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

Really2

So for anyone just joining and cant be bothered to read [STRIKE]10[/STRIKE] 11 pages.

People who have someone in their household earning over £44K in 2013 are not very happy about having a state subsidy for procreation removed.

The good news is if they want the benefits back they could earn less to get them.

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

Median family income? Really? Source?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285
ok 2009

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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!

After reading the sentence I posted, do you still maintain that I 'spun' it? Actually, I dont want to divert this thread further. I'll PM if that's OK?

carolt

LilacPixie wrote: »

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.

My point about housing costs was in response to your point that you could easily afford to absorb the loss of CB - my point was that others on identical income might no be so fortunate.

chucky

chucknorris wrote: »

I wonder why?

you reap what you sow?

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

To Graham Devon:

Graham, how can you defend this poster when you read this sort of abusive post and the one where she called a poster a liar ?

Mate, I'm not defending anyone!!

I just don't like to see arguments based on accusing the poster of saying something that wasn't ever said. I get enough of it myself!!

I only said "to be fair, thats not what she said" and the ganging up was related to every second post being an attack on a poster for various reasons.

Carol can give it back. But she normally does so when pushed.

Why did I get involved?!

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

So for anyone just joining and cant be bothered to read [STRIKE]10[/STRIKE] 11 pages.

People who have someone in their household earning over £44K in 2013 are not very happy about having a state subsidy for procreation removed.

The good news is if they want the benefits back they could earn less to get them.

Don't think that is strictly true, I think that some households earning more than them but will still receive the benefit, is creating the reaction

carolt

ukcarper wrote: »

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285
ok 2009

Couldn't see household income? Only individual?

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Don't think that is strictly true, I think that some households earning more than them but will still receive the benefit, is creating the reaction

Well it would, but I dare say those households (households wit no top rate payers) would prefer to have one person on £60K and a stay at home parent and £0 child care costs.;)

They have until 2013 to decided if they want 1 parent to still stay at home. If the money is that needed they could find a part time job to make it up just like the people who earn less.

ninky_2

olly300 wrote: »

Don't know where you are in the country but every single family I know has both parents working.

Oddly enough even those who are rich and can afford to have the mother staying at home, the mother works.

i know a few stay at home mums. they are all immigrants and married to immigrants from cultures where this is more the norm.