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

datostar

Rainmaker_uk wrote: »

What makes you think this???

That is a foolish and sweeping statement.

I am a higher rate tax payer and my wife looks after our child.

Not only do I lose out on her tax allowance, we got no benefits apart from child benefit.

I fail to see why I am hit by every tax and get nothing back from the state apart from child benefit.

I contribute a large amount in tax to this country and every week I pay more through either income, petrol or other stealth taxes.

I then have to read on this forum the comments from all the ungrateful people on benefits - does anyone ever say thank you? No all they do is attack higher rate tax payers...

Exactly the same situation I was in prior to retirement. If ineligibility for Child Benefit also results in the loss of NI Credits for your wife via Home Responsibility Protection it could severely affect her State Retirement Pension. Granted that my wife was subject to the older years' contribution requirement, her contributions even with HRP were considerably less than she needed for the full pension, and as she's older than me she was reliant on her own contributions. With such back years as she was able to pay by lump sum, she brought it up to just over 40%. I'll start to draw my SRP next year and she'll then be eligible for 60% on my contributions but never more than that unless I peg out first. IF that happens (far from clear yet) voluntary NI contributions might be a good idea.

RenovationMan

carolt wrote: »

you are both rude and foolish, and trying to cover up your tracks just makes you look even ruder and more idiotic than before.

And again Graham.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chucky wrote: »

have you considered starting a thread with a poll asking only FTB's to participate?

I know, lets start a thread with a poll asking young hard working FTB's if they feel like paying more tax to subsidise child benefits for middle class parents on 50K plus a year.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

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?

Really, I'm out of the habit of the board and people's ways of expressing things quickly, and I'm struggling ATM. Let me re-read and respond to this later.


Hang on, yes, I think I get you now.. Yes, I agree, but...the 60k earners partner could see if working again/increasing hours were feasible for them now. Is it fair...no. Is it the worst thing that happened in the face of human rights in UK state responsibility...I don't think so. Not in the way CB is paid through parents then, IMO no.

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

Bully for you.

I suspect that your housing costs were relatively much lower than mine.

Plus - YOUR CHILDREN QUALIFIED FOR CHILD BENEFIT!!!

Which is precisely my point.

As you think removal of child benefit for middle earners is such a good idea, I assume you'll be repaying all the child benefit your children received to help the country out now in its time of need?



Oh.

Thought not.

44k is not middle earners median wage London £32k

Not sure what your housing costs are.

olly300

ukcarper wrote: »

I've retired now but I earned just over average wage for most of my life. I've had holidays abroad most years, a reasonable second hand car and indulged in my hobbies I feel I've had a reasonable life. By the way I live in the Southeast worked in outer London all the time.

I bet if you have a mortgage or had one your payments were/are low.

That's why some people are getting upset.

carolt

ukcarper wrote: »

44k is not middle earners median wage London £32k

Not sure what your housing costs are.

Median family income? Really? Source?

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

I'm not 'ganging' up on anyone, though I did receive a couple of PMs warning me about that particular poster and I wont be engaging in debate any further.

Wasn't meaning just you. It seemed every second post in the end was laying into a poster, many of them with spin on what was actually said by the poster!

LilacPixie

carolt wrote: »

No, I would prefer child benefit to remain a universal benefit, as stated above.

If it has to be cut for economic reasons, I'd favour a much higher cut-off - family incomes over 100K, say.

I don't think it would be practical to means test it by area, and anyway what matters isn't so much where you live as if you own or rent, and if you rent, whether privately or not, and if you own, when you bought.

eg a family living in a 3 bed house could be paying anything from £0 to £2000/month + depending on those factors, which was my point.

It has to be cut, no doubt about that. I doubt cutting it for HH incomes over 100k would give enough savings to offset increased admin costs. I think restricting number of children would of been the fairest method so all families no matter what income felt the 'pain' although no doubt it would of been more painful for some than others.

I feel uncomfortable considering housing costs with child benefit. We need a bigger home and personally I never even considered CB at all when doing calculations on what we could afford to pay and if that was a rental or a mortgage. I have always considered CB to be used for direct benefit of the child and I don't see how the difference in price of a 3 or 4 bed house being for their direct benefit.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wasn't meaning just you. It seemed every second post in the end was laying into a poster

I wonder why?