Monday, 4 October 2010

Think of the children

The government has decided to cut child support for those parents if either parent breaches the 40 and 50% tax bracket. That’s either – not both. So what you will have is one partner on £37,401 and another on say £20,000 (total £57,401) not receiving child credit, but those whose two incomes are below – both earning 37,399 (total £74,798) receiving child credit. Hardly fair but there we go. You’ll see people refusing pay rises as it messes up their child credit – just like Labour in the days of 98% income tax. Nevertheless despite the fact that I’m in the looser category I’m willing to loose this payment – although I believe it should have been means tested.

What I want in return for this is simple. I have to pay my way. The feral underclass squeezing kids out as fast as their ovaries can produce a new egg must also pay. At the present time what happens is the woman claims she is living alone and gets full benefit. Her partner/Ed Miliband claims he is living somewhere else and also gets full credit. They don’t put the fathers name on the birth certificate so there is no link between the father and the child and welfare pays out double. What the government should do is make it law that a fathers name appears on the birth certificate and if he’s not living with the woman in question cut his benefits. This would force fathers to be a part of their child’s live and might give the child in question a shot at not being a fuckup.

For the first time since these payments have been introduced, the idea of the universal state sucking everybody on the costly tit of government has been challenged. And I for one welcome the contortions that will be required by ZanuLabour defending their ideological commitment to ever increasing state interference in your life with having to support tax credits for millionaires. Petty politics I grant you but nevertheless rather funny.



4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a deliberate plan to destroy capitalism. Pad the welfare and entitlement rolls until the system collapses all in the name of "saving the children."

What percentage of the population is on government assistance? If it is over 50%, you guys are fucked. We are getting close to that percentage ourselves. That is why many are taking to the streets with peaceful protests trying to get americans to put down their bag of chips and turn off American Idol and understand what is going on before it is too late.

Onus Probandy said...

"although I believe it should have been means tested."

Would you still believe it should be means tested if that meant the creation of a whole new raft of employees to administer it? Would you still believe it should be means tested if the cost of those employees was more than the amount being saved by making the cut?

I have no inside knowledge as to whether that's the case, but I do like the simplicity of this rule, and the implications for cost reduction.

I would be delighted if we had a chancellor who took an overall view of costs rather than the wallpaper-bubble-chasing that we've had previously.

Anonymous said...

What about linking it to council tax banding?

I don't actually know, but i would have thought that is a better way of deciding who doesnt need it, without burocratic means testing.

Hollando said...

I believe that you have to add on the tax free personal allowance to calculate when people start paying the higher bracket - i.e. £37,401 + £6,475 = £43,876

Your point stands though, just at the higher figure

There was an error in this gadget