Almost Canadian

I thought that this was an interesting piece and, while I accept lots of what is being suggested is rather stupid, I can't see any justification to allowing any family on benefits to receive more than the average income. Your thoughts?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...c-2097681.html

Alan2005

You won't get any arguments from me. Entitlements are going to have to be cut. Doesn't matter if you see them as right or wrong, there just isn't the money for them. Currently in the UK the benefits bill exceeds the income tax take; i.e. every penny of income tax paid in the UK by somebody in a job is spent on supporting those without incomes and it's still not enough.

Oink

The idea that the child benefit wasn't means tested is absurd.

ann m

Families with two earners on just below £44,000 a year will continue to receive the credit, but those with a single earner above that level will see it withdrawn. It would have been fairer to simply scrap child benefit and divert funds to less well-off families in other ways.

I'm confused on where I stand on child benefit - the one making the headlines today. I do think it is correct to drop the axe somewhere in the mess though.

There is the "well, if you can't afford to have children, don't have them" school of thought. We have a few of those here on BE

There is the "well, if you have a kid, you can get a council house" school of thought.

There is the "oh shit, I'm pregnant again, how the hell did we let this happen".

There is the "I would do anything to be able to have a child" person.

And there are a million permutations in between. But I figure most people don't have kids because of the government payments - they have them despite what is or is not available as handouts. I say "most" people.

It does seem daft to me that one partner can earn 46,000GBP a year and so child benefits will be scrapped. But two partners could earn 43,000GBP each - and still claim full child benefit. Huh?! Why not just say that households that earn over 60,000GBP are not eligible, or something like that?

The reality is that many of those middle earners don't really need the child benefit but it does help with the bills - shoes, coat, uniform, foreign holiday (), etc.

And in any country where children still live in poverty, how the heck can you give out a universal benefit, even to those who earn 100k, 200k, and more? Those households may admittedly be fewer in number, but even so ....

Lord Vader

Child tax benefits in addition to old age benefits are the only benefits I could say I full agree with. Although sometimes I wish that there were coupons or some other non monetary method instead in order to keep from giving "child benefits" to parents to spend on booze and smokes.

Almost Canadian

And that's one of the things that always puzzles me about posters on this site when they move to Canada. From what I believe, the tax take in Canada is similar to the UK, yet infrastructive here seems massively superior (in the "what people notice sense" - clean streets, decent libraries, very well equipped schools etc.)

From what I understand, welfare payments are way less in Canada than in the UK. It is this that enables the government in Canada to spend its receipts better than the UK, or is it something else? I honestly have no idea.

Almost Canadian

I agree with what you have said here.

But if benefits are to alleviate poverty, why should middle incomers receive them to purchase such items? I believe that benefits should be a safety net to ensure basic needs, not the "entitlement" payments that many in the UK when I left harped on about all the time.

Sally Redux

I believe part of the thinking was that it was cheaper to administer by having a universal benefit.

I also agree the limit should be per household.

Seneca21

There's a champagne socialist hypocrite in the Guardian today whining about the fact he won't get this benefit any more. He's a fleet street journalist/editor so clearly earns a wage that would in no sane system would allow him to draw benefits.

This payment system was always an outrage and I am glad it has been cut. And this is just the beginning as well - look at what they are doing to defence. The Uk army will consist of about 12 soldiers and a green Mini Metro with a spud gun on the roof by the time they're finished.

Almost Canadian

One of the things I have never been able to understand is why tax rates are not based on household income as well. This always pissed me off as we only ever had one income (albeit a good one) but, rarely, did it exceed the double incomes of our neighbours. I hope an economist type can come along and explain the justification for this.

Seneca21

Do you mean income tax rates?

Alan2005

Where resources are limited means testing is the only fair way.

Sally Redux

It was set up that way for tax credits I think. Two earners just under the limit were much better off than one just over per household.

Joe_Sleepy

I always find it inspiring that you have managed to see the whole of Canada & thus feel comfortable commenting on the entire country.
I always believed NS to be an underfunded backwater with the junior/high school educational facilities of a forgotten public toilet in Bermondsey..
I defer to your angrier & better educated point of view..

Bollocks generalisations aside, nobody financially able to raise their own kids should be in a position to claim monies from the state... Same for Uni students...

jimf

In the UK I think child benefit started shortly after WWII to increase the birthrate. Probably in the days of food rationing etc and widespread real poverty it made sense.