Child Benefit axed for higher income families

Jomo

rando wrote: »

'I completely agree with you on a high salary you should not get it, just do not agree if a couple on £22k each should be losing it as well that is not a high salary '


But they should lose it if combined income is 44K - that would be fair to all housholds then. Why penalise a house with one decent wage ?

Wrong!

If somebody in the family unit 'chooses' to stay at home to look after the kids then that is their sacrifice!

Two people on £22k have to earn to get that amount, they could only dream about having the choice to stay at home.

Jomo

rando wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. Well said Bubby. Shame the tw*ts in government are not listening.

So you think it is fair that the only people taking the hit are those on low incomes?

CB should never have been handed out to the rich!

rando

Jomo wrote: »

Wrong!

If somebody in the family unit 'chooses' to stay at home to look after the kids then that is their sacrifice!

Two people on £22k have to earn to get that amount, they could only dream about having the choice to stay at home.

Yes but for 2 people on 42K thus giving them a combined income of 84K will still get it - Is that fair then? NO.

rando

Jomo wrote: »

So you think it is fair that the only people taking the hit are those on low incomes?

CB should never have been handed out to the rich!

Agree the rich should not get it but our household income is approx 46K before tax . I hardly call this rich. I don't take nice holidays abroad or have sky TV.
My argument is that it should be done on combined household income at what ever figure they decide to make the cut.

Jomo

rando wrote: »

Yes but for 2 people on 42K thus giving them a combined income if 84K will still get it - Is that fair then? NO.

That wasn't your example though. But yes, that is unfair I agree.

But let's still not forget that a salary sacrifice is made when a person chooses to stay at home with the kids...their earning potential could be more if not the same!

rando

Jomo wrote: »

That wasn't your example though. But yes, that is unfair I agree.

But let's still not forget that a salary sacrifice is made when a person chooses to stay at home with the kids...their earning potential could be more if not the same!

Yes we decided to make that salary sacrifice for the sake of the kids and i worked hard to get to a decent salary to provide for all of us but now that is being penalised. i suspect I am more miffed because I only just scrape into the higher tax bracket and will look at ways to get round this. Just want to add that we do use our CB for the kids clothes and school trips etc and are not in a position to save it.
There needs to be one cut off point in household income because lets face it that is what determines what as a family you have left to spend after paying all the bills.
Just make it FAIR to all.

Jomo

Would you consider £60k per household to be fair?

Spendless

Jomo wrote: »

Would you consider £60k per household to be fair?

I would consider households where there are two 40% tax payers getting CB having it stopped to be fair. That would solve the problem of a household of £44k not getting if there is just a lone earner against and a household of £80k getting it cos there are 2 earners. It wouldn't penalise lone parent families and would solve the issue of HRP for the SAHM/low earner married/living with a higher earner.

It would also stop the bleating of 'it'll cost 2 much in admin to sort out if we make it on household income'. If you are going to put something into place to see if there is 1 40% tax payer, it can't take much more effort to check if there are two.

Jomo

Spendless wrote: »

I would consider households where there are two 40% tax payers getting CB having it stopped to be fair. That would solve the problem of a household of £44k not getting if there is just a lone earner against and a household of £80k getting it cos there are 2 earners. It wouldn't penalise lone parent families and would solve the issue of HRP for the SAHM/low earner married/living with a higher earner.

It would also stop the bleating of 'it'll cost 2 much in admin to sort out if we make it on household income'. If you are going to put something into place to see if there is 1 40% tax payer, it can't take much more effort to check if there are two.

For the admin side I agree but I still think that is way too high.

Spendless

Jomo wrote: »

For the admin side I agree but I still think that is way too high.

Yes it is, but it is fair. The proposed way isn't.

The amount would be less than £86k too, as the amount at which you start to pay 40% tax is to come down from next year (off-hand I can't remember the amounts).