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

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

I was wondering if it were me....maybe its worse, maybe its my influence!:eek:

I had a week off and came back to this:). Inspector Monkfish is back also.

I am fairly offended that I am now one of the calmer posters on here.:D

LilacPixie

Really2 wrote: »

Is it me is the board a bit spikey this week?

I thought it was maybe me because i usually lurk and rarely post

ukcarper

Really2 wrote: »

Is it me is the board a bit spikey this week?

It seems to be but a lot of it is from the usual suspects

Old_Slaphead

Really2 wrote: »

Is it me is the board a bit spikey this week?

Wait till Thurs/Fri when public sector pensions is on agenda :eek:

MGCP

RenovationMan wrote: »

But if you had zero income you would still receive CB and so that makes it a benefit not a rebate. That's the difference. With your other examples, zero income would mean zero pension rebate, zero ISA savings, etc.

I see that of course, but my question (about the qualitative difference between a rebate and this "benefit") was originally directed at Bendix and his response to my specific situation. I had already said I was a higher rate tax payer (so not "zero income") but had expressed a certain amount of regret that wouldn't ever be able to claim. He responded with the following:

"Why is it a shame that you will never get to claim a benefit that you don't need?

Isn't it exactly the opposite? Wouldn't you feel a sense of shame claim a benefit that you don't need?"

Talk of "shame" is quite emotive stuff!

My position is that from an annual contribution of £20k plus, having £1k returned to me is in reality a rebate as far as I am concerned (if not in a technical sense which I do understand).

I don't therefore see why claiming it would be a moral issue or would in any way cause me to feel "ashamed". I have handed over one chunk of money, the government in its wisdom would be handing a fraction of it back to me again and calling it a "benefit".

To suggest as Bendix did that I (personally) would feel ashamed purely because "I don't need it" invites the question "should I also feel ashamed for not turning down the 40% rebate on my pension contributions on the basis that someone somewhere might think I don't "need" that either?"

So my question still stands. If you are paying tax at 40% why would you think, morally, that this child benefit is anything other than a rebate of taxes paid?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

renovationman wrote: »

also in fairness, £2500 per year is a significant amount of money to replace in a family budget, especially after 40% tax has been taken off. A hr tax payer will have to earn an additional £4200 to make up for the loss of £2500.

£4200 * 16 years = £67,200 (or a year or 2 of extra work).

Really2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

£4200 * 16 years = £67,200 (or a year or 2 of extra work).

Or stay at mom does 4 hours a week to earn the £2500 PA and would be tax exempt.

StevieJ

LilacPixie wrote: »

I thought it was maybe me because i usually lurk and rarely post

You have been one of the calm sensible ones

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Really2 wrote: »

Or stay at mom does 4 hours a week to earn the £2500 PA and would be tax exempt.

Or carolt's husband gets to work an extra year or two so that she can spend all day on MSE and mumsnet.com ....

but seriously probably not worth it when you take into account childcare, travel, clothes, etc etc....:cool:

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

Is it me is the board a bit spikey this week?