bridge too far

Lord Duckhunter - I'm surprised you've had 4 children as it seems that is now considered irresponsible. Yep - there's a rider. It's irresponsible if you can't afford it. Tell me, what happens to the people who have had 4 children because they could afford to and then suddenly, through no fault of their own (perhaps one dies, perhaps they are made redundant) find they can't afford those children. I mean, it could have happened to you if circumstances conspired against you. Which children should they put into care because they can no longer afford them? It isn't my policy to cut Child Benefit so I'm not going to defend the cuts. I'm just pointing out the anomalies and unfairnesses and the fact that this government patently hasn't thought the policy through. At the end of the day, regardless of decisions made by parents, children are the innocents in all this. It's probably cheaper to support the children of the 'undeserving poor' than to put them all into care. I was listening on the radio to a man who took the conscious decision to give up work to look after his severely autistic son (I'm not sure what happened to the boy's mother although the sex of the caring parent is irrelevant anyway). It was actually cheaper to pay him various benefits than to put his son into residential care and, of course, the boy was happier at home with his father than in a home. But of course some would consider him to be a scrounger.

bullfighter

You're missing the point, and maybe that's Georgie's problem - he just doesn't understand. If you are used to a certain income and then, suddenly and without warning, some of it is removed at a stroke (and it could be as much as 5%) you'd be unhappy, particularly if, in the expectation you would continue to receive that income, you rely on it to support your family. Yes I know, I know - this can happen when people are made redundant but it doesn't make it any more right or acceptable. However, the unfairness is multi-faceted. It is unfair that a family with one income of £44K will lose Child Benefit whereas a family with two incomes jointly producing £83K won't. It is unfair that a mother, choosing to stay at home with her baby or toddler, and having a partner who can provide for the family, should suddenly lose her NI credits for time spent as a carer, thus affecting her state pension in years to come. It is unfair that a couple with children from previous relationships, who choose to live together, will find that where the wage earner earns over the threshold but still pays maintenance for his own children, this should cause his partner to lose the Child Benefit she was receiving for HER children for whom he has no legal or fiscal responsibility. It's the unfairness that people like me are railing against. And it's the incompetence of the current regime that galls. They just don't think the ideas through. Even their own members and MPs are highly critical.

horn (of)

trotter

To the closet you mean

They're not state handouts - they're universal benefits and always have been since they were introduced in the late 1940s. You could equally apply that statement to the state pension. Both benefits have been paid for over the years by the recipients.

Another strange anomaly that has arisen is that of a couple with children from previous relationships. On the news this morning, they looked at a couple where the man had a child from a previous marriage and his partner had two children from her previous marriage. Although the man paid maintenance for his children, his new wife, who doesn't work, will lose the Child Benefit for HER two children because he earns over the threshold! That can't be right. He has no fiscal responsibility for her two children but she will lose out because of his salary.

Another effect that I hadn't thought of but one that's been highlighted on this morning's news is this: Child benefit is usually paid to the mother. If the mother chooses to stay at home to look after the children, she gets those years credited to her National Insurance contributions. If Child Benefit is withdrawn from that family, she will no longer have those credits. So, come her retirement, her state pension will be less. In some cases, this may not be a problem. But, should the parents divorce in the future, the woman will be penalised. And, if her state pension is significantly reduced, it will have to be topped up with a Pension Credit. So 'we' will all end up paying for it anyway! Interestingly, the Conservative chair of the committee looking at this has criticised the whole plan, saying the tax authorities will not be able to cope. Coupled with Chris Huhne's declaration that the cuts might need to be slower and less deep, this all leads me to think that this government is acting first and then being forced to think after and then do an about turn.

ART - I just had to tell you that I saw the latest Rambert Dance Company offering last night. Brilliant as ever and one piece in particular (Cardoon Club) was spectacular. Here's a link: http://www.rambert.org.uk/whats_on/cardoon_club I know you're not in the UK, but if they tour France ever with this gig, do try to get to it. I think you'd love it!

The right bloke was fired. What an obnoxious *****!

cunning (plan)

Anagram time! TURNIP

devils

Damn Park = Car

Mac

Mount Everest Silver Seal malt whisky (thank you, thank you, Google ) ------------------------------ house

That's fantastic! You must be very proud

malt

But it often isn't, is it. And it's a bloody expensive contract to get out of if the terms and conditions aren't met

In a 'cornflake' family, you mean? How is that necessarily a lower cost than the cost of a long-established couple with children who simply don't feel the need to be stereotyped or to buy a bit of paper? The nuclear family is a fairly modern institution.

Far more than the paltry amount from any tax relief gained from being married I should think

hung

From the Digger column in today's Guardian (OK it's not new news but it's good to regurgitate it ) Pompey's grand auto levy Portsmouth fans have seen their cars towed away after parking them near Fratton Park, incurring penalties in excess of £400 to get them back. The charges have been incurred on land belonging to the club's former owner, Sasha Gaydamak. His advisers say he does not set the release fees as the operation is outsourced to Whites Car Park Solutions. Given that successive governments have taken steps to clamp down on clampers – the issue is to be submitted to parliament in the Freedom Bill this month – Gaydamak must have known this was the consequence of his outsourcing. Whites had no one available to comment last night. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/oct/06/digger-david-cameron-sepp-blatter

It seems it will be. By reintroducing the married tax allowance. Which if applied to higher rate tax payers, as is being mooted, will cost more than would have been saved! Flip flop flip flop