This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
As per the title to help a friend out. I have googled this and have not found a simple, definitive statement about the purpose of this benefit. Any clues?
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Fags and Kestrel or child ISA to set Tarquin up for future depending on position on social spectrum.... Although the earnings cap has reduced the prevalence of the latter
Fags and Kestrel or child ISA to set Tarquin up for future depending on position on social spectrum.... Although the earnings cap has reduced the prevalence of the latter
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I suspect this is a loaded question, and you're looking for a particular kind of answer.
If not, then it's the obvious one - to give people with children a little more money, reducing the number of children and families living in poverty, and increasing the opportunities available to them.
This presumes that the parents/guardians will use the money appropriately. Most do; some don't.
I suspect this is a loaded question, and you're looking for a particular kind of answer.
If not, then it's the obvious one - to give people with children a little more money, reducing the number of children and families living in poverty, and increasing the opportunities available to them.
This presumes that the parents/guardians will use the money appropriately. Most do; some don't.
In reply to Frank the Husky:
A quick google turned up this:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cbtmanual/cbtm01020.htm
Despite the title it's a bit thin on 'purpose'.
A quick google turned up this:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cbtmanual/cbtm01020.htm
Despite the title it's a bit thin on 'purpose'.
No idea. But if you are tight, then £80 / month would pay for food and basic clothes.
What makes it less clear is why a couple with a joint income under £50k (after exceptions, benefits, etc) get it fully, over £120k don't get it, but between £50k and £120k the amount you get only depends on the highest earner.
So: £20k + £10k - get £20/week
£50k + £50 k - £20 /week
£60k + £20 k - nothing
£60k single parent - nothing
If you have two kids, then the pay rise that takes you from £50k to £60k nets you £4000!
This is the simpler thing with universal benefits. Everyone gets them, much simpler tax system.
Child care vouchers have a similar "unfair" component. Basic rate tax payers get £243 exempt of Tax and NI - worth 20%+12% of that = £77, higher rate tax payers get £124 - worth 40%+2% = £52
What makes it less clear is why a couple with a joint income under £50k (after exceptions, benefits, etc) get it fully, over £120k don't get it, but between £50k and £120k the amount you get only depends on the highest earner.
So: £20k + £10k - get £20/week
£50k + £50 k - £20 /week
£60k + £20 k - nothing
£60k single parent - nothing
If you have two kids, then the pay rise that takes you from £50k to £60k nets you £4000!
This is the simpler thing with universal benefits. Everyone gets them, much simpler tax system.
Child care vouchers have a similar "unfair" component. Basic rate tax payers get £243 exempt of Tax and NI - worth 20%+12% of that = £77, higher rate tax payers get £124 - worth 40%+2% = £52
In reply to Philip:
'This is the simpler thing with universal benefits. Everyone gets them, much simpler tax system.'
Yep - the sliding scale where Child Benefit is removed from people earning between 50 and 60k is a case in point and has dragged a good few people into self assessment who otherwise would not require to do so, further increasing administration.
Everything to do with tax needs simplified as the admin and errors made largely outweigh the gains, unless you are a politician scrambling to 'protect' (or target) a specific sector/type of voter that they need to keep or win over or be seen to be hitting hard.
Ideally, get rid of all the allowances, benefits and extras and create some form of tiered taxation with everything that has been removed paying for higher tax free amount and then sensible tax bands for all.
There's an oddity for people earning between £100 and 120k where their tax free allowance is removed at the rate of £1 of allowance for every £2 over 100k earned. Causes lots of confusion, means people caught by it pay a higher rate of tax on their earnings between 100 and 120k than the current supposed top rate of tax and PAYE doesn't cope well with it meaning over or under payments of tax if the amount you receive in any year differs from last year which is what the tax man base their estimates off of. Complexity for the sake of it and pretty unfair in many ways.
'This is the simpler thing with universal benefits. Everyone gets them, much simpler tax system.'
Yep - the sliding scale where Child Benefit is removed from people earning between 50 and 60k is a case in point and has dragged a good few people into self assessment who otherwise would not require to do so, further increasing administration.
