We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Chancellor: child benefit cut will go ahead
Former_MSE_Helen
Posts: 2,382 Forumite
This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
"George Osborne says it is only fair child benefit is removed from higher-rate taxpayers, after speculation of a rethink ..."
"George Osborne says it is only fair child benefit is removed from higher-rate taxpayers, after speculation of a rethink ..."
0
Comments
-
Good - I think the "rich" should be paying a lot more than they currently do.
If being a "couple of pounds" over the £40k limit makes you £2.5k worse off, I'm sure you're employer would be more than happy to pay you marginally less if you asked them...0 -
callum9999 wrote: »Good - I think the "rich" should be paying a lot more than they currently do.
If being a "couple of pounds" over the £40k limit makes you £2.5k worse off, I'm sure you're employer would be more than happy to pay you marginally less if you asked them...
No need, there are likely to be easy ways round it for people on the borderline. Just contribute to a pension, or make a gift aid payment to your favourite charity, or visit the zoo (most do gift aid:)).0 -
Three words:Osborne says it is only "fair" the better-off make a contribution towards paying down Britain's record debts.
Tax. The. Rich.
Why is that such a hard concept?
There's no "cliff edge" with income tax.
Why should the "better-off" with no children not make a contribution?0 -
callum9999 wrote: »Good - I think the "rich" should be paying a lot more than they currently do.
No, this is not good. If it was based on household income and set at a particular level then it would be fair.
Just because one partner is just over the 40% tax level, the whole household is effectively penalised. There will be millions of households that exceed a combined income of 42K and will keep their child benefit.
Not GoodMFi3 T2 member 1770 -
JimmyTheWig wrote: »Three words:
Tax. The. Rich.
Why is that such a hard concept?
There's no "cliff edge" with income tax.
Why should the "better-off" with no children not make a contribution?
It's not a hard concept, it's politics.
Raising taxes loses votes. Cutting benefits received by those who others think "don't need" it wins votes.
It's politics. Fairness doesn't come into it. Yes it would much fairer to raise tax instead.
They might compromise with a cut to the basic rate threshold plus CB cut only where the claimant pays HRT (not their partner). This would be so much simpler, and fairer.
Implementing the current proposal will be a nightmare as they need to define a houshold in the tax system, they need to account for people splitting up/getting together, they need to address the fundamental point that people are taxed as individuals, not as a household.
That's probably why despite announcing this in Oct 2010 they still haven't got a clue how they're going to do it.
BTW shouldn't this be on the benefits board, not the child support board?0 -
-
My husband earns £44,000 before tax and I am a stay at home mum. We have 3 kids and a huge mortgage, so this is going to take a tidy sum away from us.
I wouldn't mind so much, but it's ridiculous that in homes with both parents out at work, they could bring in over £80,000 and still keep their child benefit.
It doesn't make any sense at all.Mortgage Free in 3-T2 : Started at £151,000 Nov. 2009 Mortgage Free Oct 1st 2015
0 -
Jonesy_Bonesy wrote: »No, this is not good. If it was based on household income and set at a particular level then it would be fair.
Just because one partner is just over the 40% tax level, the whole household is effectively penalised. There will be millions of households that exceed a combined income of 42K and will keep their child benefit.
Not Good
Yes Good. For a start, people need to get it into their heads the government/a company not giving you something isn't a "punishment" or being "penalised". Yes you are right, this discrepancy between "moderately rich" and "slightly more rich" is unfair to some involved, but it's fairer than it is now.
Though I don't really get why they haven't targeted any household that earns over £40k full stop. Presumably it's just easier to arbitrarily do it on whoever is paying the higher tax rate?0 -
so....take away the benefits for a hard working single parent but leave them in place for a hardworking 'family'? how on earth can it be right that a two-parent family can earn £80k and still receive child benefit but the single parent loses it?
Or is that something to do with the expectation that the single parent family also receives maintenance so that's OK?0 -
clearingout wrote: »so....take away the benefits for a hard working single parent but leave them in place for a hardworking 'family'? how on earth can it be right that a two-parent family can earn £80k and still receive child benefit but the single parent loses it?
Or is that something to do with the expectation that the single parent family also receives maintenance so that's OK?
This applies equally to a 2 parent family with one earner as it does to a single parent. And they have one more adult to support.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards