you? So, you think it’s fine that the majority pay for the lifestyle of a few, interesting! I think your statement about shooting people is not that far away from your own sentiments. I do not envy their rich decadent lifestyle; my point was why do we have to fund it? Is it really workers responsibility to pay off a debt that they don’t own? Would you willingly pay off my debt because of my own stupidity? I have no need to understand how economics work to know how immoral, unethical and dangerous these thugs are.Locus, you are not in a position to talk about logic, who mentioned logic, your posts are irrational, deluded and all you do is insult, you are less than the weed that grows beside thy door.--------------------------------------------------------------I'm somewhat entertained by this thread. I think in all probability Locust probably does 'see it' he just does not buy into your ideology. I certainly don't buy into it. It is an ideology in which selling your labour at the going rate and thereby making someone else far more wealthy is seen as exploitation and slavery - if this is how you feel then where is the motivation to support yourself through an 'honest job'. Speaking personally, I am not enslaved by my job - which is making my CEO and his chums very wealthy, I am made free by it. I have money, food on the table and independence. I do not have to worry where the next meal comes from. It is a trade - my time, skill and experience for money. It is a transparrent arrangement - I know I'm getting the market rate. I will not challenge this ideology, we are all entitled to own views, but ask just one question. With an ID of 'DoleBoy' I am assuming you are unemployed. If this is the case is it voluntary (i.e. that you do not want to be enslaved?)? Thu 07 Oct 2010 16:04:15 GMT+1