Child benefit is a payment to the mother of the child, not to the family unit. The intention is for the other to use it to look after the child with. That's the history.
Modern reality might be different.
But I do question why those earning higher wages should be punished by not having the benefit for their child.
Doesn't seem particularly moral that the more you earn because you are a success that somehow you are not entitled to something which is targeted at the child not the family income - historically.
If you're self employed (or small firm and can set policy) there is quite a good dodge for paying for child care out of income tax commitments.
If you're a 40% or 50% tax payer, effectively you can offset the entire child care against income tax depending on it's cost and as long as your take home doesn't go below minimum wage. But it's open to anyone that meets the T&C, just less savings.
By assigning the child care as the provision for the workplace.
Kezzieboy: well apart from forcing people to work sounds a bit like a 'work camp' to me
So you're happy for people to doss about, contribute nothing to society but be a burden on it ?
You're thinking about it the wrong way. It's not a work camp. It's a guarantee of payment in lieu of work. ie It's a job.
It's not compulsory. It's not "slave labour". It pays, just like a job.
But if you choose not to do the job, then we choose not to give you any money.
Please explain why you feel that is somehow unfair ?
RetroPug: We have become a nation of do/buy first, justify financially later, as evidenced by 40 pound per month phone contracts, buying 50" TVs on finance, buying brand new cars on finance that cost a full year's wages in many cases etc. etc.
I saved hard for a decade to buy a house, having seen that we were heading for a crash as things got out of control.
Only to find when the crash did come that the govt did all they could to prop up the housing market as it was realised just how far down this debt road the nation had truly gone. I've effectively been punished for doing the right thing and saving up.
The house we bought the previous owners earned 10k a year in equity in the 9 years they owned it. That's ridiculous and it clearly a sign things were out of control. But debt made a nation happy and the govt played along to be popular.
It's an ex council house. Some of the houses in the road are still council owned.
Including one with a family that drive a 13 plate Q7 and just got a 14 plate Skoda as the second car.
Good to see the council in recent weeks fitting new double glazing and boilers to all these houses.
Glad I'm subsidizing these fsckers whilst having to pay for my own boiler (which I legally have to pay someone else to do a piss poor job of fitting) and glazing too.
Round the corner they built a slew of new houses over an old nursing home. All of them are local authority rentals.
All of them have newer (as in fairly recent, most likely on finance) cars as the daily.
Priorities seem a bit odd really.
Modern reality might be different.
But I do question why those earning higher wages should be punished by not having the benefit for their child.
Doesn't seem particularly moral that the more you earn because you are a success that somehow you are not entitled to something which is targeted at the child not the family income - historically.
If you're self employed (or small firm and can set policy) there is quite a good dodge for paying for child care out of income tax commitments.
If you're a 40% or 50% tax payer, effectively you can offset the entire child care against income tax depending on it's cost and as long as your take home doesn't go below minimum wage. But it's open to anyone that meets the T&C, just less savings.
By assigning the child care as the provision for the workplace.
Kezzieboy: well apart from forcing people to work sounds a bit like a 'work camp' to me
So you're happy for people to doss about, contribute nothing to society but be a burden on it ?
You're thinking about it the wrong way. It's not a work camp. It's a guarantee of payment in lieu of work. ie It's a job.
It's not compulsory. It's not "slave labour". It pays, just like a job.
But if you choose not to do the job, then we choose not to give you any money.
Please explain why you feel that is somehow unfair ?
RetroPug: We have become a nation of do/buy first, justify financially later, as evidenced by 40 pound per month phone contracts, buying 50" TVs on finance, buying brand new cars on finance that cost a full year's wages in many cases etc. etc.
I saved hard for a decade to buy a house, having seen that we were heading for a crash as things got out of control.
Only to find when the crash did come that the govt did all they could to prop up the housing market as it was realised just how far down this debt road the nation had truly gone. I've effectively been punished for doing the right thing and saving up.
The house we bought the previous owners earned 10k a year in equity in the 9 years they owned it. That's ridiculous and it clearly a sign things were out of control. But debt made a nation happy and the govt played along to be popular.
It's an ex council house. Some of the houses in the road are still council owned.
Including one with a family that drive a 13 plate Q7 and just got a 14 plate Skoda as the second car.
Good to see the council in recent weeks fitting new double glazing and boilers to all these houses.
Glad I'm subsidizing these fsckers whilst having to pay for my own boiler (which I legally have to pay someone else to do a piss poor job of fitting) and glazing too.
Round the corner they built a slew of new houses over an old nursing home. All of them are local authority rentals.
All of them have newer (as in fairly recent, most likely on finance) cars as the daily.
Priorities seem a bit odd really.