Child Benefit axed for higher income families

tango

We will lose £260 per month and that will be missed

ukjoel

Jomo wrote: »

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

Yes I would.

I think the reason the figure is set at the 40% tax band and not a few thousand higher at the new 50% rate is because setting at the 50% rate wouldnt have much impact as there are not enough people on it.

I also think that using the figure of one earner per household has been done because at a glance the number crunchers could work out how much they would save on benefits.

They know if they based it on 2 salaries, one would go part time, reduce hours, etc and the admin of this would be another nightmare like tax credits.

This way its simple -
We know what you earn (if its paye).
We know where you live.
We know if we pay child benefit to that address.

They worked out they wanted to save and then played with the salary numbers until they got there.

Now we have 3 years to work out avoidance methods for those earning £45k - £50k who want to drop just below this figure.

rando

Jomo wrote: »

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

Yes i think that 60K is a reasonable figure to settle on but still think it needs to be based on household income to make it fair across the board. I am sure the argument of it costing to much to administer this way is rubbish as they already have tax codes for people and it can't be difficult to work out if 2 addresses are the same.

sassyblue

rando wrote: »

Why not everyone else seems to be getting it all paid for. Sick to death of working hard and paying my way when others are blatently getting it for nothing or at least make the system fair as in combined household income determines if you get child benefit or not. Why should we be penalised for one of us having a decent wage and the other one staying at home to look after the kids rather than fobbing them out to after school clubs etc.
Rather than get £200 deducted I could pay more into my pension pot but then again the way pensions are going you may aswell hide your money under the bed!!
All I want is it to be fair to ALL.

Why not? Because 'everyone' else ISN'T getting it all paid for. I agree with you 100%, it should be per household but burdening the taxpayer won't help - not for one minute l think you'd do that you earn too much so have a bit of sense and dignity

pawpurrs

Theres an easy answer to all this, what they need to do is increase the higher tax threshold to 60k, same as they need to increase the stamp duty thresholds, 44k is no longer a high enough salary to be taxed higher as 250k for a house is no longer high enough for a higher stamp duty threshold, in my opinion, well not in the south East, 250k only buys a tiny 2 beder in most areas.

pawpurrs

What will they do to access SAHM for national insurance credits, as they used to do this by deternming if you were getting child benefit, will higher income households, now have to fund their oen NI contributions for the period they stay at home as well?

rando

sassyblue wrote: »

Why not? Because 'everyone' else ISN'T getting it all paid for. I agree with you 100%, it should be per household but burdening the taxpayer won't help - not for one minute l think you'd do that you earn too much so have a bit of sense and dignity

OK it was a slight exeggaration to say everyone is getting it paid for but you read plenty of stories in the daily newspapers about all these families that never work and get more income than some working families. How about the lady this week that boasted about paying for a boob job out of her benefits and the holidays abroad she went on. Its these kind of things that gets normal working peoples backs up.
I certainly do not earn too much - enough to cover the bills and support the family but we go without luxuries.
I have never claimed a single benefit in all my adult life and CB is for my children not me. It all gets spent on the kids. Us losing CB will mean they will lose out - Is that fair ? NO.
I have plenty of sense thank you very much.

Skylarker

Grrr!!!
I can see the flames coming now but I just HAVE to add my tuppence worth.
I don't have children, I simply don't feel that broody urge is the simple reason why.
In my humble opinion any benefits should be there to ensure that the very poorest in society can feed and house themselves. Children are a choice. Accidents can be prevented in most circumstances by a bit of planning and common sense. Why should my taxes pay for your lifestyle choice, your children. I don't mind my taxes paying for education, education is vital, as is healthcare, public transport etc, etc but I don't think they should pay for anyone elses kids christmas presents or new trainers for example.
Not only do I not think child benefit should be universal I'm not convinced they've set the cap low enough, £44,000 seems like an awful lot of money to be getting benefits at all.

I will now cower and wait for the rotten tomatoes sure to be heading my way but thanks for listening...

davef

Skylarker wrote: »

Grrr!!!
I can see the flames coming now but I just HAVE to add my tuppence worth.
I don't have children, I simply don't feel that broody urge is the simple reason why.
In my humble opinion any benefits should be there to ensure that the very poorest in society can feed and house themselves. Children are a choice. Accidents can be prevented in most circumstances by a bit of planning and common sense. Why should my taxes pay for your lifestyle choice, your children. I don't mind my taxes paying for education, education is vital, as is healthcare, public transport etc, etc but I don't think they should pay for anyone elses kids christmas presents or new trainers for example.
Not only do I not think child benefit should be universal I'm not convinced they've set the cap low enough, £44,000 seems like an awful lot of money to be getting benefits at all.

I will now cower and wait for the rotten tomatoes sure to be heading my way but thanks for listening...

Yep but why stop at CHB. So many people have moaned about their taxes going on other peoples kids but what about tax credits. Why should my taxes fund others low incomes. It was introduced in 2003 as a welfare subsidy for low income families yet can be claimed with a family income up to £58k.

Labour have engineered a mass reliance on state support in order to garner long term support for left wing socialism.

I have worked my way up the foodchain through hardwork, re-educating myself & having an ambitious nature. You make your choices in life - I have a family and have made many sacrifices in order to give them a better lifestyle.

I see too many people who now rely on state handouts as has been witnessed on these forums. An earlier post saying they get £10k in tax credits as they choose to work part-time. Why should my hard earned taxes pay for others lifestyle choices.

I have a disabled son & through him have fought the system on so many issues. The NHS will fund quit smoking clubs yet will not fund speech therapy. I see my taxes will continue to be used poorly. The cost of an hours speech therapy is £40.

The state cannot contimue to fund the current system & the taxpayers gravy train has well & truly pulled into the station !!!!!!!

ukjoel

davef wrote: »

I see too many people who now rely on state handouts as has been witnessed on these forums. An earlier post saying they get £10k in tax credits as they choose to work part-time. Why should my hard earned taxes pay for others lifestyle choices.

The state cannot contimue to fund the current system & the taxpayers gravy train has well & truly pulled into the station !!!!!!!

Think it may have been me that wrote that. I work 30 hours which is classified as FULL TIME by the govt. My real choice wasnt working less hours but taking a far less stressful lower paid role knowing that it would be topped up substantially by tax credits.

The state can afford to fund an inefficient system because the amounts generated by taxes are huge. Even the benefits we receive end up going back to pay for more benefits because of increase in VAT and the massive taxes on petrol.

Therefore if you look at the actual tax benefit someone receives, probably 25% of it will go straight back to the taxman.


Wonder when they will pull the winter fuel payment from any pensioner with enough money to buy a jumper. That will be the next move.