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

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

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

You are unusual I saw some stats that said that Liverpool had more outoftownie supporters than anyone I think it follows success, the problem is they are all in their 50's though.

nearlynew

In most cases if people on a high income are relying on CB, then it's not their income that's the problem - it's their spending.

If, as a high earner, you come to within £20 of not being able to feed and clothe a child and have to rely on CB then you need to re-examine your spending.


High housing costs don't help in any of this and have caused as many social problems as economic ones.

MGCP

bendix wrote: »

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.

Understood Bendix (and for the record no offence was taken at all, I was just interested to hear the arguments play out).

As I said, it was only recently that I even became aware of this benefit at all, so I am certainly no expert on its history. If the stated intention was, as you say, to provide the basics of life to children then I understand why it seems strange that it is universally available.

It is an interesting topic and has certainly injected a bit of life into a lot of discussion boards!

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

You are unusual I saw some stats that said that Liverpool had more outoftownie supporters than anyone

Are you now telling me we are the most supported club in the world.;)

bendix

nearlynew wrote: »

In most cases if people on a high income are relying on CB, then it's not their income that's the problem - it's their spending.

If, as a high earner, you come to within £20 of not being able to feed and clothe a child and have to rely on CB then you need to re-examine your spending.


High housing costs don't help in any of this and have caused as many social problems as economic ones.

Never thought I'd say it about a post from nearlynew, but here - in a nutshell - is the best articulation of the position that i can imagine.

StevieJ

MGCP wrote: »

Understood Bendix (and for the record no offence was taken at all, I was just interested to hear the arguments play out).

As I said, it was only recently that I even became aware of this benefit at all, so I am certainly no expert on its history. If the stated intention was, as you say, to provide the basics of life to children then I understand why it seems strange that it is universally available.

It is an interesting topic and has certainly injected a bit of life into a lot of discussion boards!

Benefits were made universal to ensure the middle classes had a stake in their survival, it was obviously true, removing universal benefits is a first step to removing all benefits.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Are you now telling me we are the most supported club in the world.;)

No just as a proportion of your attending fans

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Never thought I'd say it about a post from nearlynew, but here - in a nutshell - is the best articulation of the position that i can imagine.

Different argument, there will be many who don't agree with their existence, your point is entirely different.

Hauptmann

I have three children. Since the first was born I have been in the higher rate tax band. Our youngest still gets CB. I am now caught in the new 50p tax band. I will still be taking the CB and see nothing wrong with that - I don't feel guilty at all (any more than I do for taking other 'benefits' such as NHS services, tax deductables etc).
CB is a drop in the ocean for us (my wife works as well) and it would make no difference if we lost it - we are getting back but a tiny fraction of the tax that we pay. However the point about this being a universal benefit is that it gives people like me an interest in it. If benefits only ever go to those on low income then the articulate (often Tory-supporting) middle classes will soon be lobbying for them all to be done away with.

MGCP

StevieJ wrote: »

Benefits were made universal to ensure the middle classes had a stake in their survival, it was obviously true, removing universal benefits is a first step to removing all benefits.

I find that slightly surprising. I have always though of benefits as being something paid to help people at the bottom of the pile (which is why whenever I heard about "child benefit" in the past I zoned out on the basis that (a) I don't have children and (b) benefits don't apply to people like me).

If it was explicitly stated that the purpose of child benefit was to help feed and clothe children, I do understand Bendix's point (even without necessarily agreeing with it). If I have enough to feed and clothe my children already then I'm not going to use it for its stated purpose, it just adds to the general pot to pay for all the other stuff in life.

Surely if you really want to make the point that this is intended to be universal you give it an entirely different stated purpose? You could say "here is a government incentive for people to have children, as frankly we need people to have children to keep funding the state pension for when you lot get old".

That seems pretty clear, and has the ring of truth about it as a genuine reason to apply this benefit (or "tax rebate" as I labelled it earlier in my case) across the board no matter what your level of income.

Saying the underlying reason was actually to give the middle classes a "stake" in the survival of benefits per se seems a strange argument to me. Surely the only "stake" I need to ensure that I will continue to approve of the existence of benefits (beyond my sunny charitable nature of course) is knowing that if something goes horribly wrong with my life and I find myself at the bottom of the pile, that same help should be available to me too. Until then, it is an insurance policy.