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

Really2

dopester wrote: »

What they paid for the club.... with a whole lot of borrowed / leveraged money.

I wonder what it might eventually sell for? A while back there was a "price comparison" with what Randy L paid for Aston Villa... which is supposedly profitable - which made LFC look massively expensive.

Haha. Do you think the owners would have been affronted by this cheeky offer? See... shouldn't just happen in business, but with house offers too. And maybe £110m for 40% is generous?

NESV are thought to be offering about £300m for the club, enough to pay back the £240m of loans and £40m of fees owed to Royal Bank of Scotland, which must be settled at the end of next week

£10M each for the leaches.:(

bendix

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.

Deductive logic is not your strongest point, is it Stevie?

To argue that the logical consequence of removing benefits from those who don't need them is the removal of ALL benefits is the strangest proposition I have ever heard.

How can anyone intelligent seriously say universal benefits make sense? The very phrase is an oxymoron. If a benefit is universal then everyone gets it; ergo it's not a benefit.

Pennywise

Of course, higher earners should lose their CB. That's not the problem. The Govt have got the wrong "cut off". They've not thought it through and I'd be very surprised if the eligibility criteria wasn't changed before the implementation.

If they're saying £44k is the cut off, fair enough, but it needs to be "per household" not per person. However you define it, it can't be "fair" that household one with one worker earning £60k loses it whilst household 2 with two workers earning £40k each keeps it.

I think they've backed themselves in a corner by planning to deal with it via the tax system - i.e. a "flag" from the tax computer to say someone is HR is a very simple tool to flag CB claimants to be denied the benefit. Perhaps this time, they've gone "too simple" because it just doesn't work. Unfortunately, the tax collection system is "per individual" and doesn't recognise households. They should attach CB to tax credits and use the tax credit system which does works household income not individual income. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this is what they eventually decide to do.

daveyjp

But Condems don't see a future in the tax credit system - it's too expensive to operate - reducing the threshold at which payments are made is the first nail in the coffin.

bendix

Pennywise wrote: »

Of course, higher earners should lose their CB. That's not the problem. The Govt have got the wrong "cut off". They've not thought it through and I'd be very surprised if the eligibility criteria wasn't changed before the implementation.

If they're saying £44k is the cut off, fair enough, but it needs to be "per household" not per person. However you define it, it can't be "fair" that household one with one worker earning £60k loses it whilst household 2 with two workers earning £40k each keeps it.

.

The government has explained this adnauseum. People either don't want to listen to the reason or are a bit thick.

So let's make it simple. The government understands that their reasoning on this looks strange, and they are aware of the anomolies it throws up.

However, to base it on household income would require means-testing, an expensive and time-consuming process that would actually cost more than the savings proposed.

There. Does that help?

RenovationMan

bendix wrote: »

The government has explained this adnauseum. People either don't want to listen to the reason or are a bit thick.

So let's make it simple. The government understands that their reasoning on this looks strange, and they are aware of the anomolies it throws up.

However, to base it on household income would require means-testing, an expensive and time-consuming process that would actually cost more than the savings proposed.

There. Does that help?

They havent explained why they cant combine Child Benefit with Childrens tax credits (i.e. increase CTC by the amount someone would receive via CB), which already has means-testing.

bendix

RenovationMan wrote: »

They havent explained why they cant combine Child Benefit with Childrens tax credits (i.e. increase CTC by the amount someone would receive via CB), which already has means-testing.

There will be a million possible ways to achieve the same fiscal ends. I think it's obvious that apart from the financial aspects of saving the CB, there are some political and philosophical messages in this move and that the primary one will be one shared by me - notwithstanding what anomolies in throws up in the short term, it is morally unacceptable for anyone paying high rate tax to receive something called child benefit, a benefit designed to stop kids falling into poverty.

As nearlynew has already mentioned very pithily, if people on incomes approaching £50,000 a year need the extra £20 child benefit, there is nothing wrong with their income and EVERYTHING wrong with their spending priorities.

olly300

RenovationMan wrote: »

They havent explained why they cant combine Child Benefit with Childrens tax credits (i.e. increase CTC by the amount someone would receive via CB), which already has means-testing.

I've explained before -

Child Benefit is administered by the Treasury. So comes out of their pot of money.

Child tax credits etc is administered by the DWP.

They are two different government departments.

There is lots of internal politics when they create new, or move departments focus around.

chucky

bendix wrote: »

The government has explained this adnauseum. People either don't want to listen to the reason or are a bit thick.

So let's make it simple. The government understands that their reasoning on this looks strange, and they are aware of the anomolies it throws up.

However, to base it on household income would require means-testing, an expensive and time-consuming process that would actually cost more than the savings proposed.

There. Does that help?

just because they've done it this way it doesn't make it the right way to have done it.

go and start your on Child benfit thread please, this ones Carol's!!

MGCP

Could some kind soul help me out with a couple of questions (which will hopefully be obvious to anyone who has actually claimed child credit).

If partners A & B live together and have a child, do they both claim but get a single payment, do you submit a joint claim, or do you decide who the primary carer is and only they can claim?

Presumably the payment must be linked to the child somehow, otherwise partners could end up both claiming independently that they are looking after the same kid to try to get paid double?

If partner A claims, how would the system know that they are ineligible by reason of partner B being a top rate tax payer? Surely this requires some sort of declaration on their part, otherwise how is the information gathered and the partners linked together (especially if not married) ?

If there is some sort of declaration that your partner is not a higher rate tax payer, why can't the declaration also require you to state that your combined taxable income for the year will not exceed £44k? If it is a simple box ticking exercise why does this necessarily make it an "expensive means test"? Can't the government just tell people "them's the rules" , rely on their honesty, audit a representative sample and then hammer people with penalties if they are caught lying?

Apologies for the obvious ignorance but any pointers would be appreciated. Many thanks!