We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Child benefit to be scrapped for higher rate tax payers from 2013
Comments
-
Dear Carult - i don't know what planet you live on but a family bringing home £18.000 does not get all of it's rent paid or it's council tax, or any of the other things you quoted! I should know I'm in one of those families!! We pay all of our rent, council tax, dental,eye care, prescriptions etc.. The only thing we get is child tax credit, family allowance and thats it!! So may I suggest you get off your high horse and get your facts straight rather than peddling old wives tales!!
MM
What a load of rubbish - I have put my details into entitledto.com, and I certainly would get all of these paid - maybe you should see what you're 'entitled to'
- because you are certainly underclaiming. 0 -
The reason they've done it on personal income rather than household income is that it's easier to administer. The inland revenue already have the details of lower and higher rate payers and can adjust child benefit accordingly.
It just gets more complicated when you start looking at household income, and we already know that governments in general need to make things as simple as they can otherwise they screw it upHave owned outright since Sept 2009, however I'm of the firm belief that high prices are a cancer on society, they have sucked money out of the economy, handing it to banks who've squandered it.0 -
shortchanged wrote: »The reason they are basing it on one persons income is becasue they don't want any stay at home parents anymore. They want BOTH parents working.
Don't know where you are in the country but every single family I know has both parents working.
Oddly enough even those who are rich and can afford to have the mother staying at home, the mother works.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
you can be as angry and as furious as you like but it really is quite simple - the family on £18k is much more in need of child benefit than those on single or a combined income of £50k.
Totally agree - if that was all they got.
But my point was that it isn't is it?
And why should families where both parents work and earn £43,999 be entitled to child benefit, whilst the same family where one earns £44,000 and the other earns pin money, are entitled to nothing.
Total mess.0 -
Nope.lostinrates wrote: »wouldn't that, in the first instance, simply boost unemployment figures?
If you are a couple and one of you earns approx. over £94 per week (can't remember exact figure) you aren't entitled to receive unemployment benefit.
You are allowed to receive other benefits if you have children.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
Totally agree - if that was all they got.
But my point was that it isn't is it?
And why should families where both parents work and earn £43,999 be entitled to child benefit, whilst the same family where one earns £44,000 and the other earns pin money, are entitled to nothing.
Total mess.
The cut of point has to come somewhere.
They have a choice of making the system complicated like Labour did with WTC or simple like child benefit now.
They opted for the simple option as it's cheaper to administer.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
Nope.
If you are a couple and one of you earns approx. over £94 per week (can't remember exact figure) you aren't entitled to receive unemployment benefit.
You are allowed to receive other benefits if you have children.
Nevertheless the number of those unemployed (rather than economically inactive) would rise, surely? Rising unemployment figures are never a vote winner or morale booster. That's really what I was refering to.0 -
And why should families where both parents work and earn £43,999 be entitled to child benefit, whilst the same family where one earns £44,000 and the other earns pin money, are entitled to nothing.
Total mess.
If that was the case would you not ask for a £1 wage cut PA? If it meant that much to my staff I would do it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards