Sponsored by
Letter: Child benefit figures don’t add up
The coalition government has decided to stop paying child benefit to better-off families.
This letter is nothing to do with the principle, it is to do with the evil way it is to be instituted.
By Mr Cameron’s definition, well-off families where one person earns more than £42,000 will lose child benefit.
However, if there are two or more earning less than £42,000 then they keep the benefit.
So by this new definition of maths, in home economics a family unit with £42,000 disposable income is better off than a family with £43,000 or more.
On three occasions I have written to my MP Mr Vara asking him to explain this.
I have also asked him if all the schools should now teach the new law of home economics explained above.
Mr Vara has not replied. Perhaps The ET could ask him? Perhaps The ET should enquire from him if this new law should be noted in our school text books?
R.Moshy
Dry Leys
Peterborough
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Peterborough
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 20 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 5 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Lazy Daisy
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 08:20 AMIf an edit function was available I would have edited to say... scrap child benefit "for school age children".
Lazy Daisy
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 08:17 AMWhy not scrap child benefit altogether and offer instead free school meals (breakfast and lunch), free school uniforms and free holiday playschemes (including lunch) in council run schools?
Dalek Sec
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 05:13 PMA cap is fine in theory - but the duel-earnings loophole is very odd - the sort of loophpole a schoolboy politician will have missed - for a government to miss it is very worrying. The real answer to the benefits problem is to stop making people redundant through pointless cuts - and, don't forget, thousands who used to claim sickness benefit will be competing with those who have lost their job soon too - not to mention "squeezed" families who previously "got by2 on one wage. things are going to get much, much worse.
Bumbleb33
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 04:00 PMLets not forget that that £42k is gross income not nett, so therefore a family with one breadwinner earning say £50 a year over that limit, after tax will be taking home about £33k. They will not be entitled to the myriad of benefits raked in by those on the very generous benefits our society seems to chuck at people who breed for a living. Not everybody with more than 2 children does it for the benfits. Some of us work hard for what we've got and have to budget. I agree with the op that the logic of the cuts is ridiculous. What I'd like to know is this: If a family has an earner over the limit, say through overtime, then loses that overtime. Will they have to reapply for child benefit. wouldn't it be easier for the system to work the same way as the tax credit system, whereby you are assessed once a year? Of course, this won't affect the spongers who are getting over £26k a year on benefits already!
rebel woman
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 02:36 PMThe idea of a cap is good in principal but not fair on those where there is only one earner. I must say though that to have a household income of 40k would be just a dream for us so cannot understand whay they moan. I would propose something that I have said for years now, that child benefit should only be paid for 2 children . The benefit should always go to the mother unless dad has sole parental responsibilty. If you are not careful the dad would claim for some children and the mother would claim for the rest
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.