7 4 mins 9 yrs

Here is my Sunday Morning Live pal Angela Epstein on the pending welfare changes to child benefit…

For nearly 20 years I’ve been on benefits. Despite earning a good salary as a journalist and broadcaster and being married to a chartered accountant, the Government money lands in my account each month. I accept it happily, without so much as a twitch of embarrassment. I’m not alone. I have friends who are lawyers, doctors, pharmacists — all highly paid professionals — who are also unapologetic in their receipt of these state handouts. I’m not talking about a tax loophole or state backhander that allows the streetwise to filch from an already over-committed welfare state. I am, of course, referring to child benefit.

The background to all this is that our CONSERVATIVE led (Ahem) Coalition Government is removing child benefit from households with an annual income of £50,000 or more . A little bit of class warfare and discrimination and Angela raises a valid point when she adds…

Removing child benefit from higher-earning families rests on the point of discrimination: earn more and the State will give your children less. Yet the State is already squeezing our children every which way it can.

University tuition fees for our eldest, now a medical student, are a massive £9,000 a year.  And what’s to stop discrimination bleeding elsewhere, dismantling other universal benefits? 

Take state education — which for the moment (at least) is free. You can almost hear them clucking over their calculators in Whitehall: if one pupil’s father is a dentist and the other has a badly paid job, should education be free for both? 

And why should a GP treat both the child of a road sweeper and the child of a City banker for nothing, when the latter could so clearly afford to pay?

Why? Because my children are no different to yours and child benefit is as much mine as it is yours. To cut it is a direct strike on parents who have done nothing more than work hard for their families, and pay their taxes. 

Silly me for thinking all  children were equal

Angela is right and also wrong. Of COURSE Government is actively discriminating against the children of successful parents. She is as entitled to her “universal welfare” as anyone else and the fact that it is being taken is – at one level – a disgrace,

HOWEVER, she is also wrong.

Households with £100,000 a year income  should not require Welfare handouts. But the problem lies in the construction of the system. It is Universal.

It should not be.

It needs radically changed, and returned to the original purpose – namely a modest safety blanket for the MOST vulnerable. End of. People like Angela should see their tax bill FALL as the State stops taking excessive amounts of money from them to fund the current bloated inefficient Welfare system. So the solution is a much reduced Welfare system, less taxation and empowering people to look after their own familes WITHOUT the State getting involved.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

7 thoughts on “ANGELA’S GNASHES

  1. all aid of any sort needs to be mean tested. There is a big difference in whether a banker should be getting child benefit the same as a street sweeper.

    I have had the shame of having to need help, I guess there’s the difference. I am embarrassed that I have needed help from Family and friends, and I will not go to the government. I will work to minimum wage jobs and do without.

    This woman feels entitled.

  2. The thieving, parasitic cow is outraged that minimum wage workers won’t have their meagre earnings looted to subsidise her £100K a year family? Good, I hope the rage sends her round the twist.

  3. Pete

    How is she a thieving parasite ? Only if she recieves more in benfits than she pays in taxes which I doubt is the case. Surely the child benefit she recieves is the equivalent of getting some of her taxes back. Aren’t you in favour of government handing money back to people ?

  4. people like Angela should see their tax bill fall…
    They will next year. This cut in child benefit was the quid pro quo for reducing the top tax rate from 50% to 45%.

  5. I’m quite happy that some of my taxes go towards child benefit.

    However, there ought to be a quid* pro quo. Mrs Clinton and I are childfree (by choice). We suggest that those taxpayers with children contribute financially to the upkeep of our cat.

    * She’s particularly fond of Mars Dreamies and they can cost over a quid a bag.

    >^..^<

Comments are closed.