[quote][b]David Cameron has said the decision to remove child benefit from better-off families is "the right approach".[/b]
He told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show "85% of families" would get the payments in "exactly the way they do now".
The prime minister also said the government was "absolutely right" to limit most working age benefits to a 1% rise, which will be the subject of a Commons vote on Tuesday.
Labour's Ed Balls called the child benefit changes "perverse".
Mr Cameron's comments come ahead of the coalition's mid-term review on Monday.
Changes coming into effect from Monday will see families with one parent earning more than £50,000 lose part of their child benefit.
It will be fully withdrawn where one parent earns above £60,000.
[b]'Fundamentally fair'[/b]
Defending the policy, Mr Cameron said: "I'm not saying those people are rich, but I think it is right that they make a contribution.
"This will raise £2bn a year. If we don't raise that £2bn from that group of people - the better off 15% in the country - we would have to find someone else to take it from."
He added: "I think people see it as fundamentally fair that if there is someone in the household earning over £60,000 you don't get child benefit... I think it is the right approach."
Asked about government plans to cap working age benefits at 1% - including the rise in the pay of public sector workers, out-of-work benefits, and tax credits - Mr Cameron said "those are all in my view absolutely right decisions".
"We need to control public sector pay... we need to limit the growth of welfare payments overall - and that must include the tax credit system, and for those out of work it's right that their incomes aren't going up faster than people in work."
The prime minister also insisted the government was going "full steam ahead" with a packed agenda in the second half of its term.
[b]In the wide-ranging interview, Mr Cameron made a number of major points, including:[/b]
[quote]- He promised British voters they would be offered a "real choice" on Europe at the next election
- On the economy, he said it was vital for a country to be able to pay its debts - maintaining "a low rate of interest" so it could borrow money cheaply
- He said he was "absolutely determined" to overhaul the deportation system so the radical cleric Abu Qatada and others could be deported from the UK before they appeal
- The prime minister also said he was "absolutely clear" Britain would defend the Falkland Islands in the face of mounting pressure from Argentina
[b]- He also confirmed he wanted to remain prime minister until 2020[/b][/quote]
[b]'No pleasure'[/b]
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Chancellor George Osborne said he took "no great pleasure" in reducing people's benefits but that it was needed to ensure a "brighter future".
Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps told the BBC's World at One: "I have three children I've filled in the form. I totally understand and get how frustrating these things are."
Mr Balls, Labour's shadow chancellor, told Sky News the changes to child benefits were "perverse".
"It's a complete shambles," he said.
"We're going to have many many hundreds of thousands of people who will end end up filing in tax returns because they didn't realise they were supposed to apply by today not to get the child benefit.
"I've always supported a principled approach to the welfare state which we would call progressive universalism."
[/quote]
Source: BBC News ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20924581[/url])
I'm no fan of cuts. But if just a single parent is earning £60,000 a year alone, I really doubt you're in much need of financial assistance.
It's so stupid, if one parent earns £50,000 they lose their child benefit, but if two parents earn a £40,000 each, thus £80,000 over all, they get to keep their child benefit.
I'm sorry but whoever wrote this idea up is a moron.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39123205]I'm no fan of cuts. But if just a single parent is earning £60,000 a year alone, I really doubt you're in much need of financial assistance.[/QUOTE]
Depends on how many kids you have.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39123227]
Depends on how many kids you have.[/QUOTE]
You would need a lot of kids to struggle on £60k a year.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
You are right that it should be based on total household income not individual parents though.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39123205]I'm no fan of cuts. But if just a single parent is earning £60,000 a year alone, I really doubt you're in much need of financial assistance.[/QUOTE]
For people in America, 60k Pounds is about 98k dollars
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
You don't need benefits if you're making that much.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;39123278]You would need a lot of kids to struggle on £60k a year.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
You are right that it should be based on total household income not individual parents though.[/QUOTE]
Should've been based on the household income among the adults, and the amount of children.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39123287]For people in America, 60k Pounds is about 98k dollars
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
You don't need benefits if you're making that much.[/QUOTE]
And if you do you're terrible with money.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39123227]Depends on how many kids you have.[/QUOTE]
I guess it does. Kids are expensive as fuck.
I live in a six figure gross income household that barely stays afloat. Problem is, tax man eats us alive. After small business expenses, we may pull in 20 or 30k before taxes.
Remember folks, save up your money and form an s corp before you hit tax critical mass or uncle Sam will eat you alive.
Pretty sure the tax still takes away most of what they earn anyway. Probably more if self-employed because the income comes from their business. Not very fair on all jobs to be honest. If I were a landlord earning £5000 a month from my properties I'd still have to pay off the mortgages on them costing around £4000 a month on top of food bills and raising a family I'd say that kind of person deserves a child benefit.
Of course some who earn £50,000 + probably get to save most of that so should lose the benefit. This is very confusing...
[QUOTE=squids_eye;39123278]You would need a lot of kids to struggle on £60k a year.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
You are right that it should be based on total household income not individual parents though.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but they also pay higher rate income tax, meaning overall they only get about £30k per year.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39123287]For people in America, 60k Pounds is about 98k dollars
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
You don't need benefits if you're making that much.[/QUOTE]The cost of living is different between the two countries so it's not as simple as running a conversion on Google. Also if you earn 60k in the UK you'll only get roughly 40k (65k USD) after taxes.
