dunroving

This may end up in TIO, but thought I'd start it up in here, as it's relevant to the UK.

What do people think about all of the rumblings regarding changes to child benefits and the welfare system? For those who aren't back in the UK yet, there has been quite a lot on TV lately about the proposed plans to cut child benefits for those in the higher income tax bracket (circa > £47k per annum for an individual), and to restrict total benefits for any family on welfare to the minimum wage (circa £25k).

The unions are already making noises and the TV News magazine hosts asking whether this boils down to "government-forced birth control for those on welfare", and "taking food out of the mouths of children".

Personally, I think:

1) If you earn more than £47k, you should consider yourself pretty lucky and not in need of extra money to feed your kids.

2) If you don't work, you shouldn't expect tax payers to pay you more than the average wage.


Polls indicated initially that people were in favour of the Government's plans, but now the realities are starting to shape up, I think people are essentially screaming "When I supported the proposition of cutbacks, I meant for everyone else, not me!"

What do the BE-ers think?

jmh

I'm childless (not through choice) and have subsidised other people's children all my tax paying life (education, medical, benefits etc) but apart from the element of social responsibility I always thought that it would even out when these kids are paying for my old age. Well the pension has already gone up to 67 (up from 60 for women not so long ago) and there is talk of it going higher. I am betting free travel cards will disappear before too long, and local councils are cutting back services for older people. Why should I continue to pay a well off couple's child benefit when my benefits have already been reduced and look like they will continue to be cut?

I was irritated by Cameron's sop reply of offering tax benefits to couples. Since many OAP's are widowed it seems another kick in the teeth to older people. Do they not matter too?

pommybird

As usual the media has made a right song and dance about this - 'taking food out of the mouths of children' my a*se - I totally agree if you earn over a certain amount you shouldn't be entitled to child benefit - as I also agree that at the other end of the social scale the bludgers and wasters in this country have gone on long enough draining the decent hard working tax payer of their hard earned cash.

The UK has an enormous debt to pay back and we've got to do it some way or another - cutting benefits for those who don't need it and those who don't deserve it is the first step.

sallysimmons

Sounds like America. The tea-baggers here are all for government cuts - while they ride around on their Medicare-funded scooters and collect their social security.

I think conservative politicians generally tend to demonize the poor in their election campaigns, lashing out at welfare queens who are supposedly living large on the public purse. They do it on purpose. They want the average Daily Mail reader to get irate and vote for them in the belief that only the welfare queens will suffer. By the time anyone's cottoned on, it's too late and they have sewed up 5 years in power.

My own view is that this is the exact wrong time for austerity measures and that the Tories will plunge the country back into a deep recession. There are a lot of economists the world over who are very concerned with the tack European countries are taking right now. I know everyone has been told it's essential, blah blah. But that's not actually supported by economic theory so we'll see.

Mummy in the foothills

If we were earning £47,000 a year I'd be ecstatic, we don't earn that here. I'd be happy not to get child benefit, which I think should only be for lower earners.
I never did understand how people on benefits could earn more than a normal wage, it must be rare (right?) Also none of the jobs we've had give a raise with each child, neither should benefits.

HumphreyC

Depends which economist you ask.

Derrygal

The problem is when will be the right time for austerity measures? If the money isn't there - it isn't there - it has to come from somewhere - usually in the form of budget cuts and/or higher taxes. I wouldn't exactly say that the poor are going to be demonized by the Tories just because child benefit is to be cut for higher wage earners. I grew up very poor - it taught me to be frugal. Too many people today think they have to have that second car (I know in the US most people, including myself need a car) big flat screen tv, latest cell phone with internet access, etc, etc, etc. I remember back in the 70s when I got married and my husband and I were raising our children, we didn't have credit cards, we had one (used) car. I walked everywhere and if I needed the car, my husband rode his bike to work. We never bought anything we couldn't afford. I am not complaining about the poor, but there are a lot of able bodied people out there who can and should work. As for economists - the views vary, some believe in countries spending their way out of a recession, others say it will only lead to double digit inflation down the road. I am no expert, but I seem to remember a Dickens character (think it was Mr Micawber)
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

dunroving

Interestingly, there is a thread on the other part of MBTTUK, I think, started by Nun, about "How much do I need to survive in the UK?" (I'm paraphrasing, maybe someone can provide the link).

I'm sure the conclusion was a lot less than £25,000, in which case it seems unreasonable for anyone to receive benefits in this amount (with exceptions of disabilities, etc., that may have additional care costs, etc.)

[Later edit - Here's the thread: http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=684472]

Derrygal

Thanks for the link - interesting thread - mortgages in the UK seem much more complex than they used to be when I lived there!!

Sally Redux

I am also not convinced it's truly necessary. More a case of divide and rule by demonizing sections of society, as you say. Under this convenient cover, any number of cuts can be pushed through.

elfman

I'm inclined to go along with this in principle because that's a fair wedge but not with the cack-handed way they're doing it: unless they've modified the proposals it basically means families earning around 84k betwen them would still get the benefits so long as they both earn less than 47k individually, while a single parent (or a family with a stay at home mum) earning 48k wouldn't. That just seems wrong to me.

pommybird

I don't buy the whole demonisation thing - you don't have to read the Daily Fail (which I agree prints the biggest pile of poop ever) to see the benefits system in this country has been taken for a ride for too long.

In one of my previous jobs I managed all the long term sick cases in the company - I am sorry to say that a good proportion of them were perfectly fit and healthy people claiming incapacity benefits who simply did not want to work. As for the poor, there is no doubt there are some truly deserving cases and the Tories aren't denying that - but when I see some of the so called 'single parents' at my kids' school reaping 1000's of pounds worth of benefits every month and swanning off to all inclusive holidays to the Maldives with their partners (who don't live with them because it will 'affect their benefit payments') it bloody makes me sick!

dunroving

To an extent, I think this aspect has arisen for purely pragmatic reasons, namely that it's easy (inexpensive) to determine if an individual who is claiming child benefits is in a higher tax bracket (through Inland Revenue records, etc.)

For joint earners, it involves determining whether people are legally married or cohabiting, living together/not living together (i.e., parents who are separated/divorced), landlord and tenant rather than cohabitng partners, parent of the child/not parent of the child (i.e., is the second earner guardian of the child, or just the parent's boyfriend/girlfriend). I think the cost of setting up a system to determine all of this is more messy and expensive than the amount it would save.

But I agree, it does end up in a situation that seems unfair. But heck, you could say paying taxes for someone's child benefit, schooling, etc., isn't fair if you don't have kids yourself. Why should single, chilldless people subsidize everyone else's costs of being married with a family? Why should hard workers subsidize people who don't want to work? The list of fair/unfair is potentially endless. At least this is one step towards making high earners shoulder their part of the burden. When they start garnishing the bankers' wages and bonuses is when I'll truly start to think it's fair ...

dunroving

I like the idea that has been bandied about of having a "Fitness certificate" (you're sick, so what work ARE you able to do?) rather than a "Sick certificate" (you're sick so you can't do any work).

pommybird

I agree it is a great idea in principle - however in my experience even if you write to a GP for specific information (with the individual's consent) they are often loathed to compromise themselves by being specific about what an individual is capable of doing.

From an employers perspective it is nigh on impossible to get such cases back to work due to a toxic little piece of employment law called the 'Disability Discrimination Act' - introduced with good intentions (as all employment law is) but abused by many. The European Court of Human Rights has a lot to answer for!