Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Or so says David Cameron in reference to the burden now being placed upon higher income earners in relation to child benefit. But his words are meaningless - a bit like advertising slogans we see on a daily basis - "50% off (off what FCS?) and then a further 10% off" (easy to say when punters are unlikely to know what the stuff was being sold at in the first place) or "Thousands are coming back...." (to such-and-such utility company)
Not easy for who? Those having it taken away or the government for having to impose it? And yet we hear that bank bonuses must remain intact or we'll lose all these priceless individuals that shore up the existing ivory towers. If the government proceeds with these impositions then the banks must be seen to accept a strong dose of medecine too.
The trouble is that banks have been allowed (by both sets of Governments) to gain a position such that we ALL depend on their continuation, its not the fat cats that would suffer if the banks crash but the normal working families that need the banks to pr0cess their salaries, administer what little saving we may have, manage our mortgages etc.
Its right, in my view, that things like the child-benefit and other universal benefits for the more wealthy of us should be removed (don't forget the Blair asked Frank Fields to "Think The Unthinkable" about these and other benefits, then chickened out of implementing his proposals.
Doing nothing isn't an option. the previous bunch have screwed up our financial and manufacturing position (and by default allowed the banks to get away with financial malpractises that, I think, should have landed them in jail) such that we are close to being bankrupt.
The solutions are going to hurt - as they have in two previous such events following Labour governments, but they have to be done.
Then we will all rush off and re-elect the Labour Party 'cos the Tories are so nasty - and so the cycle will continue! (its a bugger being so old that you have lived through this many times 
)
I am in no way a religious type, But I seem to remember a story about a guy called Jesus, Where he threw all the money lenders out of the church.
For a guy who exists in biblical tales form so far in the past, He was very forward thinking, He could see the evil and the greed of these money traders.
So taking that into account nothing is new, We had the warning a long time ago.
Quote: Then we will all rush off and re-elect the Labour Party 'cos the Tories are so nasty
Absolutely spot on Brian, Basically nothing ever gets done, Or if it does, Its gets undone, I know its all supposed to be democracy at work, Trouble is its not really working for the people anymore......!!!
)))
There's always wedding photography on the weekends to bring in a few grand! 
It's "funny" when Cameron says things like "we all have to share the burden / do our bit" then justifies the child benefit cut with "it will only affect 15% of people"
Higher rate tax payers already put more into society than others, and yet are always the group that get screwed. Sure, there are people on over 100 grand who won't miss child benefit, but it will make a big difference to me.
Let's start instead by stopping benefits to the wasters in our society (and I know a fair few) who have everything paid for by "the state" (ie. the rest of us) and don't put anything in. And then bring back proper taxing for the super-rich.
Quote: Let's start instead by stopping benefits to the wasters in our society (and I know a fair few) who have everything paid for by "the state" (ie. the rest of us) and don't put anything in. And then bring back proper taxing for the super-rich.
As I understand it, tax avoidance by companies using offshore tax havens is costing the British taxpayer FAR more than benefit fraud
Part of me thinks that if you can successfully complete the paperwork to get the benefits, then that alone should entitle you to them
After being unemployed for 7 months I started a new job today (
hooray) however as I wasn’t full time unemployed (I found short term work about one week in eight) the hoops I would have had to jump through to get benefit would have been horrendous
Most live to their means and while it’ll be an adjustment for high earners to lose child benefit it’s the right thing to do but it must be part of the bigger scheme to review all claimants and all financial waste within the country
In principal, I agree that high earners should not be getting child benefit, but the proposal as it stands is flawed. A stay at home parent, whose partner earns £45k lose out, but a working couple each earning £40k (so £80k combined) continue to receive? That is simply wrong.
Bank bonus payments is a thorny issue. I believe that any bank in receipt of a government bailout should be barred from paying any bonuses until that debt is repaid in full. I also feel that bonus payments need to be drip fed, so that a degree of accountability remains after decisions have been taken. The bottom line is we, and by we I mean most of the western world, are in this mess because of a number of individuals running banks were allowed to abandon sound financial practice that had worked for generations, in the short term pursuit of immediate and personal gain. Greed.
As for benefits, I'm out of work at the moment and trying to "live" on £63 a week. Can anybody point me in the right direction towards £40k a year on benefits with house and car thrown in? If that exists, then I sure as hell can't find it!
If any person can ever receive on benefits more than they can earn on the minimum wage, then they are immediately in a trap. Therefore, I would cap ALL combined benefit payments to £215 a week maximum.
If a person cannot live on that, then why is that the minimum wage?
Perhaps someone could explain to me why exactly child benefit is paid at all? I mean seriously whoopi dooo you managed to have sex and now have children and you're getting money from the government because of it, seriously WHY???? Shouldn't parents be able to pay for their kids rather than receive government sponsorship and if you can't afford them then don't have them? I had a guy working for me who kept a book on how much overtime he had done each month so he didn't go over and affect his child benefit, how is that helpful to the company or economy? I'd worked hard to attain my management position and salary yet his benefit took his income above mine!
Many years ago you may remember you used to get tax relief on your mortgage but they took that away as it was felt it was unfair for those who couldn't afford their own house so how can child benefit be fair after all it's a personal lifestyle choice to have kids!! It seems if you're succesful and single you get well and truly screwed by the government so for those about to whinge, welcome to the real world. Rant over.
Quote: I had a guy working for me who kept a book on how much overtime he had done each month so he didn't go over and affect his child benefit,
Just a stab in the dark here but I suspect you mean Child tax Credits or Tax Credits? Which is a different thing altogether. Good to know you understand the financial situation of your emplyees. 
Quote: Good to know you understand the financial situation of your emplyees.
Quite frankly I couldn't care less Tax credits, Child Tax Credits or whatever are an unfair to those who have to work just as hard and receive nothing, I may as well have not bothered in school, got my girlfriend pregnant at 17, had 5 kids and sat back and watched it roll in.
If you are successfully and married with only one income you are taxed the same as a single person, but the non-income generating partner is not allowed to assign their tax allowance to the other partner. But for benefit reasons the tax paying partners income is considered. That is unfair as either you tax as a couple or as individuals. and so some couples earn more and pay less tax. So I would say married successful single income person is penalised more than you.
As for child benefit, it was a concession towards those people and part of the welfare provision. even those who do not have children, will benefit from taxes paid by those children in the future so you can debate if you need it or not. In the past there was a married person's allowance to encourage people to marry. It all depends on what governments wish to encourage/reward.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top