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

WestonDave

lostinrates wrote: »

What will the cap be at exactly, have they said? does it include housing?

No figure was quoted and it wasn't clear if that included housing - however its worth pointing out that if for example an average working family gets some help with housing then clearly that would be included in their total income to set the cap for benefits. The other thing which isn't clear is whether this would somehow be an average income for a family with say 6 kids - i.e. something extra for extra kids. At the moment its not much more than a soundbite.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Would the best thing not to just have all benefits for workers as tax relief?

I think we have been here before hubbies used to get tax relief for the kids then spend it down the pub :eek: it was thought more sensible to hand it to the mum.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

I think we have been here before hubbies used to get tax relief for the kids then spend it down the pub :eek: it was thought more sensible to hand it to the mum.

I would lose my balls if I did that. But what stops the mum spending it down the pub?:)

ninky_2

StevieJ wrote: »

I think we have been here before hubbies used to get tax relief for the kids then spend it down the pub :eek: it was thought more sensible to hand it to the mum.

i think that's a debate from another era isn't it? these days the mum's are just as capable of spending the milk money down the pub (or on the cutprice supermarket cider).

seriously, at some point you have to trust the parents of either gender to spend the money where it should be spent otherwise it's time to call in social services.

N1AK

RenovationMan wrote: »

That was the point I was trying to make when I asked carolt to reveal her joint income, which was ignored.

Even with a £50k income it's hard to argue that you should be subsidized by other people. I assume that most of us had children for the pleasure of having them rather than because of the income they bring?

Keeping it simple, a single earner on £50k pays ~£14,250 in tax. A single earner on £20k pays ~£4,250 (ignoring benefits etc).

The family on £50k is already paying more than three times as much. Your position is that they should pay more than three times more and get less for it.

Personally, I think a family working for that money and paying that kind of tax deserves appreciation not derision.

bendix

carolt wrote: »

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.

Disgraceful.

If you are a teacher and you are affected by this measure then one can safely assume that your husband is on the top tax rate. Ergo, you have a household income of at least £65-£70,000 a year. Who knows how much higher.

Are you seriously telling me that you rely on this £188 a month to give your children the basics?

Shame on you.

chucknorris

bendix wrote: »

Disgraceful.

If you are a teacher and you are affected by this measure then one can safely assume that your husband is on the top tax rate. Ergo, you have a household income of at least £65-£70,000 a year. Who knows how much higher.

Are you seriously telling me that you rely on this £188 a month to give your children the basics?

Shame on you.

We haven't got children, but there is no way that if my income dropped that my dog would lose out. I would lose all my privledges and live on beans on toast before he lost out on his luxuries never mind his basics.

bendix

I can't get my head around this. Have I seriously just read posts by someone in a two income family where at least one of them is on a salary attracting the top tax rate, SERIOUSLY suggesting they need child benefit to provide the basics for their kids.

It's on threads like this that some posters reveal themselves and their values a little more than they intend.

moggylover

carolt wrote: »

ukcarper wrote: »

The person on 23K much more likely to work less hours.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Around here you would both have to be working full-time to have a before tax income of 23K in the majority of cases:D

I can see your !!!!! with the changes, but without knowing some pertinent details think it is hard to judge whether your !!!!!ing is justified or not.

I know lots of "middle income" people who got married and had kids without doing a single bit of saving or planning before hand (the sort of thing that they would consider disgusting of the unwaged/unwashed or minimum wage earners). Having squandered very large amounts of money on travelling or fancy cars, or ridiculous clothes and cosmetics, they then decided that they had "worked hard enough" that they now deserved a home and family. The mortgages were huge because they had not saved for them. Where the move was from a smaller property to a larger one, the equity was not fully invested in the new property, but large chunks kept back for "refurbishment", new furnishings, one last new (fancy) car and that "last" luxury holiday. Often the new house was far in excess of what one needs for a genuine "family home".

Do I believe that people that have gone about the whole "family" thing in this way are deserving of assistance in maintaining that lifestyle and their family? No I do not.

I have no way of knowing if this describes your situation. However, I do know that far too many people (and probably the SE is the worst area for it) live beyond their means because they need the "show" not because it is impossible to have a very nice standard of living without all the hollywood glitz:(

ninky_2

i get the impression from carolt's posts that the feeling of relative poverty is very much from the keeping up with the jones's school of thought. in other words comparing her life to other well off middle class people. this is where the sense of injustice seems to come in. apologies if i am wide of the mark but i think if you were to look at people in genuine need (and not those who can afford a bit more boden or a fancier holiday), you would see why the 188 quid a month of public money (is that 3 children?) you will lose could be better spent elsewhere.