Jump to content

Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.


sailor0500

Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes, no and no.

Style, to avoid repetition. Why would it be an insult?

 

Why do you feel the entitlement to your handout should be treated differently to anyone else's entitled 'handout', such as Pension Benefit.

 

It's only an insult if you think the benefit you received isn't a handout, whereas everyone else's is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, haggis said:

Wandering slightly off topic, I have never really understood the reason for child benefit. Surely, a couple will have decided that they can afford to bring up a child before they have one so why should they be given a benefit? Housing benefits and other benefits for people with low incomes I can understand but why pay a couple to have children?  I am sure someone will be along to tell me why child benefit is necessary.

 

haggis

 

It's to make sure that when the time comes and you claim your benefits, or as others here call them, 'handouts', there will someone creating the wealth and paying taxes for them.

 

Plus when our time comes for our bums need wiping for us there will be young workers out there to do the deed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, haggis said:

Wandering slightly off topic, I have never really understood the reason for child benefit. Surely, a couple will have decided that they can afford to bring up a child before they have one so why should they be given a benefit? Housing benefits and other benefits for people with low incomes I can understand but why pay a couple to have children?  I am sure someone will be along to tell me why child benefit is necessary.

 

haggis

I certainly seems inappropriate being not means tested. Ditto Scottish baby boxes! But I think these days, you only get child benefit for the first two. Which seems reasonable. By two, one should have worked out what is causing it!

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, canals are us? said:

Around 3 years ago I was Unemployed and got £71.40 a week JSA. I applied for HB for residential mooring and Boat licence and after 5 months of hassle got awarded £45 a week. £40 was the mooring fee cost. It didn't cover the £740 licence fee or the £150 for boat insurance.

 

Thankfully my Nan paid the mooring fees and license fees and I used the back pay from HB to pay the license fee from then on and 18 months later after applying for dozens of jobs and several interviews found work at £7.40 an hour doing Property Maintenane.

 

3 years later I'm self employed and earn anything from 8-10,000 a year, much less than working for others, but I manage to pay the bills and am contented and like the variety of work. I get working tax credits of £36.82 a week so use that for food. There is just myself and I have no children. 

 

I felt great when I went into the job centre and signed off.

 

James.    

Well done. No one I know wants benefits, but for some such as pensioners who did not have the chance to build up a pension pot there is no alternative. Once again well done.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

I certainly seems inappropriate being not means tested. Ditto Scottish baby boxes! But I think these days, you only get child benefit for the first two. Which seems reasonable. By two, one should have worked out what is causing it!

 

I find means testing abhorent. I can't think of any better way of discouraging extra hours worked or self improvement.

 

Lets take a typical example of a family with children.

Lets assume one partner has the opportuity of an £10 increase in pay.

They get stopped 12% NI, 20% Income Tax, and 38% reduction in tax credits. That leaves £3

They go to the local council and they reduce HB by 60% of £3 and CTB by 25% of £3

That leaves 45p.

 

No wonder this country is a mess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, haggis said:

Wandering slightly off topic, I have never really understood the reason for child benefit. Surely, a couple will have decided that they can afford to bring up a child before they have one so why should they be given a benefit? Housing benefits and other benefits for people with low incomes I can understand but why pay a couple to have children? 

 

Child Benefit is (or at least was) always paid to the mother, unlike other benefits. This was supposed to ensure that the mother (who almost always has the child care responsibility) had some money of her own to feed the children, even if the father frittered/boozed away his earnings. Perhaps an outdated view of family dynamics now, but apparently not uncommon when the system was set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mikexx said:

 

I find means testing abhorent. I can't think of any better way of discouraging extra hours worked or self improvement.

 

Lets take a typical example of a family with children.

Lets assume one partner has the opportuity of an £10 increase in pay.

They get stopped 12% NI, 20% Income Tax, and 38% reduction in tax credits. That leaves £3

They go to the local council and they reduce HB by 60% of £3 and CTB by 25% of £3

That leaves 45p.

 

No wonder this country is a mess!

Yes it has its problems. But on the other hand, why should people earning £100k or more get child benefit? Or Baby boxes if they live in Scotland.

 

Of course it would be much better if employers had to pay a wage that one could reasonably live on. As I said, government designed in-work benefits mean that isn’t the case, hence zero hours contracts and a minimum wage you can’t live on. But of course we all like buying super cheap stuff from Amazon, having services that are dirt cheap eg phone and internet. In fact generally, you don’t hear consumers clamouring for price increases so the minimum-wage employees can be paid more. Consumers tend to head for the cheapest source of something, so the employer who pays the least wages is the successful one.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Child Benefit is (or at least was) always paid to the mother, unlike other benefits. This was supposed to ensure that the mother (who almost always has the child care responsibility) had some money of her own to feed the children, even if the father frittered/boozed away his earnings. Perhaps an outdated view of family dynamics now, but apparently not uncommon when the system was set up.

