Strike!

[BoldonLad]

Isn't it the point that shep hasn't himself made a benefits claim so he's unfamiiar with the system and the paperwork? I thought that was what he was saying, rather than anything about claiming benefits per se.

Has the integrity of your account been compromised?

 

[winjim]

Has your account been hacked?

What?

 

[Deleted member 28]

In heterosexual couple households, child benefit is paid to the woman (unless you opt otherwise) but claimed by the household as both incomes are assessed when claiming.

So the 'Man' still hasn't 'claimed ' anything then?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Yes of course, if we were a household and the benefits were for my children.

So if asked "you ever claimed benefits" and you hadn't but your wife had you would say "yes" because you live together?

What do you say you had for tea if you had curry and your missus had chips and egg?

Curry or chips?

 

[Deleted member 28]

I'm pretty sure I made the claim for our kids and it's paid to me. Goes into a joint account so I could be wrong.

So if asked would your missus class this as her claiming 'benefits '?

Also, this whole child allowance thing only came up because someone trying to be smart decided to crawl out of the woodwork and join in with a conversation that was about Universal Credit and annual salary.

A very feeble attempt.

 

[Deleted member 49]

So if asked "you ever claimed benefits" and you hadn't but your wife had you would say "yes" because you live together?

What do you say you had for tea if you had curry and your missus had chips and egg?

Curry or chips?

Not that it really matters but surely if it's based on your incomes as a household you have.
Is it a mark of shame or something ?

 

[Deleted member 28]

What?

I'm only guessing that your reply sounds almost like you defending me?

I could be wrong though.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Not that it really matters but surely if it's based on your incomes as a household you have.
Is it a mark of shame or something ?

What does?

I was referring to the fact I found it difficult to believe on £35k per yr people could claim government help financially and due to never having personally claimed any earnings related benefits myself, in my own name I was surprised.

Obviously this bought out a little tit for tat session amongst the pedants which you now see before you.

As we can all see its an opportunity for some to try and 'catch me out' which is also fine because it reinforces my thoughts on why I should continue to play with you all.

Next.

 

[Deleted member 49]

What does?

I was referring to the fact I found it difficult to believe on £35k per yr people could claim government help financially and due to never having personally claimed any earnings related benefits myself, in my own name I was surprised.

Obviously this bought out a little tit for tat session amongst the pedants which you now see before you.

As we can all see its an opportunity for some to try and 'catch me out' which is also fine because it reinforces my thoughts on why I should continue to play with you all.

Next.

Ok.

 

[winjim]

So if asked would your missus class this as her claiming 'benefits '?

I think she'd probably say 'we' were claiming.

I'm only guessing that your reply sounds almost like you defending me?

I could be wrong though.

I know, it's almost as if I prefer to argue about things you've actually said rather than bitching just for the sake of it.

FWIW that explanation of the universal credit calculation made no sense to me.

 

[Unkraut]

Isn't the point of child benefit that the govt recognises the extra cost and responsibility of children and in effect gives a tax break. The benefit is allowing you to keep more of what was yours in the first place, namely your earnings.

Nothing shameful about it. This ought to be true of unemployment benefit, but the enforced idleness and purposelessness does feel demeaning, even if you have paid into the system for years.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Isn't the point of child benefit that the govt recognises the extra cost and responsibility of children and in effect gives a tax break. The benefit is allowing you to keep more of what was yours in the first place, namely your earnings.

Nothing shameful about it. This ought to be true of unemployment benefit, but the enforced idleness and purposelessness does feel demeaning, even if you have paid into the system for years.

There's some sense in that. The current Child Benefit, IIRC, replaced allowances for children in income tax.

 

[winjim]

There's some sense in that. The current Child Benefit, IIRC, replaced allowances for children in income tax.

I'd be happy for us to try and move away from the term 'benefits' altogether. They're entitlements.

 

[BoldonLad]

There's some sense in that. The current Child Benefit, IIRC, replaced allowances for children in income tax.

It is a long way back in time now, but.... I think, in my lifetime, as a parent (ie 1971 onwards), there was what was then called "Family Allowance", which was paid for second and subsequent children. I cannot remember the rates (plus, the passage of time makes them meaningless now), but, the was a rate for the second child, then, a lower rate for for subsequent children. Alongside that, there was a tax allowance (on the husband's tax code) for child or children (also, I think, a "married mans allowance"). At that time a wife's tax affairs where lumped in with the husband's tax affairs, again, from memory.

At some point, modernity and fairness struck, and, wives were deemed actual people and capable of having their own tax code etc. Also, perhaps not at same time, tax allowance for children was abolished and "Family Allowance" was increased, and, extended to include the first child.

"Family Allowance" was made payable to the mother, rather than the father. Presumably, exceptions were made where the Father was the single parent. Bear in mind that for the most part, at this time, "benefits" were collected from the Post Office, using a "Benefit book" of tokens, rather than paid into a persons bank account.

In addition, the "Married Man's Allowance" was renamed "Higher Rate Allowance" or something similar, and was made transferable between spouses, and/or claimable by (one) single parent.

I don't remember when these various changes took place, or, which Government of which party introduced them, but, I am sure, anyone who is really interested can find the information on Google.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I'd be happy for us to try and move away from the term 'benefits' altogether. They're entitlements.

Yes, the govt are always keen to spout on about the high cost of 'benefits'. The biggest element of those 'benefits' being pensions. (Queue someone claiming all pensioners are living the life of Reilly and don't need the 'benefit'). Sorry, threads going off course?