Further cuts to child benefits?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Maybe the Government should have written them a better contract then? The reality is Atos are paid to get people off benefits - not into work...

Yes many of ATOS places dont have disabled access either, the one in Norwich, has no access via trains, buses, no parking. I dont believe in making people with cancer sit in front of a panel, it is disgusting. This really is a penny pinching scheme.

I know a few people who are really ill, and these bas**ds have said they are fit work. Sick really :crazy:

Starbucks could have paid some tax hey !
 
I think you'll find it's a different story if they both had two kids. Add together all the benefits and you'll get a tidy sum

Not that much, apparently

The maximum amount of Married Couple's Allowance is £7,705

JSA for couples £111.45 a week, child benefits £33.70 a week = £7500 pa

so nothing in it, really.
Personally, I think the tax allowance should be equivalent to minimum wage, about £10,500 pa - why tax people, then give them benefits to 'top it up' as in the current system...? :bannana:
 
markjay said:
I don't have a learnt opinion as such, but...

I find that many of the taxes and benefits (it works both ways) in existence today are there simply because it has always been this way and not necessarily because they makes sense or due to any logic reasoning.

It is fair to ask why people with decent income should need any form of state support at all.

If you have to take money off someone it is better to take it off people who can afford it. But I think CB has avoided means testing and cuts for as long as it has for good reasons and it is a shame it is being changed.

Really don't see any argument with an ageing population for encouraging people to have smaller families. Plus it will have the most impact as an incentive for poorer people and penalise groups who tend to have more children.
 
I don't have children.

May I have £40 per week towards a nice shiny new SL 500 please?
 
Maybe the Government should have written them a better contract then? The reality is Atos are paid to get people off benefits - not into work...

They are being given a financial incentive to pass people as fit to work. A flawed concept which probably accounts for their poor judgement - so poor that it has even led to criticism from a Commons Select Committee.

But if you really want to see "what's not to like" about your suggestion of applying a similar model to getting people off unemployment benefit then just look at A4e and the current fraud investigations surrounding their practices.
 
Child benefit cuts 'may be illegal'
Cutting child benefit for middle-class parents breaks European laws by discriminating against Britons and is open to legal challenge, ministers have been told.

Child benefit cuts 'may be illegal' - Telegraph

It's sickening isn't it ... nobody on £50,000 deserves a penny from 'the state'...I bet plenty of them whine about 'benefit scroungers' while they happily cash their allowances...

"Instead of simply denying the benefit to those affected, ministers have decided that the money will still be paid, then clawed back through a “tax charge” imposed on parents’ earnings."

- financial genius, that...
 
I'd rather have more high rate tax payers being incentivised into having offspring than the current breeding program which encourages only the workshy and feckless.

We have a survival of the weakest breeding program currently in the UK and it *must* be turned on its head and reversed or we face a stark future.
 
Last edited:
Dont you think the effort would be better spent, not sending 37,000,000 to Europe every week, and now Merkel will want to increase that. we are talking peanuts for this 50,000 ceiling in comparison to the euro cost.
 
balge said:
It's sickening isn't it ... nobody on £50,000 deserves a penny from 'the state'...I bet plenty of them whine about 'benefit scroungers' while they happily cash their allowances...

"Instead of simply denying the benefit to those affected, ministers have decided that the money will still be paid, then clawed back through a “tax charge” imposed on parents’ earnings."

- financial genius, that...

IIRC it was a bodge to deal with criticisms of the original scheme in which CB would not be payable to and higher rate taxpayer
 
Sp!ke said:
I'd rather have more high rate tax payers being incentivised into having offspring than the current breeding program which encourages only the workshy and feckless.

We have a survival of the weakest breeding program currently in the UK and it *must* be turned on its head and reversed or we face a stark future.

I think this is possibly one of the more outrageous things I have read in recent times. If the children of the poor grow up and do well I am very happy for them to pay for my pension. If they turn out bad we have ourselves as a society to blame,

That said we probably share some ground as I don't think it is helpful to keep making it more difficult for working parents in moderate incomes, for example by removing higher rate tax relief in childcare vouchers, providing insufficient state funding for pre school childcare and now removing child benefit.
 
I think this is possibly one of the more outrageous things I have read in recent times. If the children of the poor grow up and do well I am very happy for them to pay for my pension. If they turn out bad we have ourselves as a society to blame,

That said we probably share some ground as I don't think it is helpful to keep making it more difficult for working parents in moderate incomes, for example by removing higher rate tax relief in childcare vouchers, providing insufficient state funding for pre school childcare and now removing child benefit.

And ending EMA (in England at least).
 
They are being given a financial incentive to pass people as fit to work. A flawed concept which probably accounts for their poor judgement - so poor that it has even led to criticism from a Commons Select Committee.

But if you really want to see "what's not to like" about your suggestion of applying a similar model to getting people off unemployment benefit then just look at A4e and the current fraud investigations surrounding their practices.

A4E was never an employment agency, it was a 'training scheme'

I would far rather have the services of a professional employment agency than any of the army of drones at the DWP...or the minimum wage 'enablers' from these con schemes
 
It might sound harsh but it is the sad truth of the matter.

It is a well known fact that children from deprived backgrounds get less support at home and are less likely to be high achievers in life.

If you finantially encourage the unemployable to breed and tax the hard working middle classes so they cant afford children, it amounts to little more than an ill thought out breeding program and a rapid societal decline.
 
I think this is possibly one of the more outrageous things I have read in recent times. If the children of the poor grow up and do well I am very happy for them to pay for my pension.

Fair enough.

If they turn out bad we have ourselves as a society to blame,

Blame their parents.

Maybe if rather than doing the 'blame it on society' hand wringing we pointed fingers properly things might actually get better for at least a few of these kids.
 
Does this also apply to the disabled and people from certain ethnic minorities who also sometimes are less successful in the labour market? Or maybe these people should just be sterilised and save everybody's time and money :wallbash:
 
It is a well known fact that children from deprived backgrounds get less support at home and are less likely to be high achievers in life.

How do you know this, are you from a deprived background?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A4E was never an employment agency, it was a 'training scheme'

I would far rather have the services of a professional employment agency than any of the army of drones at the DWP...or the minimum wage 'enablers' from these con schemes

So Atos has caused controversy with its many failings whilst being paid to pass disability benefit claimants as fit for work. Meanwhile, A4e is under investigation for widespread fraud relating to its payments for getting people off unemployment benefits.

And then you suggest that some mythical private sector employment agency is the quick answer to getting people off benefits (as though it's some novel and innovative new idea !!) and ask "what's not to like" ??

If you pay the private sector to help get people off benefits then the outcome is rarely a happy one either for the claimant or the taxpayer.
 
How do you know this?

By definition they're *deprived* so kind of makes it obvious.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom