MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

WASHER

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/ask-an-expert/article.html?in_article_id=515890&in_page_id=138

I think DaveWeston has already mentioned this idea several times before, seems to make sense to me for those who earn just over the limit.

gauly

WASHER wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/george-osborne-under-fire-welfare

This article from the Guardian is saying the cap comes in at 42,375 as it changes in April 2011.

Any ideas which is the correct figure.

WASHER.x.

I remember the 40% tax rate was to be lowered at the same time as the nil-rate tax band was raised (to leave the move cost neutral for higher rate tax payers). So I guess the £42k figure is correct.

becominganobsessivesaver

Personally this could impact my family. I'm on the boundary of the 40% band, my husband lost his job and is setting up on his own, we have no family close by and therefore spend significant sums on childcare. I was the first year of uni tuition fees and will have just paid off my loan as this comes in. I'm just waiting for them to stop the free nursery place at 3 next!!! It does feel like everything's against my generation and that the sacrifices I'm making to give my daughter a better life may not be worth it.

danlojo

Why penalise those that work hard to gain a decent salary yet hand out multiple payments for those that have children and dont actually work to support them?

Well said!

After all these cuts hitting our own who have paid into our countries system why haven't the 'coalition' said anything about immigration and stopping the influx sucking our country dry?? We are paying the price for the floodgates opening:mad:

jojo2004

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Fairness seems to be rather subjective. Cast your minds back to the abolition of the 10p tax rate under the previous administration.

As a result of that around 5m people were worse off. They earned gross around 12k a year or less. Of course those on higher earnings were significantly better off as a result and probably thought the change was fair and right that the poor should subsidise their lower taxes.

What's wrong with that? Since it seems to go unchallenged that the 'rich' should be taxed into oblivion to subsidise the poor, why shouldn't it work the other way round for a change?
How about the poor being expected to WORK harder/longer/improve their prospects by developing new skills in order to subsidise THEMSELVES??

Oh wait. That would mean taking responsibility for one's self. Not having kids until/unless you can afford them; saving for expensive purchases rather than incurring debts; saving for a deposit on a house; not taking on a mortgage you can't afford...
I forgot that that isn't allowed under Health and Safety laws these days.

Indie_Kid

jojo2004 wrote: »

What's wrong with that? Since it seems to go unchallenged that the 'rich' should be taxed into oblivion to subsidise the poor, why shouldn't it work the other way round for a change?
How about the poor being expected to WORK harder/longer/improve their prospects by developing new skills in order to subsidise THEMSELVES??

We can't all be bankers or doctors.

EvieSaver

None of these changes help them achieve their targets.

A fair system for all:
Single mother earning £44k = no child benefit (CB)
Two parent family earning £87k = CB

Support traditional families:
One parent at home raising children, one high earner = no CB
Two working parents slightly under higher tax rate = CB

Make it always better to work than be on benefits:
Benefit's capped at £26k - equivalent to gross salary of £35k, this is out of
most people's reach so they would still be better off on benefits.

Slightly confused.

julie2710

Marvellous!!! As a single parent to two boys, who works full time and always has done I will not only lose my WFTC next year but now my CB as well because I earn £500 over the tax band! Great!!! So now I'll have to find all my childcare costs myself, pay my mortgage myself, pay all my bills etc myself and subsidise fortunate couples who can in effect take home nearly twice what I do along with the families (single parent or otherwise) who can continue to breed untethered and allow me to contribute to their housing, food, clothes, fags, nights out and holidays!

Seriously, apart from my sense of pride what is the point in my working anymore? I am truly beginning to think I would be better off on benefits and if there is any lingering doubt this damn government seems to be doing it's utmost to prove the case!!!!!

Paulgonnabedebtfree

danielanthony wrote: »

The reports say that higher rate tax payers will loose this benefit but the cut off figure banded around is £44,000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300

The higher rate tax band starts at £37,400 (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm) so if you earn over this you are a higher rate tax payer, where did the £44,000 number come from?

HMRC do muddy the waters a bit sometimes. They often quote tax bands without including the tax free personal allowance. This is currently c. £6k or a bit more. I suspect that this is what has happened in this case.

apcorbett

What a rubbish way to do it...

All it will mean is that I won't do any overtime, which pushes me just over the 40% threshold (from next year, when it comes down to just under £43k), as it isn't worth losing the £2,444pa I get through child benefit...

Or, alternatively, I'll put money in to a pension, so that I am just below the 40% mark...

All it is doing is encouraging those at or around the higher level to make sure that they remain under else they lose the child benefit.