If someone is responsible though that [B]should[/B] be enough money but the issue is a lot of people have children they cannot afford.
[QUOTE=Emz;39124336]The cost of living is different between the two countries so it's not as simple as running a conversion on Google. Also if you earn 60k in the UK you'll only get roughly 40k (65k USD) after taxes.
If someone is responsible though that [B]should[/B] be enough money but the issue is a lot of people have children they cannot afford.[/QUOTE]
Then maybe they shouldn't have been idiots and weep what they sow
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39123438]I live in a six figure gross income household that barely stays afloat. Problem is, tax man eats us alive. After small business expenses, we may pull in 20 or 30k before taxes.
Remember folks, save up your money and form an s corp before you hit tax critical mass or uncle Sam will eat you alive.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why my parents pay 40% in taxes, my dads a head waiter at a hotel and my mom works in the mta. Together they pull in 200k because of tips and all that but half of it is NJ taxes, school, and house payments.
boo
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39123646]Yeah but they also pay higher rate income tax, meaning overall they only get about £30k per year.[/QUOTE]
Just over £41,000 and liable to rise, for the last year, because of the tax free allowance and the fact not all their money is taxed at 40% - only their earnings over the threshold are. In fact, it would be about £45K a year, but they pay National Insurance on top.
They probably would be slightly worse off next year, as the 40% band is shifting down £2K whilst the personal tax allowance is shifting up only by 1%, and that's without the loss of child benefit, but they're not going to be too bad off.
The household income thing is a swizz though - why not base it off that and not just if there is a high earner?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39123227]It's so stupid, if one parent earns £50,000 they lose their child benefit, but if two parents earn a £40,000 each, thus £80,000 over all, they get to keep their child benefit.[/QUOTE]
This could be a simple marriage benefit. That is, if you make a married couple(40k + 40k) pay what a single person(80K) would pay, you've done a risky thing. You've made it more profitable for that couple to separate, so that they still make the 80K combined but now only pay at the 40k rate for a single parent.
By allowing married people a higher ceiling on earnings, you encourage two parent households. Ultimately this is preferential. Single parents can do it, with hard work and dedication. But all things being equal, a married couple simply can draw on more resources raising a family, society is smart to encourage that.
The dumbass religious types ruin it though, by making marriage seem like more of a moral issue rather than simply smart social policy.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39124389]Then maybe they shouldn't have been idiots and weep what they sow[/QUOTE]
You realize child benefits are, you know, for the benefit of children right?
Why should children have to suffer because of their parents' questionable decisions/financial hardships they don't even understand?
I don't see why people earning that much should worry about about such a small amount of money. If you're earning something in the region of £1000 a week, is £23 really going to make a huge difference to you? So what if people with a higher combined income can get a bit more pocket change from the government, it sounds like quibbling to me.
90% of the population aren't going to be affected by this anyway.
I posted in a thread about child benefits a while back saying what most of you are saying here, and every reply I had was something along the lines of "cutting child benefit is punishing the children you're a dumbass" and a load of boxes?
Its like no thought at all goes into these proposals.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39126499]You realize child benefits are, you know, for the benefit of children right?
Why should children have to suffer because of their parents' questionable decisions/financial hardships they don't even understand?[/QUOTE]
If people aren't financially well-to-do or don't make adequate preparations beforehand, perhaps they shouldn't have children in the first place.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39132187]If people aren't financially well-to-do or don't make adequate preparations beforehand, perhaps they shouldn't have children in the first place.[/QUOTE]
That's a fantastic way to look at things! I'll tell the children that, I'm sure they'll understand now.
oh wait
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;39132214]That's a fantastic way to look at things! I'll tell the children that, I'm sure they'll understand now.
oh wait[/QUOTE]
Right, because I was totally saying that existing children can go fuck off.
If you're earning £50K+ and you think that having your child benefit cut/removed will impact on your child's well-being, then I think you seriously need to look at your finances.
How can you be living on a knife-edge with that amount of money coming in?
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39124389]Then maybe they shouldn't have been idiots and weep what they sow[/QUOTE]
I agree however part of me is conflicted because the issue with that is that the children suffer too and it wasn't their fault their parents were irresponsible.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39132187]If people aren't financially well-to-do or don't make adequate preparations beforehand, perhaps they shouldn't have children in the first place.[/QUOTE]
people aren't perfect, thats why we have the state to help
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39132187]If people aren't financially well-to-do or don't make adequate preparations beforehand, perhaps they shouldn't have children in the first place.[/QUOTE]
That'll be a great argument against child support benefits when time machines are invented.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39134567]That'll be a great argument against child support benefits when time machines are invented.[/QUOTE]
Very true, very true.
In cases of child support payments after a divorce it's always framed as parent vs. parent, and in cases of government child benefits it's always framed as taxpayer vs. parent.
At what point in either of these do the children get considered?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39132228]Right, because I was totally saying that existing children can go fuck off.[/QUOTE]
who gives a fuck about non-existing children obviously we're talking about existing children ffs
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