Everything to do with tax needs simplified as the admin and errors made largely outweigh the gains, unless you are a politician scrambling to 'protect' (or target) a specific sector/type of voter that they need to keep or win over or be seen to be hitting hard.
Ideally, get rid of all the allowances, benefits and extras and create some form of tiered taxation with everything that has been removed paying for higher tax free amount and then sensible tax bands for all.
There's an oddity for people earning between £100 and 120k where their tax free allowance is removed at the rate of £1 of allowance for every £2 over 100k earned. Causes lots of confusion, means people caught by it pay a higher rate of tax on their earnings between 100 and 120k than the current supposed top rate of tax and PAYE doesn't cope well with it meaning over or under payments of tax if the amount you receive in any year differs from last year which is what the tax man base their estimates off of. Complexity for the sake of it and pretty unfair in many ways.
In reply to Ferret:
Wow, that's awful. Is there a charity I can donate to?
> (In reply to Philip)
>
> There's an oddity for people earning between £100 and 120k where their tax free allowance is removed at the rate of £1 of allowance for every £2 over 100k earned.
>
> There's an oddity for people earning between £100 and 120k where their tax free allowance is removed at the rate of £1 of allowance for every £2 over 100k earned.
Wow, that's awful. Is there a charity I can donate to?
In reply to XXXX:
Ha - yes - but, why target that specific section of earners for a higher tax than is applied to even higher levels of earnings? And why do it in a way that causes the complication of annual over and under payments that then require corrected? Its not the various levels of taxation within the system that are an issue to me, its the complexity and unfairness of various bits of the system (similar to the total unfairness of Child Benefit being paid in full to 2 earners each earning £49,999 but not at all to a single earner on £60,000. Whether they have the 'benefit' of a stay at home carer looking after the children or not).
Ha - yes - but, why target that specific section of earners for a higher tax than is applied to even higher levels of earnings? And why do it in a way that causes the complication of annual over and under payments that then require corrected? Its not the various levels of taxation within the system that are an issue to me, its the complexity and unfairness of various bits of the system (similar to the total unfairness of Child Benefit being paid in full to 2 earners each earning £49,999 but not at all to a single earner on £60,000. Whether they have the 'benefit' of a stay at home carer looking after the children or not).
In reply to Frank the Husky:
child benefit has two purposes - firstly the financial benefit, but it has a much wider, more political benefit: it was made a universal benefit not just to save money on means testing, but to give the middle classes a stake in the welfare state.
the founders of the welfare state were smart enough, and self-effacing enough, to understand that if the only people who benefitted from the welfare stake were the poor, the less educated, the disenfranchised and the less articulate, then the welfare state would become like all beaurocracies and start to serve itself rather than those it exists to serve. the inclusion of the sharp-elbowed, well educated middle classes into the benefit system was meant to ensure that the service would be kept in good nick.
it was the original 'in it together' political message.
child benefit has two purposes - firstly the financial benefit, but it has a much wider, more political benefit: it was made a universal benefit not just to save money on means testing, but to give the middle classes a stake in the welfare state.
the founders of the welfare state were smart enough, and self-effacing enough, to understand that if the only people who benefitted from the welfare stake were the poor, the less educated, the disenfranchised and the less articulate, then the welfare state would become like all beaurocracies and start to serve itself rather than those it exists to serve. the inclusion of the sharp-elbowed, well educated middle classes into the benefit system was meant to ensure that the service would be kept in good nick.
it was the original 'in it together' political message.
In reply to skog: No, it isn't a loaded question, I just want a straightforward answer whatever that might be...if there is one.
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Nappies
More nappies
Nappy bags
Baby wipes
Additional nappies
Cute pairs of dungarees
Raisins
Nappies
More nappies
Nappy bags
Baby wipes
Additional nappies
Cute pairs of dungarees
Raisins
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Originally it was Beveridge who introduced it after WWII to help large families, so it wasn't paid for the first child.
Paid to women as they were concerned the men would piss it up the wall. And therefore not payable through the tax system.
