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

StevieJ

MGCP wrote: »

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.

Compare the change to child benefit with the change to LHA which has created the biggest problem for the govt and press backlash, even though it is being removed from the affluent.
BTW child benefit (well its family allowance) was introduced after the 2nd world war to encourage a higher birthrate after the ravages of war, it was not payable for the first child only subsequent children.

chucky

i'm bored of Child Benefit threads

French_Knickers

StevieJ wrote: »

I prefer the simple phrase 'is it legal' if everyone paid the tax that was due and only claimed the benefits they were ENTITLED to I am sure that deficit would be a whole lot lower, maybe even surplus

Actually, over the years I've read numerous times that the amount of benefit that goes unclaimed is far bigger than that fraudulently claimed.

Lord only knows how much it also costs chasing people and policing the whole system.

Someone I know suggested that up to reasonable limits and within certain loose guidlines, it'd be a whole lot cheaper for people to just say how much they need to live on and be given it!

Of course the middle classes would never stand for that though! :A

ninky_2

i'm actually coming round to the condems proposal to judge this on high rate taxpayers rather than household income. here's why.

household 1: only one person works and is a highrate taxpayer -say they earn 50k and work a 40 hour week. the other partner does not work and is therefore able to take care of children / housework. 40 hours of paid employment are put in and savings are made on childcare / housework as don't need to pay outsiders to take up the slack.

household 2: both partners work. each earns 25k. each works 40 hours a week. as a result they have to pay for childcare and maybe even a cleaner and/ or lose considerable amounts of potential leisure time due to having to do housework themselves. 80 hours of paid employment are put in and extra costs in money / time are incurred for childcare / housework.

it is clear that household 1 is already at an advantage. for household 2 the option of one person not working is most likely not really an option in order to cover living costs.

i hate to say it but i think cameron is right on this one.

French_Knickers

ninky wrote: »

i hate to say it but i think cameron is right on this one.

I hope you choke on your cocoa! :D

ninky_2

i think they might have to consider keeping the benefit for single parents though - or at least raising the threshold for them as clearly they don't have the same advantages of couples when it comes to extra person to do childcare.

StevieJ

chucky wrote: »

i'm bored of Child Benefit threads

Here is a good one, player touches up the ref :eek:

And she seems to enjoy it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc-K4p8D940

ninky_2

chucky wrote: »

i'm bored of Child Benefit threads

you need to get out more......there's a whole world out there (and they're all talking about gamu / xfactor..yawn!)

shortchanged_2

chucky wrote: »

i'm bored of Child Benefit threads

Shall we talk about falling house prices then chucky.

vivatifosi

chucky wrote: »

i'm bored of Child Benefit threads

Yeah me too and I started the first one. Sorry about that. Now what shall we discuss next? Please don't say house prices.