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

carolt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rotfl:

Ahhhh, not so keen on people losing money, when it's YOU doing the losing, are you carol?

I've seen you rant and rant and rant some more about how lower house prices and less debt is good for the country.

Well, a lower benefits bill and less national debt is just as good for the country, so suck it up.

One positive piece of spin I can put on this, Hamish, is that house prices should fall as families' spending power reduces.

Suck that up, Hamish.

ukcarper

Really2 wrote: »

Are you entitled to LHA? It asks you to fill in the amount you receive?

I included LHA for 3-bed house in my area it paid which was £206 per week it paid £113 housing benefit

carolt

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:

Oh look, you've edited your post.

Still wrong.

carolt

RenovationMan wrote: »

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.

No, I never stated that my household income was 44K.

The only person to claim that is you.

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.

Oh dear, you deleted the post that stated your household income was £44k. Luckily I copied into my response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolt
It means I shall have to find more work and my children will see me even less, and when they do, I shall be even more tired. 44K to bring up a family is a tiny, tiny amount, certainly in the South East.




What was it you said earlier?

carolt wrote: »

Next time you choose to lie on an internet forum,. I suggest you do it about something that can't be checked so easily.

StevieJ

I think most of us could accept this fairly easily if it was applied in what was perceived as an equitable manner. After all we are all in it together

carolt

ILW wrote: »

Oh do stop moaning, on your income losing £20 quid or so a week is not really going to make much difference to your lifestyle.

Losing £188/month actually - will make a huge difference to my lifestyle.

And more importantly, to my children's lifestyles - the whole reason the benefit was orignally universal, one of the cornerstones of the welfare state, was that it was designed to ensure that in any scenario, the children would at least have the basics.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

I do, however, rather dislike being put on the bonfire as the first sacrifice, so to speak, whilst the bankers' bonuses go back up, and whilst those who choose not to work get virtually as much in benefits as I do.

You're nowhere near the front of the sacrificial queue - many of us small businesses have been paying for 2+ years and it's cost a lot more than your child benefit (which you'll still get for another 3 years!).

And it wasn't our fault either !!

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Or a top rate earner might also be likely to have a partner not working at all but capable of working? I think, (its hard to think of the circs of everyone you've met so I might change my mind ) most often it seems the second partner stays working but doesn't earn what they could to fit in with a demanding high earning partners' schedule or childcare.

Yes, but the same for low earners? comparing a single £60K earner again 2 earning £30K detracts norms.

A single person earning £60K is just as likely to have a working spouse as someone who earns £30K.

So although yes for those that where only one earns it means they are worse off than their £30K X 2 counterparts.
But like for like family's are far better off, so the comparison does little other than make it look unfair. It is only unfair if you compare it against 2 wage earners.
It will only affect the top 10%, people wanted the rich taxed more?

LilacPixie

Not sure on that Really, lots of women I know have taken 'career breaks' when kids are under 5-6 before returning to the workplace when children are of school age. Childcare really is a fortune. If it wasn't for my retired parents DH would be a SAHD like he was when DD1 was small.

I have been having a mini think and can anyone honestly say with an income of 40k+ that child benefit makes or breaks their family budget? It doesn't with us, if it had been removed or if it is removed as they tweak things between now and 2013 then we would have 2500 less a year (3 kids) so about 190 less every 4 weeks but it wouldn't be a critical loss, less disposable income for holidays, less for savings, less for 'treats' but really it wouldn't be a major hurdle, adjustments would be made our comfortable lifestyle may be marginally less confortable but hardly anything to have a fit over.