IIRC Child Tax Credit still needs to be paid to the primary carer or joint bank account.
It was pretty popular so Callaghan made it for all kids, universal and non-means tested, even the tories liked it.
Important because you get NI (pension) credits as well.
Originally it was Beveridge who introduced it after WWII to help large families, so it wasn't paid for the first child.
Paid to women as they were concerned the men would piss it up the wall. And therefore not payable through the tax system.
IIRC Child Tax Credit still needs to be paid to the primary carer or joint bank account.
It was pretty popular so Callaghan made it for all kids, universal and non-means tested, even the tories liked it.
Important because you get NI (pension) credits as well.
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Several on this thread seem to be advocating that child benefit should not be decreased/removed for high earners based on the fact that it would be fairer if everyone gets the same rate. Well, I'm fine with that, so long as the same people are happy to get paid £12.50 per hour that they work, so that everyone gets the same rate of pay for every hour they work too. Oh, I hear some objections; We work harder, we do things that are more complicated, etc. How about this then: If you can prove you work 10 times harder than someone behind the bar on a friday night pouring 4 drinks at the same time constantly for 6 hours straight, then you can get 10 times the minimum wage.
There is a socialist maxim somewhere that says "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Rich parents don't need child benefit, poor parents do. Child benefit is one of the socialist elements in our almost-entirely-capitalist society and it should stay that way.
Several on this thread seem to be advocating that child benefit should not be decreased/removed for high earners based on the fact that it would be fairer if everyone gets the same rate. Well, I'm fine with that, so long as the same people are happy to get paid £12.50 per hour that they work, so that everyone gets the same rate of pay for every hour they work too. Oh, I hear some objections; We work harder, we do things that are more complicated, etc. How about this then: If you can prove you work 10 times harder than someone behind the bar on a friday night pouring 4 drinks at the same time constantly for 6 hours straight, then you can get 10 times the minimum wage.
There is a socialist maxim somewhere that says "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Rich parents don't need child benefit, poor parents do. Child benefit is one of the socialist elements in our almost-entirely-capitalist society and it should stay that way.
In reply to henwardian:
Child benefit is for the child.
If you need it spend it, if you don't save it in their account. Not everyone has a job for life and someone on £60k this year might have no job after a contract ends.
Child benefit is for the child.
If you need it spend it, if you don't save it in their account. Not everyone has a job for life and someone on £60k this year might have no job after a contract ends.
In reply to henwardian:
I imagine I could do a better job doing a barmans job than a barman could doing my job, but doesn't mean I work twice as hard as him. I don't agree with penalising people based on how successful they are, otherwise why would people bother trying to improve their lives instead of going along and being the same as the people that are less motivated.
> If you can prove you work 10 times harder than someone behind the bar on a friday night pouring 4 drinks at the same time constantly for 6 hours straight, then you can get 10 times the minimum wage.
I imagine I could do a better job doing a barmans job than a barman could doing my job, but doesn't mean I work twice as hard as him. I don't agree with penalising people based on how successful they are, otherwise why would people bother trying to improve their lives instead of going along and being the same as the people that are less motivated.
In reply to Frank the Husky:
It's mainly for two things.
One. Reducing child poverty.
Two. Taking some of the strain off of parents who spend a lot of money bring up the people that will pay our pensions when we're old.
It's mainly for two things.
One. Reducing child poverty.
Two. Taking some of the strain off of parents who spend a lot of money bring up the people that will pay our pensions when we're old.
In reply to JoshOvki:
People will still try to improve their lives because no one, but no one, is suggesting that everyone should get exactly the same.
Nearly everyone agrees that the rich should pay more tax than the poor and there should be some form of benefits for those in need, but nobody is saying that they should pay so much that there's no longer a significant difference between the top and the bottom, or between different parts of the middle.....
It's bizarre that in this day and age intelligent, educated people still come out with this kind of simplistic, strawman nonsense. A sad reflection on our media.
People will still try to improve their lives because no one, but no one, is suggesting that everyone should get exactly the same.
