No, I don't believe that, nor do I think I have said that.
And I wasn't really arguing that means testing was neccessarily the way forward, I'd need to be bette informed to have a clear opinion on that. I don't believe I mentioned means testing, to be fair.

My point, my only point, really, was that at the moment it's clearly going to some people who don't need it and it wouldn't be a bad thing to find a solution to that. And not paying it to anyone in the higher tax bracket seems like a pretty good way to go about it from where I stand. As Username_Whatsit said earlier, yes, there may be a handful of people who feel an impact, but realistically, if you are paying the higher tax rate, there will be somewhere else you can save the money back.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 10:47, 1 reply)

So,
you want it to be restricted, based on income, but not means tested, and you don't think it has any bearing on the current deficit, but cite the current deficit as a motivation for restricting it?

2/10 - see me after school
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 10:51, closed)

That must be one of the most dull posts I have ever read.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 10:54, closed)

You should read the one above it.
Some worthy cunt arguing that people with more money don't need to be given as much as people with less.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 10:58, closed)

The people with more money
might just have worked for it.

I'm struggling with the 'given' bit. I know there's something wrong with that statement, but I'll sound like a raving Thatcherite if I get the wrong answer, which I'm not.
(username failed moderation, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:03, closed)

To be fair, this wasn't meant to be a serious contribution to the discussion, just a bad joke about how tedious and worthy I have been coming across in this thread.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:15, closed)

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. (well, fingers)
I didn't say it had NO impact, You asked me if I thought it was the cause, and I don't. I think, among many savings that need to be made, it can be a contributing factor to helping improve the situation.

And I'm not sure that means testing and based on income are the same thing. Correct me if I am wrong, but just saying 'You pay the higher tax rate therefor don't qualify for child benefit' is not the same as means testing.

At the end of the day though, none of my arguments really make any difference to the fact that I just feel, morally, that a flat rate child benefit regardless of need is not the way things should be done.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 10:57, closed)

The fact is
the UK as a whole could do with the savings.

The people who lose the benefit won't starve, they'll just mumble into the times for a few months.

Upshot is, the govt can safely do this, the 'victims' will not be marching on Whitehall.

They really should address the dual income thing though, it really is pretty brainless, and doesn't need a genius to figure out.

If they're saying a family on 40k a year don't need the benefit, they should apply that evenly.
(username failed moderation, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:06, closed)

Ahem and now for the unjust bit -
Mr Osborne confirmed the cut would hit homes with a single or two high earners but families with two parents on incomes up to £44,000 - which might add up together to over £80,000 - would keep the benefit.
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:12, closed)

Yes, that's
what I was talking about.

It's a different argument to the usual one.

Most gripes are about the poorer people losing. This one is about affluent people winning.
(username failed moderation, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:20, closed)

It's just been badly managed
In essence the pittence (£20 per week) that is given anyway should be given to poorer households where it actually makes a difference, that will be a weeks shopping for people in poverty, so agree with your argument from a pratical sense but once again the cabinet of millionaires has got it very wrong.
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 12:46, closed)

Means testing using income tax thresholds is still means testing.
Y'know what? I think Vagabond is right - this really is dull as fuck.
We should just agree that I am right, and move on. That way, everyone's happy, especially me.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:07, closed)

Ah! If you'd phrased it like that before, I'd have realised you were right all along.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:12, closed)

Cheers!
Closest I've ever come to winning an arguement.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:18, closed)

"I think"
Hahahahahaaha bless your cottons.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:48, closed)

I conform,
I consume, I obey.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:56, closed)

I fail to see what's wrong with 'means testing'
Some old duffers think it means a return to the 1930s or something, but in this digital age, are you really suggesting there isn't some way of doing this without those wishing to apply having to queuing up in a smoky, dingy office and signing on the line every month!!

Flippin' Google could write a piece of code for HMRC to do this in an afternoon.
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 12:31, closed)