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

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

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

Chocolate? Men?

not sport please. Or I'll post links of WEG dressage...poncy horses dancing

roy62

Do George & Dave know what they are doing cutting child benifits for the rich has upset their selfish followers big time.

olly300

vivatifosi wrote: »

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

The next thing that comes from the Conservative conference maybe?

dori2o

roy62 wrote: »

Do George & Dave know what they are doing cutting child benifits for the rich has upset their selfish followers big time.

It has upset them, but he's cut the lowest paid benefit to them. He's cost them what £20-£30 a week? I'm sorry but anyone earning over the HR threshold who complains about this really need to take their heads out of their backsides and start living in the real world. If it is that important that you still receive this benefit to 'survive' may I suggest that you revisit your finances, maybe sell the mansion for a slightly smaller and cheaper 4 bed semi.

He could (and quite honestly should) have done so much more to ensure that the fairness of taxation was spread accross the whole board, instead of those on the lowest incomes sufferring a proportionately higher tax burden than those better off/the rich.

His supporters, still have far more advantages than those at the bottom of the ladder, and this is just a jesture to those at the bottom to appease them, after all 'We're all in this together.', aren't we Dave?

tyllwyd

ninky wrote: »

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.

What if the two employee household have grandparents living nearby so doesn't have to worry about childcare costs but the other does not?

So what if in the two employee household they decide to employ a cleaner because they are both working 40 hour weeks and don't have much leisure time - would that be any different if they didn't have a child?

One person earning 50K will pay more tax than two earning 25K because of the personal allowance, even though the total hours worked are less.
- I just put the figures into a tax calculator, and it told me that net wage for £50K is £35,810 and for £25K is £19,174, ie £38,348. But it is the £50K household that loses child benefit.

Pennywise

ninky wrote: »

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.

You havn't factored in the higher tax paid by household 1 and lower tax paid by household 2 - because of the use of the spouse's tax free allowance and basic rate band. Household 1's "advantage" is curtailed accordingly.

ILW

I must say most of the whining on about how "it isn't fair" is rather pathetic. I would suggest that the person working 45 hours a week for £20k has a lot more to feel hard done by about.

silvercar

Plus lowish income families get 80% of their child care paid through CTC if both work, or if one works for single parent families.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

No just as a proportion of your attending fans

Not to run the place down but that also could have something to do with employment and affordability in the city.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

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.

Do forget household 1 also has the option of the stay at home parent going to work in the future to earn more.
there is no extra earning potential for household 2 other than promotion.
But should they get promoted to £44K they lose it.