Nearly everyone agrees that the rich should pay more tax than the poor and there should be some form of benefits for those in need, but nobody is saying that they should pay so much that there's no longer a significant difference between the top and the bottom, or between different parts of the middle.....
It's bizarre that in this day and age intelligent, educated people still come out with this kind of simplistic, strawman nonsense. A sad reflection on our media.
In reply to Donnie:
Did you even read the post Josh was replying to? It was suggesting exactly that.
> People will still try to improve their lives because no one, but no one, is suggesting that everyone should get exactly the same.
> It's bizarre that in this day and age intelligent, educated people still come out with this kind of simplistic, strawman nonsense. A sad reflection on our media.
Did you even read the post Josh was replying to? It was suggesting exactly that.
In reply to knthrak1982:
No. I just read Josh's post. But if someone's explained it to him already and he's still not got it, then there's no harm in trying again.
No. I just read Josh's post. But if someone's explained it to him already and he's still not got it, then there's no harm in trying again.
In reply to JoshOvki:
Your logic fails to consider that there are plenty of barmen who like being barmen and whose ambition of being a fantastic barman in the best bar in town is no less a sign of motivation than a lawyers motivation to be so good at his job that Satan will personally hire him.
Comparing how people would do if they swapped jobs is flawed too. I'm pretty sure that an accountant picked at random and an alpine guide picked at random would be equally horrendous at each others job despire the accountant probably being paid 4 times as much (though the alpine guide might at least survive his new job). There are any number of job pairings that similarly debunk the idea that "I could do that job so it shouldn't get paid very well".
Lastly, "penalising people based on how successful they are". Here you are confusing "penalising" with "not rewarding", "penalising" would be if I said "if you earn £120k per year and have a child, you need to pay an extra tax of £80 a month to the government to support that child", which isn't what I said.
I'm not sure you have thought through the full implication of what you wrote. By your logic, everyone up to and including Sir Alan Sugar should be able to claim housing benefit, the same would apply to many other sorts of benefits. Is that really what you are advocating??
> I imagine I could do a better job doing a barmans job than a barman could doing my job, but doesn't mean I work twice as hard as him. I don't agree with penalising people based on how successful they are, otherwise why would people bother trying to improve their lives instead of going along and being the same as the people that are less motivated.
Your logic fails to consider that there are plenty of barmen who like being barmen and whose ambition of being a fantastic barman in the best bar in town is no less a sign of motivation than a lawyers motivation to be so good at his job that Satan will personally hire him.
Comparing how people would do if they swapped jobs is flawed too. I'm pretty sure that an accountant picked at random and an alpine guide picked at random would be equally horrendous at each others job despire the accountant probably being paid 4 times as much (though the alpine guide might at least survive his new job). There are any number of job pairings that similarly debunk the idea that "I could do that job so it shouldn't get paid very well".
Lastly, "penalising people based on how successful they are". Here you are confusing "penalising" with "not rewarding", "penalising" would be if I said "if you earn £120k per year and have a child, you need to pay an extra tax of £80 a month to the government to support that child", which isn't what I said.
I'm not sure you have thought through the full implication of what you wrote. By your logic, everyone up to and including Sir Alan Sugar should be able to claim housing benefit, the same would apply to many other sorts of benefits. Is that really what you are advocating??
In reply to knthrak1982:
Ah, beg your pardon. Your saying that the guy was suggesting that everyone should be paid the same. Fair enough, the odd person is suggesting that.
But no political party worth the name, not even the Scottish socialists party, is seriously suggesting it. It's not within the range of political possibilities in this day and age.
Josh is defending child benefit for the rich on the grounds that they shouldn't be penalised for success. That's a rank rotten argument.
(Nb there are plenty of good arguments for universal benefits. Just not that one)
Ah, beg your pardon. Your saying that the guy was suggesting that everyone should be paid the same. Fair enough, the odd person is suggesting that.
But no political party worth the name, not even the Scottish socialists party, is seriously suggesting it. It's not within the range of political possibilities in this day and age.
Josh is defending child benefit for the rich on the grounds that they shouldn't be penalised for success. That's a rank rotten argument.
