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

RenovationMan

StevieJ wrote: »

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.

The Lib Dems had a commitment not to raise VAT and we know what that promise was worth. The government have carte blanche to do whatever they like, and good luck to them. We simply cannot afford the largess of the Labour years, we cannot afford for living on welfare to be a lifestyle choice.

System

Well this has been an entertaining read, a little glimpse in what carolt is really like, not that it needed any further clarification.

Having got recently married the conversation of kids has cropped up, someone mentioned child benefit and I was amazed that I'm entitled to it, our household income is around £50k and they are going to give me ~£80 a month just because I have a child? Goes someway to negating the drop in income from the missus not working but I find it surprising all the same.

mvengemvenge

Looks like IDS's own Think Tank don't agree with the CHB policy...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11470161

pfpf

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Having got recently married.

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Goes someway to negating the drop in income from the missus not working.

show a bit of respect young man. :A

StevieJ

RenovationMan wrote: »

The Lib Dems had a commitment not to raise VAT and we know what that promise was worth. The government have carte blanche to do whatever they like, and good luck to them. We simply cannot afford the largess of the Labour years, we cannot afford for living on welfare to be a lifestyle choice.

OK we will wait and see then you can't count the turncoat, anything for a sniff of power LibDems.

zygurat789

The one thing this isn't is simplification. It's just another condition (complication) which didn't exist before, administratively it's a nightmare for HMRC who are already not coping with their workload.
It would be simpler to incorporate it in child tax credits and this would also have the effect of giving less to the higher paid(saving money). We would then have one benefit less (progress)
The reason why this hasn't been thought through properley is because George and most of those around him have no experience of the practicalities being millioaire sons of millionaires.

System

pfpf wrote: »

show a bit of respect young man. :A

Should I have said "the strife"?

StevieJ

Next benefit for the axe, maternity pay for those whose remaining working partner is a HR taxpayer :eek:

RenovationMan

StevieJ wrote: »

OK we will wait and see then you can't count the turncoat, anything for a sniff of power LibDems.

I could easily see them scrapping the heating allowance for overseas pensioners. It's hardly relevent if there sunning themselves in Spain or even further afield.

Just before anyone reads anything into my comments on this thread, could I state for the record that I am truly in favour of a welfare state, I just believe benefits should be targeted at those who really need them. I also believe that if we did this, we would need a smaller government in order to administer the reduced number of people in receipt of state benefits, which in turn would save more money to either provide as benefits or give back to the overburdened tax payer in the form of tax cuts.

mudshark

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

We shouldn't be encouraging people to have more and more kids, it's madness.

But surely we need young people to keep the country going when we're all old and wrinkly? Or not.

Well anyway, maybe we should be encouraging nice middle classed people to have more kids as IME often they only have one but some say they go on to contribute to society more than kids from council estates - obviously in this modern day no-one thinks that any more