It still goes to the principle carer for the children. Therefore there are instances where a male looks after the children and received child benefit, but they are naturally the exception rather than the norm.

 

Of course if one is a higher rate tax payer then there is a complicated calculation in reducing Child Benefit. In some instances it is reduced faster than the increase in pay, resulting in a net tax rate of higher than 100%.

 

I guess its called means testing and is a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think most people would prefer to earn a wage that pays them enough to live on, rather like it did when i started working fifty years ago.  Sadly, this is in most cases  not the way it works, as anyone who has kids struggling to make their way knows well.  Housing benefit is needed because virtually all council housing got sold off and ended up in the hands of private landlords, who could raise rents as much as they wanted because the government essentially paid (and still does) the bit of the rent that the renter couldn't afford.  It was an "unintended consequence" of the Tory concept that homeowners voted Conservative - worked out well, because landlords even more so.

Works exactly the same as letting employers pay crap wages because the Government makes up the difference with tax credits - one's a subsidy to landlords, the other to employers.  What neither of them are is a "benefit" or a handout to the person receiving it - all the benefit, and the handout,  goes to the aforesaid landlord or employer.

Precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Yes it has its problems. But on the other hand, why should people earning £100k or more get child benefit? Or Baby boxes if they live in Scotland.

 

 

I would prefer a simple system, where thousands of civil servants hadn't been hired to look after the new nefarious rules about Child Benefit.

 

The old system was simple, and anyone on £100k would be paying 41% or more tax on their wages. That more than made up for the Child Benefit payments.

2 minutes ago, sailor0500 said:

Precisely.

 What is the alternative where the country's landscape has changed so much through cheap labour and a massive increase in demand for housing?

 

A sort of double whammy for so many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mikexx said:

 

I would prefer a simple system, where thousands of civil servants hadn't been hired to look after the new nefarious rules about Child Benefit.

 

The old system was simple, and anyone on £100k would be paying 41% or more tax on their wages. That more than made up for the Child Benefit payments.

Just thinking back to when the basic rate of tax was 35%. Think it was under Harrold Wilson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ah yes the anonymous 'they'. Who is it that created this iniquitous society where those at the bottom of the heap needed help? When did it start? I think it has always been thus. 

Probably, but lets start with the Tories and work down...

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I certainly seems inappropriate being not means tested. Ditto Scottish baby boxes! But I think these days, you only get child benefit for the first two. Which seems reasonable. By two, one should have worked out what is causing it!

 

But what happens if you have triplets, quads, etc? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, haggis said:

Wandering slightly off topic, I have never really understood the reason for child benefit. Surely, a couple will have decided that they can afford to bring up a child before they have one so why should they be given a benefit? Housing benefits and other benefits for people with low incomes I can understand but why pay a couple to have children?  I am sure someone will be along to tell me why child benefit is necessary.

 

haggis

When we had our son there was no child benefit for the first one, only for the second and any subsequent..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wanted said:

You don't understand the system.

  • Unemployed can claim full housing benefit
  • Employed on low income can claim some housing benefit  

The bastard bosses, led by the champions of capitalist oppression have been allowed to employ people on a wage that is considerably lower than they charge rent for. The really sick twist in it all is that they have been fully successful in fooling us all into believing that those that need to claim are lazy and work shy. It's not a hand out, it's just paying back.

 

  

What about the bosses whose parents were married?

 

And what about the capitalist oppressors who weren’t the best at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pearley said:

When we had our son there was no child benefit for the first one, only for the second and any subsequent..

Yes that's how we had it. Things change over the years and I reckon I could claim now being a pauper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Yes that's how we had it. Things change over the years and I reckon I could claim now being a pauper.

Do you think you could still manage to father another child? If so get on with it, it’s very lucrative! Maybe you still have some of those little blue pills somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

Do you think you could still manage to father another child? If so get on with it, it’s very lucrative! Maybe you still have some of those little blue pills somewhere?

Id need more than little blue pills u old part. I had the chop in 1985 ?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Id need more than little blue pills u old part. I had the chop in 1985 ?

Lamb or pork?

 

or should I say “chopped which bit?” Is this why you are known as Mrs Melly?

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Lamb or pork?

 

or should I say “chopped which bit?” Is this why you are known as Mrs Melly?

They used two bricks.....it only hurts if you get your thumbs in between ....the oldest ones are the best ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, haggis said:

Wandering slightly off topic, I have never really understood the reason for child benefit. Surely, a couple will have decided that they can afford to bring up a child before they have one so why should they be given a benefit? Housing benefits and other benefits for people with low incomes I can understand but why pay a couple to have children?  I am sure someone will be along to tell me why child benefit is necessary.

 

haggis

Originally, the point was that it was a benefit paid to the mother for the children byepassing the perilous journey home from the pay office counter past the pub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, pearley said:

When we had our son there was no child benefit for the first one, only for the second and any subsequent..

I think the rate for the second child was £20 a YEAR and it was taxable. 

 

haggis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.