(Nb there are plenty of good arguments for universal benefits. Just not that one)
In reply to knthrak1982:
I wasn't suggesting that everyone get exactly the same. I was suggesting (perhaps not very clearly) that everyone _shouldn't_ get exactly the same!
I was suggesting that people who thought that everyone should get the same child benefit would find they didn't like the implications of their arguments if they applied them to anything much outside of child benefit.
> Did you even read the post Josh was replying to? It was suggesting exactly that.
I wasn't suggesting that everyone get exactly the same. I was suggesting (perhaps not very clearly) that everyone _shouldn't_ get exactly the same!
I was suggesting that people who thought that everyone should get the same child benefit would find they didn't like the implications of their arguments if they applied them to anything much outside of child benefit.
In reply to henwardian:
Well if they like being barmen and want to carry on doing that they shouldn't bitch and moan about someone earning 10 times as much as them for being more ambitious about earning money.
But neither an alpine guide or accountant earn minimum wage which is what your argument is. A alpine guide might get paid 3 times as much as your metaphorical barman but still not work 3 times as hard in someone elses eyes, so they shouldn't get paid 3 times as much (by your argument).
But that is exactly what you are doing with:
Maybe I haven't thought it through fully, however what what I would like is a fair society. What makes someone that earns £60k less deserving of child benefits than two people earning £30k?
However I would like to see people that put more financial help into society getting something back, other than a warm fuzzy feeling.
Well if they like being barmen and want to carry on doing that they shouldn't bitch and moan about someone earning 10 times as much as them for being more ambitious about earning money.
But neither an alpine guide or accountant earn minimum wage which is what your argument is. A alpine guide might get paid 3 times as much as your metaphorical barman but still not work 3 times as hard in someone elses eyes, so they shouldn't get paid 3 times as much (by your argument).
> There are any number of job pairings that similarly debunk the idea that "I could do that job so it shouldn't get paid very well".
But that is exactly what you are doing with:
> "If you can prove you work 10 times harder than someone behind the bar on a Friday night pouring 4 drinks at the same time constantly for 6 hours straight, then you can get 10 times the minimum wage."
Maybe I haven't thought it through fully, however what what I would like is a fair society. What makes someone that earns £60k less deserving of child benefits than two people earning £30k?
However I would like to see people that put more financial help into society getting something back, other than a warm fuzzy feeling.
Post edited at 18:45
In reply to JoshOvki:
Even people on the right (intelligent people, not the thickie right) know that the state has to redistribute resources to make society work. If we lived in a "what you put in you get out" society, then we'd be divided into ghettos of abject poverty and a defended, guarded elite who were under constant threat from the underclass. The redistribution system by which progressive taxation allows for the welfare state has the function of keeping those at the bottom from sinking into a choice between crime and starvation, while all allowing those who have the wherewithal to get rich to do so.
If you want to live in a society where everyone has a decent shot at life, which is what I call "fair", then you have to do some redistribution. The alternative is that people who are rich get the good education and healthcare and their children are successful; while people who are poor get crap education and healthcare and their children have no opportunities to get out of poverty and become an underclass.
What people on the right often fail to see is that redistribution provides them with a more healthy, more equal society where things work and they're not under threat. The art of tax and spend is that everyone gets their money's worth - and that doesn't mean that those who put more into the state take more out.
> However I would like to see people that put more financial help into society getting something back, other than a warm fuzzy feeling.
Even people on the right (intelligent people, not the thickie right) know that the state has to redistribute resources to make society work. If we lived in a "what you put in you get out" society, then we'd be divided into ghettos of abject poverty and a defended, guarded elite who were under constant threat from the underclass. The redistribution system by which progressive taxation allows for the welfare state has the function of keeping those at the bottom from sinking into a choice between crime and starvation, while all allowing those who have the wherewithal to get rich to do so.
If you want to live in a society where everyone has a decent shot at life, which is what I call "fair", then you have to do some redistribution. The alternative is that people who are rich get the good education and healthcare and their children are successful; while people who are poor get crap education and healthcare and their children have no opportunities to get out of poverty and become an underclass.
