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

LilacPixie

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Look, its unfair, yes, but you are just going to have to deal with it I am afraid. I hate the fact I have to pay 40% tax for little chardonnay to have a reproductive cycle of a rabbit, but I had to put up with that for a number of years. If anything it will support the traditional family unit, as opposed to the clusterf*ck social engineering that the Labour government pushed on us all. I would prefer 2 parents on a sub threshold income got benefits as opposed to a single parent high rate taxpayer. Why? Because its better for the kids.

Time the balance was recorrected. How would YOU pay for the deficit? Or are youjust going to whinge without coming up with a solution? Dont be a hypocrite

Bizzarly my family falls into the neither being a higher rate taxpayer so I will still get child benefit.
I find it baffeling that on an above average HH income they have kept it for those in a similar situation to me. Households with take home pays of 3.5k+ a month do not need child benefit.
I would rather it was limited to 1 child only right accross the board. Or a HH income limit placed on it no matter if single parent or couple. If they are doing it do it properly don't !!!! about.

*Kat* wrote: »

WHAT?! I just thought that pretty much every household earning x amount PA would just either be entitled or not :S

Nope 'fraid not and I personally thing this is the problem, if they said right HH income over 45k you get nothing fine but they didn't.

System

The Tories could decide all kittens should be boiled alive and mbga would back it, and that, in a nutshell is why politics is ruined by biased morons who will never change their mind regardless of what the policies are.

chucky

Joeskeppi wrote: »

The Tories could decide all kittens should be boiled alive and mbga would back it, and that, in a nutshell is why politics is ruined by biased morons who will never change their mind regardless of what the policies are.

man crushes are amusing in a cute kind of way - i'm sure that he's happy

StevieJ

LilacPixie wrote: »

Bizzarly my family falls into the neither being a higher rate taxpayer so I will still get child benefit.

He always does that shooting from the hip and popping off the piano player instead of his target, I hope he never gets near any serious weapons :eek:

hillcats

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think times have changed since then Gen.

If there's an issue with it, it is that it isn't truly means tested. Therefore you could have two adults earning just under the threshhold (say £80k combined) who would still get it, but a family with one working parent that just scrapes in will have to pay. This is a cheap way of doing it in terms of administration, but probably not the fairest.

I agree with Jonny though, it has to happen.

chucky wrote: »

it should be household income instead of making it 'higher rate tax payers'.
it will complicate the system and make others better off when they shouldn't be.

it's a start but i'm not convinced

A very ill conceived and badly thought out cut, I understand the principle behind the cut but why should a couple earning 40k each a year keep their CB when any single earner paying higher rate tax will lose out.

Was it ever confirmed if it is actually based on a per family basis, as the wife is the one who claims our CB and not me, whilst I am a higher tax earner, will SWMBO still get her CB as she earns nowhere near the limit?

Vaila

i think its been one of the fairest cuts so far. why should people on a lower income pay tax that is going to be used for child benefit to those that earn double than they do. people who earn such amounts may feel that they need cb but they do not need it as much as someone who earns say 15k a year. period

spaceboy

*Kat* wrote: »

WHAT?! I just thought that pretty much every household earning x amount PA would just either be entitled or not :S

Then you didnt really pay attention...

spaceboy

hillcats wrote: »

A very ill conceived and badly thought out cut, I understand the principle behind the cut but why should a couple earning 40k each a year keep their CB when any single earner paying higher rate tax will lose out.

Was it ever confirmed if it is actually based on a per family basis, as the wife is the one who claims our CB and not me, whilst I am a higher tax earner, will SWMBO still get her CB as she earns nowhere near the limit?

Eh, your wife wont get it because you are a high tax earner. It's pretty simple.

michaels

I am amused that Mr Osbourne can simultaneously criticise a tax and benefits system that results in maginal effective tax rates of 96% and then introduce a change whereby earning just one pound more and moving in to the higher rate tax band will result in a loss of £1700 or a marginal rate of 170041.5%

For the record I disagree with those who argue that those with good incomes 'need' the money, agree with those who suggest that the unfairness is a 10% tax rate type mistake (compounded with an attack on SAHM/D families) and think that the best solution would have been to abolish the whole thing and adjust means tested benefits accordingly.

It appears intellectually incoherent to move to a semi-means tested benefit. I can see how a universal benefit could be justified, I can see how a means tested benefit could be justified - how can a half way position be argued?

Snooze

:mad:

I am utterly DISGUSTED by carolt's posts in this thread!! £60-70k joint income and yet she still wants my taxes to feed and clothe her kids???????? Unbelievable. :mad:

There are some seriously greedy and selfish people in this world... :mad: