Child benefit to be scrapped for higher rate tax payers from 2013

FTBFun

I think this is a good idea, but they damn well need to sort out the implementation before it kicks in. The tax system is complicated enough as it is without throwing this into the mix.

RenovationMan

carolt wrote: »

Pardon?

I don't think Generali has the faintest idea what my household income is.

He's never met me nor even spoken to me; do you imagine that he is some kind of internet stalker? :eek:

You must have missed his post on this thread:

Generali wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong but you work as a teacher, is that right? So you make, what, £25,000 a year? Your other half is on £44,000 or more.

You make £69,000+ between you and you can't make ends meet so require single people on £10-15,000pa to make up your income.

If you and your husband work and you are affected by this new tax measure, then how could you have an income of £44k? Unless you are an unpaid teacher?

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

How many children did you put down? I only put one in mine.

As A parent I could see no benefit of 2 working part time, you would increase your cost base (travel, work clothes etc).
Also you would be fairly lucky to get part time jobs that were between 10am & 3PM so you would not get any child care costs.
If we lost one of our jobs I could see no reason to both wanting/needing to work part time.
The long term solution would be 1 full time & one at home if it ever got to that.

2.

Benefit might be live work balance...for both. Or only available work in area. Might not be increased transport costs if both places of work are walkable...and clothes might not be an issue depending on type of work.

carolt

ukcarper wrote: »

Went through twice 2kids
Earning £23k take home £18k get roughly 10k benefits = £28k most of that LHA
Earning £45k take home £33k + £2k benefits mostly child benefit.

Work pays to tune of over £100 per week

Try again with 3 kids. Plus depends on cost of LHA - varies by area.

Even where the difference is as much as £100/week, that's actually v little once you add costs that a working couple incur that a couple where only 1 works or both work part-time won't - or will cost far less - childcare costs, travel costs, work clothes etc.

Plus other means-tested benefits.

YTou'd be lucky if £100/week would cover that, let alone give you anything left over as a reward for your hard work.

carolt

RenovationMan wrote: »

You must have missed his post on this thread.

No, I read it - you must have missed the post where I responded to it and pointed out it was completely wrong. :rotfl:

harz99

If £18k is the takehome pay, the gross salary would be around £24k.

Put that in the calculator for one earner with one child, £150 pw rent, £1500 pa council tax no pension contributions and little or nothing else in the way of income, and see what the benefits are - not generous at all.

All that aside though, it seems to me that the Condems will be doing what the Tories have always done - protecting the well off, whilst penalising those lower down that have tried to claw their way up in the world.

What other conclusion can anyone arrive at when under these proposals the family with two working parents on say £43k each, making a total gross income £86k, will keep CB and the family with one earner on +£44k will lose CB.

Better to scrap CB altogether and put an additional allowance in the tax system's, transferable between partners as they wish; and adjust payments within the remaining benefits system for those that are not working for whatever reason.

Really2

I think the point kind of lost looking at just the basics of this is that a person who is a top rate earner is more likely to have a partner on a similar wage level if working.

Not All will I understand, so yes 2 people on a joint £60K may get it.

You should be looking at an equal, you would also have to expect a person earning £60K to have a earning partner also.

Otherwise you should also compare £30K single wage household against £60K single wage household.

It is hard to argue the single £30K earner is not worse off, and the situation is just as likely.

RenovationMan

carolt wrote: »

No, I read it - you must have missed the post where I responded to it and pointed out it was completely wrong. :rotfl:

Yes, I'm afraid I did. You stated that your family income was £44k a year, is this correct?

As I said earlier, it doesnt make sense that you are hit by this change if you and your OH both work, because you couldnt possibly have a family income of £44k a year unless you teach for free.

lostinrates

harz99 wrote: »

All that aside though, it seems to me that the Condems will be doing what the Tories have always done - protecting the well off, whilst penalising those lower down that have tried to claw their way up in the world.

What other conclusion can anyone arrive at when under these proposals the family with two working parents on say £43k each, making a total gross income £86k, will keep CB and the family with one earner on +£44k will lose CB.

Better to scrap CB altogether and put an additional allowance in the tax system's, transferable between partners as they wish; and adjust payments within the remaining benefits system for those that are not working for whatever reason.

My conclusion is different: that the better off person IS doing without for the two hard working ''middle'' earners there. The better off persons partner could also contribute if its a real issue? Or perhaps the SAHP is already contributing by ...parenting and saving childcare costs and adding to the education of their child/ren.

As to your final point...I think I agree there.

StevieJ

I suppose the fact that a two working person family will probably have far higher costs e.g. child care is one redeeming feature of the proposed system. Although they could say one one HR or joint income above say, £55k (to make allowance for the extra costs), would create problems around the margins though.