What people on the right often fail to see is that redistribution provides them with a more healthy, more equal society where things work and they're not under threat. The art of tax and spend is that everyone gets their money's worth - and that doesn't mean that those who put more into the state take more out.
Post edited at 22:54
In reply to JoshOvki:
I doubt most would disagree, it is a dogs dinner of a policy.
They get a stable society that enables them to make money, raise a family etc with a large degree of security.
> Maybe I haven't thought it through fully, however what what I would like is a fair society. What makes someone that earns £60k less deserving of child benefits than two people earning £30k?
I doubt most would disagree, it is a dogs dinner of a policy.
> However I would like to see people that put more financial help into society getting something back, other than a warm fuzzy feeling.
They get a stable society that enables them to make money, raise a family etc with a large degree of security.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
And what people on the left often fail to understand is that if your redistribution starts to redistribute a bit too much you create perverse incentives which actually exacerbate the problems you were seeking to address in the first place.
> What people on the right often fail to see is that redistribution provides them with a more healthy, more equal society where things work and they're not under threat. >
And what people on the left often fail to understand is that if your redistribution starts to redistribute a bit too much you create perverse incentives which actually exacerbate the problems you were seeking to address in the first place.
In reply to pec:
Yeah I agree with that. It's an incredibly difficult balance to strike, particularly with respect to welfare. The drawback of no child growing up in poverty is a cushy life for dole scum. A very difficult circle to square.
The trouble is that no one's going to be honest about this. The left will paint all of the poor as downtrodden, honest and needing support while the right will paint them as lazy and with a sense of entitlement to a massive flat screen telly. There's bullshit wherever you look, but that which stinks the most is the line that if you cut tax for the rich they'll thank you by being more productive (and give up more to the treasury voluntarily?) while if you cut benefits for the poor they'll suddenly all go and find a job in factory (call centre?).
> And what people on the left often fail to understand is that if your redistribution starts to redistribute a bit too much you create perverse incentives which actually exacerbate the problems you were seeking to address in the first place.
Yeah I agree with that. It's an incredibly difficult balance to strike, particularly with respect to welfare. The drawback of no child growing up in poverty is a cushy life for dole scum. A very difficult circle to square.
The trouble is that no one's going to be honest about this. The left will paint all of the poor as downtrodden, honest and needing support while the right will paint them as lazy and with a sense of entitlement to a massive flat screen telly. There's bullshit wherever you look, but that which stinks the most is the line that if you cut tax for the rich they'll thank you by being more productive (and give up more to the treasury voluntarily?) while if you cut benefits for the poor they'll suddenly all go and find a job in factory (call centre?).
Post edited at 23:41
In reply to JoshOvki:
Childcare could be a big part of the cost difference, if you have very young children and you want to encourage (mainly) mothers to go back to work before their careers suffer, then the childcare is expensive.
If one partner is earning over 60K then they may decide one can afford to stay home and zero the childcare costs.
Childcare for a 12 month kid is a few hundred quid a week, many mothers go back to work even though the childcare eats their earnings, to maintain some sense of a career structure.
> Maybe I haven't thought it through fully, however what what I would like is a fair society. What makes someone that earns £60k less deserving of child benefits than two people earning £30k?
Childcare could be a big part of the cost difference, if you have very young children and you want to encourage (mainly) mothers to go back to work before their careers suffer, then the childcare is expensive.
If one partner is earning over 60K then they may decide one can afford to stay home and zero the childcare costs.
Childcare for a 12 month kid is a few hundred quid a week, many mothers go back to work even though the childcare eats their earnings, to maintain some sense of a career structure.
In reply to Donnie:
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070827104906/uncyclopedia/images/5/52/...
> One. Reducing child poverty.
> Two. Taking some of the strain off of parents who spend a lot of money bring up the people that will pay our pensions when we're old.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070827104906/uncyclopedia/images/5/52/...
In reply to JoshOvki:
You seem to be very much a "money is everything" type of person and unable to look past the ultimate expression of capitalism as the way everything should work. I suggest you read Jon Stewarts post make at 22:51 to get a better idea of why society does not work when you allow everyone who has money the unrestricted ability to remove more and more from those who don't have very much of it.
