Saturday's Letters: Cause and effect of child benefit changes

One of the declared purposes when it was introduced was to encourage people to have children and thus combat the decline in birthrate.

Because it was a tax allowance, its benefit was skewed in favour of higher earners (and, by implication, high achievers) with the underlying, undeclared objective of improving the quality of the nation's gene pool by encouraging procreation in the upwardly mobile part of the population.

When the benefit was taken out of the tax system and became the universal "child allowance", this part of the intent was removed (largely because it had become politically incorrect). The effect has been to encourage the birthrate among the more socially irresponsible elements of our society.

Removing child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers is a continuation of this process. Creating a net positive change in revenue of 1bn could just as easily have been achieved – and been fairer – by raising income tax for higher-rate taxpayers by a couple of per cent from, say, 40p to 42p.

Achieving a net positive change in revenue is the important bit – whether you get there by raising tax or reducing expenditure is somewhat irrelevant.

Cutting universal child benefit will increase the staffing requirements in HM Customs and Revenue – not decrease them.

From: Alan Chapman, Beck Lane, Bingley, West Yorkshire.

THE announcement, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that child benefit is to be curtailed for higher-rate taxpayers, will be welcomed

by the majority of standard-rate taxpayers, especially old-age pensioners whose retirement income is usually lower than when they worked.

Other than public sector employees and a handful of privileged private sector staff, who retire on a final salary scheme, the remainder live

on less.

New Labour continued with the policy of universal benefits, regardless of income, thus taxing the lower-income groups who only pay standard-rate income tax, to provide equal benefits to those earning significantly more.

Is there any wonder that the gap between the rich and the poor widened under 13 years of New Labour's financial mismanagement?

The coalition Government has been forced to re-examine this unfair system of taxing the poor to benefit the rich. Thank goodness our new political leaders have come to their senses.

But why delay this overdue adjustment until 2013? What is wrong with commencement on April 6, 2011?

The sooner corrective action is taken, the quicker we can balance the national books, following the massive blunders of the previous government.

Turned off by background noise on TV

From: Ian H Barrett, Eastgate, Hornsea, East Yorkshire.

AUSTIN Holdroyd (Yorkshire Post, September 27) doubtless touched many bare nerves with his comments on the irritation caused by background music marring the enjoyment of many TV programmes.

But despite the numerous howls of protestation, those responsible appear devoid of reading and listening skills.

It should be pointed out to programme makers that:

The once excellent Coronation Street has now evolved into a music and sound-effect programme with a background of spoken dialogue.

The sound of good old Schmeichel panting after a walk and drowning dialogue by so doing, is worthy of a dustbin lid-sized medal for whoever decided to include it.

Any antiques programme involving auctions has become a club sandwich of noise. Firstly, we have a layer of crowd noise ("rhubarb, rhubarb", plus movement).

Layer two is the voice of the auctioneer, often unseen but never unheard, endeavouring to be heard above the crowd.

Layer three is the expert talking to the vendors, followed by a thick layer of "background" music.

A stroll in the woods, or the park, is not thoroughly marred by the absence of drums, piano or full philharmonic orchestras.

All we have during our leisurely perambulations is the sound of birdsong, children playing, dogs barking and the breeze soughing through the branches of the trees.

How dare these programme makers suggest that they can improve upon nature?

There are many, many thousands of us out here who rely on hearing aids for clarity – the extraneous background noises become tortuous.

Come the revolution...

Powerful incentive

From: David Holland, Sherwood Avenue, Doncaster.

IT is very short-sighted of your correspondents David Chambers and D Wood (Yorkshire Post, October 2) to criticise wind power simply because the wind does not blow continuously.

This obvious fact has not been overlooked by the designers of such systems and is factored into the overall economics. The energy produced by wind power still represents a valuable resource with zero emissions thus helping to meet our CO2 reduction targets.

As more turbines come on stream, it is quite simple "to buffer" the turbines by using some of the intermittent electricity output to make hydrogen from water. The hydrogen could be stored and used when required to fuel a gas turbine to maintain the supply of electricity in times of high load.

The wind, unlike fossil fuels, is permanently free and will never run out; the by-product is oxygen and the turbine exhaust is pure water.

There are no waste-disposal problems, costs or environmental damage.

Perhaps we should use more wind turbines to create clean hydrogen to power our energy needs and rely less on using the intermittent output to feed the electricity grid. This would indeed be a small step in moving from a damaging carbon to a clean hydrogen economy.

Christian welcome

From: Chris Schorah, Gascoigne Avenue, Leeds.

BRIAN Sheridan (Yorkshire Post, October 6) applauds two churches, known to him, that "welcome worshippers of all religions and denominations"'.

I agree, but I'm surprised he singles them out.

All Christian communities should be welcoming in this way. Indeed, the worship meetings of nearly all churches are open to the public. This reflects the fact that Jesus turns no-one away who comes to Him.

However, the message that is preached and practised needs to be the Christian Gospel. Christianity is, after all, unique. It's the only faith which has, at its heart, God coming to us in person and as a person – Jesus.

It's the only major faith where its founder, in pointing the

way to God, points primarily to himself.

We must not dilute this living revelation or it will lose the power to redeem us.

Labour's legacy means spending has to be cut

From: TW Jefferson,

Station Road, Hensall, North Yorkshire.

THERE must be many of your more traditional readers,

such as myself, who are increasingly disappointed by your editorial stance.

While no reasonable person would expect you to be a slavish supporter and cheerleader for the Conservative Party, it is often disappointing that when you have brought to bear your independent mind and analysis, you reach a conclusion that has a distinctly left of centre flavour.

It was not until the final week of the campaign that you actually endorsed the Conservative Party.

Although many would agree that the party's manifesto was not wholly to their liking, there can surely never have been any doubt that the Labour Party had to be removed.

As another example, you quote Margaret Thatcher's assertion that "there is no such thing as society" (Yorkshire Post, October 7).

When considered in the context in which it was said,

her meaning was just the opposite and was, in fact,

more akin to Mr Cameron's

Big Society.

From: John Dawson, Gainsborough Court, Skipton.

YOUR Editorial (Yorkshire Post, October 7) emphasises how many are out of touch with economic reality.

You question how the scale of forthcoming cuts can be in the national interest. Where have you been of late?

We have the biggest national debt in our history and we

have an increasingly bloated public sector with taxpayers' money having been spent on more and more non-jobs and unsustainable pension schemes as well as ever more public bodies paying their top people absurdly

high salaries.

There have to be cuts, and some sensible ones have already been announced, though we know harder ones are to come.

Fortunately, most people understand and accept, even if they do not like, the need for such cuts after the irresponsibility of the last Labour government.

Mrs Thatcher's speech was also very similar to David Cameron's message to his conference about individual responsibility and the

Big Society.