Jump to content

Universal benefits?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems the middle class are to take a hit over child benefit - but why this convoluted approach, which creates some glaring anomolies, such as the couple earning less than ?44K each not being affected, while the single parent on ove ?44K pa will lose this pin money. Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply recover the required amount through income tax? :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a slightly unfair way of doing things when you look at the anomoly - and maybe they will change that. The big problem is in the past, the Labour Government were all for means testing everything, but the problem with means testing is the amount it costs to means test everything and the red tape it all created (plus the thousands of needless means testers we had to pay for too)!

 

Far better to have a cut off imho, that way you know where you stand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there has to be a cut-off point somewhere and there will always be winners and losers. I would have made the level lower, after all, when we were receiving Child Benefit there were no tax credits and no childrens trust funds. At one time, you only received benefit for 1 child so that tended to limit your family size if you couldn't afford them!! (Before my time though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to do owt with the benefit - just tax them more. Unversal benefits are paid out to all, to the rich it's pin money, to the poor it's a large amount: but IF the rich are paying many more times the amount in income tax, the State gets it's money - so what' the prob?! :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Child benefit, is this an exercise on how to make something very easy to solve, to very difficult to solve?

 

It is really obvious and clear cut, the limit of child benefit should be based on dual income not an individuals!!!!!

 

So, if a couples combined earnings is more than ?44,000 the benefit should be stopped or reduced...easy!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can be fairer than those that are on more income see the child benefit as a bonus, rather than a need? Why should they get it?

 

Ask any union man and he will tell you that those who earn more, should be taxed more.

A re-distribution of wealth, caused by (ironic isn't it?), the working man's party. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any and every "cut" in public services will hit hurt the poorest disproportionately as - a) they have the biggest reliance on such services, B) many are employed in public services. SO, a double whammy, first your made redundant, then you take a hit on any benefits - and instead of a tax-payer, you become a tax consumer. The solution is to stimulate growth, whilst returning to fiscal responsibility in the longer term - otherwise, you risk a double dip recession. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you heard Dave: " the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load" - SO, we can no doubt look forward to - the Banks being taxed on any windfall profits, Bankers being taxed at 99% on their bonuses; top earners being taxed on their golden handshakes; and top earners (incl MPs), taking a hit on their gold plated pension schemes - dream on! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...