Donate SIGN UP

So The Higher Earners Lose Child Benefit

Avatar Image
dotty. | 23:08 Sun 06th Jan 2013 | ChatterBank
11 Answers
this is the start, they'll lower the threshold next then keep lowering it until less and less people have child benefit.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 11 of 11rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by dotty.. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I see no reason for a government to be paying it unless the country has a low population crisis, which we certainly don't have. Better it is withdrawn and the subsidy redirected to new business, health care and employment.

Question Author
for those in employment that have not had a pay rise for a few years but have seen the cost of living go up and up, that would not be a popular idea
//for those in employment that have not had a pay rise for a few years but have seen the cost of living go up and up, that would not be a popular idea//

irrelevant if they don't have children
Question Author
well obviously jane lol
I remember when people only had children if they could afford them, seems like a good idea to me!
"So the higher earners lose child benefit" and quite right too. My friend's husband earns £100,000+ pa and her child benefit goes towards paying the Nanny.
There has always been controversy in Parliament regarding family allowance or child benefit ,as it is now called. When it was introduced in the 1940s ,if one parent was working then you didn't get the 5/-a week for the first child. You only got it for the second and each of the subsequent children. By the 1950s the amount had risen to 8/- weekly.It was a very welcome addition to the household income and we were very grateful to receive it . Back in those days we did not regard ''benefits'' as a right.
as an OAP and just about scraping by I fail to see how people cannot "manage" on £50,000 a year ! they could if they changed their lifestyle as we had to.
// I remember when people only had children if they could afford them, seems like a good idea to me! //

Child Benefit is paying for lazy mothers on Benefits who want to stay at home and get paid for popping out more Benefit scroungers. The government should only allow unemployed people child benefit for two children -this way those who stay at home and fund their online Bingo by having kid after kid and getting paid by the government would have to go buy contraception instead.
-- answer removed --
Question Author
In the early 1960's my parents had 4 children under 5, Dad, as a farm labourer in a tied cottage earned £9 a week, the money mum got from family allowance paid for our clothes and shoes. Don't think mum ever went anywhere until we were all at school and then it was only to the secondary modern school for evening classes to learn how to sew properly to make us 3 girls dresses. When my youngest sister started school in 1965 mum started work as a part time farm labourer on a neighbouring farm that had arable crops that needed lots of hands. She worked in all weathers and we were able eventually to have a week's holiday in a caravan in 1966. Luxury.

1 to 11 of 11rss feed

Do you know the answer?

So The Higher Earners Lose Child Benefit

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.