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

Really2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

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

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

If they are all over 3 they either have 15H per week free child care or school.

No need for any stay at home mum with an over 3 year old not to do some kind of work TBH.

Or like Moneypenny said, ebay.:) (not sell the child, sell tat.)

StevieJ

Has something weird happened to the search? if I look back to Sunday and Monday all the posts are missing.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

lemonjelly wrote: »

LOL

though as a scouser I should be offended.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Oct the 6th tomorrow.:j:j:j:j

PS I live by you and now have a club near you on the prem table.

ukcarper

StevieJ wrote: »

Has something weird happened to the search? if I look back to Sunday and Monday all the posts are missing.

the same here

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Really2 wrote: »

Oct the 6th tomorrow.:j:j:j:j

PS I live by you and now have a club near you on the prem table.

Was that to me or lemonjelly? 'cos as you well know we are currently propping up the table

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

StevieJ wrote: »

Has something weird happened to the search? if I look back to Sunday and Monday all the posts are missing.

Ditto here

bendix

MGCP wrote: »

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?

It's a good argument, well made. For the record, I wasn't intending to make it personal and hope it wasnt taken as such.

I have no intellectually-based argument to counter what you say. The only thing I would put into the mix is that a benefit is a benefit, and this particular benefit is one expressly designed to ensure people with kids have the bare essentials.

Morally, i find it very questionable (PERSONALLY) that anyone earning enough money to pay the higher rate tax needs any assistance from the government to feed and clothe their children.

Instinctively it feels wrong.

Really2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Was that to me or lemonjelly? 'cos as you well know we are currently propping up the table

LJ, I am a non liverpool living, Liverpool supporter.
o
A bit like current Man U fans but from the 70's/80's

ukcarper

Really2 wrote: »

LJ, I am a non liverpool living, Liverpool supporter.

A bit like current Man U fans but form the 70's/80's

That did make me laugh