This was in regard to your assertion that you earn more than the barman because you could do his job and he could not do yours. My point was that your argument falls down badly if you start picking different professions other than [whatever you are, what is that btw?] and a barman. An average accountant will get paid a lot more than the average mountain guide, both are very skilled jobs that require many years of training and neither would have any hope of doing the others job (although I fancy the guides chances a bit more than the accountant). The pay get for a job does not depend on how hard it is to do that job, I'll add a couple more examples so you don't just consider this an exception:
PostDoc research workers get a paltry £20k or so per year despite having two degrees and a level of expertise in their field often shared only by a handful of people in the entire world.
Bankers get an enormous salary and bonus pay even when they prove that they are not even able to do their own jobs, nevermind anyone elses.
You have misunderstood this by taking it out of context. Apparently I wasn't being very clear, My reply to knthrak1982 explains this.
2 adults + 1 child = 3 people => £20k per person to live.
1 adult + 1 child = 2 people => £30k per person to live.
The person who earns £60k is £10k + £10k = £20k per year "less deserving of child benefit". Winhill gives a good social reason if you don't like the mathematical one.
See my comments above about ultimate capitalism.
> Well if they like being barmen and want to carry on doing that they shouldn't bitch and moan about someone earning 10 times as much as them for being more ambitious about earning money.
You seem to be very much a "money is everything" type of person and unable to look past the ultimate expression of capitalism as the way everything should work. I suggest you read Jon Stewarts post make at 22:51 to get a better idea of why society does not work when you allow everyone who has money the unrestricted ability to remove more and more from those who don't have very much of it.
> But neither an alpine guide or accountant earn minimum wage which is what your argument is. A alpine guide might get paid 3 times as much as your metaphorical barman but still not work 3 times as hard in someone elses eyes, so they shouldn't get paid 3 times as much (by your argument).
This was in regard to your assertion that you earn more than the barman because you could do his job and he could not do yours. My point was that your argument falls down badly if you start picking different professions other than [whatever you are, what is that btw?] and a barman. An average accountant will get paid a lot more than the average mountain guide, both are very skilled jobs that require many years of training and neither would have any hope of doing the others job (although I fancy the guides chances a bit more than the accountant). The pay get for a job does not depend on how hard it is to do that job, I'll add a couple more examples so you don't just consider this an exception:
PostDoc research workers get a paltry £20k or so per year despite having two degrees and a level of expertise in their field often shared only by a handful of people in the entire world.
Bankers get an enormous salary and bonus pay even when they prove that they are not even able to do their own jobs, nevermind anyone elses.
> But that is exactly what you are doing with:
[my words]You have misunderstood this by taking it out of context. Apparently I wasn't being very clear, My reply to knthrak1982 explains this.
> Maybe I haven't thought it through fully, however what what I would like is a fair society. What makes someone that earns £60k less deserving of child benefits than two people earning £30k?
2 adults + 1 child = 3 people => £20k per person to live.
1 adult + 1 child = 2 people => £30k per person to live.
The person who earns £60k is £10k + £10k = £20k per year "less deserving of child benefit". Winhill gives a good social reason if you don't like the mathematical one.
> However I would like to see people that put more financial help into society getting something back, other than a warm fuzzy feeling
See my comments above about ultimate capitalism.
In reply to stroppygob:
I don't really want to click that link.
Does it show someone lording it up on benefits?
If so, so what? Some people abuse the system. Cracking down on these people costs money and usually means hurting other people that are simply victims of bad luck. For example, their kids.
If you can do it at reasonable cost and without hurting unfortunate but innocent too much the smashing but you'll always have some people abusing the system.
I don't really want to click that link.
Does it show someone lording it up on benefits?
If so, so what? Some people abuse the system. Cracking down on these people costs money and usually means hurting other people that are simply victims of bad luck. For example, their kids.
If you can do it at reasonable cost and without hurting unfortunate but innocent too much the smashing but you'll always have some people abusing the system.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...