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

Jonbvn

chucky wrote: »

i know you've just renewed your David Cameron Fan Club membership but they do make mistakes you know... Cameron and Osborne can't be your heroes all of time...

;)

Those two or trotskyist Mr. Bean. Let me think about it for a while.:p

RenovationMan

N1AK wrote: »

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.

I wasnt going to comment on this thread anymore as it got quite personal and abusive. However, as you have quoted me directly and asked for a response.

My position is exactly as I have stated. "With a £50k income it's hard to argue that you should be subsidized by other people." There was no mention of derision.

However, to take your example further, what if I were a millionaire and taxed at the 50% rate. I could be paying half of my income in tax, which could amount to tens of thousands of pounds (perhaps 10 times what the average family pays in tax) and yet get hardly anything for it. Are you saying that I should get out exactly what I put into the system? Should the likes of David Beckam have his child care subsidized because he pays so much tax?

vivatifosi

Blimey, when I left for work this morning I didn't know this thread would have spawned 13 pages by the time I've logged on at lunchtime.

Having read through all the posts, the biggest revellation to me was this:

The_White_Horse wrote: »

or the low income earners can stop having kids.

either we all get it, or no one gets it.

Who would have thought it - TWH wants benefits for his foals!

silvercar wrote: »

I think we all agree that very large earners don't need CB, that low income families probably do and that the people in the middle will suffer as the cut off always seems to hit at the point where people on benefits tend to do better than those who work.

It will be hard for people who are caught at the edge of the cut off who rely on the money.

While not diminishing their loss, they do have two year's notice to make adjustment.

On the second point that Silvercar raised, I just saw Osborne again on TV. I can't help thinking that he's hinting that the 40% threshold will raise so that those who would have scooped in at the bottom will see the bar raised to cover the loss of additional income up to the cost of benefits.

I also can't help wondering whether an unintended side-effect is that people will salary sacrifice into their pensions to get under the 40% threshold and whether the government will close that as a loophole.

chucky

Jonbvn wrote: »

;)

Those two or trotskyist Mr. Bean. Let me think about it for a while.:p

looking at the real facts on this change - it's not a bad move by DC and Osborne. nuff respect to 'those two'.

mudshark

I think the point about £18k earners subsidising higher rate tax paying parents is missing the point completely. If you take people in notional income bands then the lower levels receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. As we go up the bands this changes until at the highest levels people pay far more in tax than they receive. This is all fair enough in the sort of society that most of us want to live in but certainly it does not mean that those at the lower bands are in anyway subsidising those in the higher bands! The only thing it means is that those without children are subsidising those who have them and that must be down to how important we think having children is to our society - obviously it's not just the payment but all sorts of other things that the state provides for free such as education.

moggylover

ninky wrote: »

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.

Regardless of the era, similar problems were around then (gin having always been known as "mother's ruin") just not perhaps as prevalent as they are now.:D

chewmylegoff

N1AK wrote: »

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.

yeah, and a single person earning £50k is already paying just as much tax. why doesn't a single person working for that money and paying that kind of tax deserve the same appreciation?

people paying higher rate tax can afford to pay for their own children's basic needs, therefore there is no need for them to be paid benefits which are by their very nature designed to prevent children from being brought up without those same basic needs.

my attitude is that you should pay for your own kids. paying child benefit to higher rate tax payers is just increasing their disposable income. not my fault if your choice to have children reduces the number of foreign holidays you can have.

System

All these quibbles are an inevitable consequence of a tax system that is partly on a per-individual basis and partly per household.

We should either have individual taxation and individual assessment of benefits, or base all assessments and entitlements on joint household income.

andrewmp

carolt wrote: »

I am very strongly against, and think there will be a huge middle class blacklash against this - as Graham says, I think this will be the 10p tax rate fiasco for the Tories.

Am really angry - we will be affected, but are a long way off being 'rich'. The whole premise - that the person earning 18K shouldn't pay towards benefits for those on 50K is flawed, as that ignores the fact that the family on 18K will get:

their rent paid
tax credits of various types
council tax assistance
free medical/dental and optical care
free school lunches
free laptops
help with unfiform costs
etc etc etc


As you can probably tell, I am REALLY, REALLY ANGRY. :mad:

. :mad:

You would probably be less angry if you got your facts straight, a family earning £18k would not get their rent paid (in fact they may not even pay rent, they could pay a mortgage). I very much doubt they'll get money towards council tax etc also.

ukcarper

Just done a check on entitled to and if you have a mortgage you get nothing apart from working tax credit that should make carol happy.