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

Blacklight

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.

carolt wrote: »

Yes, my OH earns over 44K, clearly.

Our family income is not huge, however.

44k and you're a teacher? So you get 18k for working part time and by definition get a minimum of four months paid holiday a year to spend with your kids.

You're complaining that you're not entitled to state benefits?

Where on Earth do you live/what do you live in for this to cause you any hardship.

bendix

Blacklight wrote: »

44k and you're a teacher? So you get 18k for working part time and by definition get a minimum of four months paid holiday a year to spend with your kids.

You're complaining that you're not entitled to state benefits?

Where on Earth do you live/what do you live in for this to cause you any hardship.

Beggars belief, doesn't it?

But - on reflection - it's pretty consistent with the rest of her 'me, me, me, it's all about me' posting history.

Here we have someone whose family income is clear in the upper quartile - in fact, I'd hazard a guess and say it's in the upper 10% - yet she boldly assets that she's entitled to state benefits.

Her position on issues like this are frankly - and rather gleefully, I must admit - forever placed in this context :rotfl:

ninky_2

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

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.

totally agree. i think it's time to move to an individual basis. this may throw up annoying situations where people who are married to millionaires are theoretically entitled to benefits. however we currently have a situation where people who are the children of millionaires are theoretically entitled to benefits. it's time to stop seeing marriage / partnership as a support system alternative. it should be a choice whether you give money to, or take money from, your spouse (and how much) not looked on by the state as a duty.

olly300

vivatifosi wrote: »

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.

If he doesn't change the rules that are suppose to come in in the next 2 years lots of people will be forced to put money into their pensions anyway so people won't be salary sacrificing.

ninky_2

mudshark wrote: »

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.

in a pyramid capitalism/welfare system such as we have now, increasing numbers with each generation becomes a necessary part of the system. both to pay for the welfare needs of the older generation and to create generational poverty that requires each new generation to pay for new goods including homes etc.

if we consider things outside of the financial human agenda it is clear that this model is unsustainable unless we decide we can create extra-terrestrial colonies or suddenly discover and access other planets we can plunder. assuming earth is the only planet we have access to it is clear that increasing human numbers (and even sustaining current numbers) is not sustainable even in the medium term. the birth rates in developing countries do seem to be falling but we don't need /want to do anything to reverse this trend.

StevieJ

RenovationMan wrote: »

I put into the system? Should the likes of David Beckam have his child care subsidized because he pays so much tax?

Why not? Richard Branson gets his winter home fuel bills subsidised

ukcarper

StevieJ wrote: »

Why not? Richard Branson gets his winter home fuel bills subsidised

I should get my first winter fuel payment this year and I am looking forward to spending it as I'm on a lot less than £45k a year, but to be honest I will not complain when they stop it for people between 60 and 65 as I’m sure they will.

RenovationMan

StevieJ wrote: »

Why not? Richard Branson gets his winter home fuel bills subsidised

Hopefully that will be the next one to go!

I see that they have put a cap on the amount of benefits that a family can receive, this is another step in the right direction. I dont see how people can argue against these changes:

Families with a higher earner of over £44k (gross) dont receive state handouts to help raise their children.

People who dont work, cannot receive benefits that are in excess of what they would (on average) have received if they worked.

It seems so straightforward and sensible that I simply cannot understand people arguing against them. I can understand people arguing against anomolies such as 2 medium earners receiving a benefit that 1 higher earner cannot, but most of this thread seems to have been dominated by someone who is arguing that everyone should receive this despite their income.

EllaKeat

I have read this thread with great interest, mainly because I am undecided about how 'correct' this decision is. I have always appreciated the reason behind child benefit - it was paid directly to the carer of the child in cash (at the post office), ensuring that no matter what the wage earner did down the bookies or in the pub, or just did not earn a good enough wage, the child could be fed and clothed. But things have moved on and the payment of this universal benefit is outdated. The country simply cannot afford it.
I gladly received child benefits for my two. I always worked, part time, OH worked full time. He earned a decent wage, but had to work away from home to do so, paying for B&B and petrol costs etc., meant that from a good gross wage, the nett was pitiful. However, we managed - and thanked God every fortnight when I queued up for the 'family allowance' - it fed us all. For that reason, I have a little sympathy for Carol - sometimes high earners have high outgoings - and not always by choice.
However, in general, it does not seem fair that families who do not need the money, are still paid it. Therefore, I would agree that this is a good first step in reviewing benefits. But, on the other hand, I do think that higher earners would feel less aggrieved if a further sanction was added. Not backdated, but a new restriction that CB is paid for the first two children only. In this way, everyone 'contributes' to the saving measures being brought in.
We all know that having children doesn't come cheap, but it is a personal choice - not mandatory;)

StevieJ

RenovationMan wrote: »

Hopefully that will be the next one to go!

.

Don't think so, I think Brownie suckered Call me Dave into a commitment during one of those televised debates.

BTW Ryder cup goes to Europe.