MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

Paulgonnabedebtfree

MSE_Guy wrote: »

Unfortunately, HMRC does a very poor job at explaining tax thresholds. The £37,400 figure you refer to is the amount of taxable income charged at 20% tax. But before you get taxed, most people have a personal allowance of £6,475.

So, for most, the first £6,475 of income per year is not taxed and the next £37,400 is taxed at 20%. So only once you get over £43,875 (6,475 + 37,400) do you pay higher rate tax at 40%.

Guy has explained it better than I. I hadn't got as far as his post when I posted something along the same lines just above here.

Armada_2

Child benefit as it is, is paid to everyone who has a child/children irrespective of circumstances or finances....This should change for the benefit of the child/children.

Child benefit should not be paid to any parent....it should be given to the schools. Every child in the UK gets free education from the age of 3 nursery/4 or 5 to 16 or 18 years of age at school.
The money would cover such things as school dinners and school uniforms......this way, we would know that for 5 days a week every child would get a good healthy meal, also they would be clothed appropriately.
It would also create jobs, cooks, dinner lady’s, seamstresses, etc., food/materials could be purchased much cheaper in bulk leaving money over to assist in the education of the children of the UK.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

I suppose Madonna will now be doing a UK tour in 2013 to buy up all the spare children.

danlojo

We can't all be bankers or doctors.

My husband and I have worked blummin hard and studied to get the jobs which he now has, and I had but I'm now a SAHM.

We have paid into this country for many. many years and have never asked for handouts.

Too many people in this country sit on their fat aris's and expect money too easily.

The government are now hitting those who have bothered to get up an find work.

How can they justify that if one household has 1 earner at 47k and next door both earn 43k each that they retain their CB? Was someone on the loopy juice when they made that one up??

Aless

JoJo2004 makes a good point. This is one of the few benefits highish earners get. These are the people that contribute most of the tax revenues to the country so funding the benefits for others, probably send their kids to private schools, have private medical care etc. so they are pretty undemanding on the country. Why should they not get a little bit of their tax back? At least it makes them feel like they get something from the system they pay for. Also if both parents work and are higher rate tax payers the childcare costs are going to be pretty crippling. Surely these are the people who should be encouraged or at least not scared off having children rather than people with 8 kids living off benefits who have never and will never bother to get a job and support themselves and their families. As other people have said to earn that sort of money people often work hard and long hours, and may have spent a lot on education (uni fees etc) or taken a long time to climb up the career ladder.

keithnic_2

Labour kept on banging on about reducing child poverty. They did this by giving the parents more money/benefits with no control on what they spent it on. Many spent it on booze, fags and drugs to the complete detriment of children.

Can we introduce payments by vouchers so the children will directly benefit in better clothes, meals, after school and sporting activities? We would probably be accused of racism or moneyism or some kind of other ism which hasn't been thought of yet!

Paulgonnabedebtfree

danlojo wrote: »

My husband and I have worked blummin hard and studied to get the jobs which he now has, and I had but I'm now a SAHM.

We have paid into this country for many. many years and have never asked for handouts.

Too many people in this country sit on their fat aris's and expect money too easily.

The government are now hitting those who have bothered to get up an find work.

How can they justify that if one household has 1 earner at 47k and next door both earn 43k each that they retain their CB? Was someone on the loopy juice when they made that one up??

Indeed I totally agree with what many have written on here that, if a change has to be made at all, it should be based on the income of both partners.
I have no children but this will still have a knock on effect for me. If people are going to be losing the equivalent of £1 -£3k a year they won't be wanting to pay me to clean their windows any more. Some of the people directly affected will be those who I consider to be my best customers.

Indie_Kid

Aless wrote: »

JoJo2004 makes a good point. This is one of the few benefits highish earners get. These are the people that contribute most of the tax revenues to the country so funding the benefits for others, probably send their kids to private schools, have private medical care etc. so they are pretty undemanding on the country.

Private medical care and sending a child to a fee paying school is a choice.

Kimitatsu

Armada wrote: »

Child benefit as it is, is paid to everyone who has a child/children irrespective of circumstances or finances....This should change for the benefit of the child/children.

Child benefit should not be paid to any parent....it should be given to the schools. Every child in the UK gets free education from the age of 3 nursery/4 or 5 to 16 or 18 years of age at school.
The money would cover such things as school dinners and school uniforms......this way, we would know that for 5 days a week every child would get a good healthy meal, also they would be clothed appropriately.
It would also create jobs, cooks, dinner lady’s, seamstresses, etc., food/materials could be purchased much cheaper in bulk leaving money over to assist in the education of the children of the UK.

Brilliant idea! Now if you can clothe my ever growing teenager (he is 13 and 5ft 9 and still growing like a weed) feed him a meal that will fill him up at lunchtime all the way until teatime for £20 a week including school pe kit, footie and rugby boots, blazer, tie, 5 shirts (because he is a boy and he smells) trousers, underwear, decent coat oh and shoes (currently he is almost a size 10 - thats an adults 10) I will forgoe the £20 a week I get in CB with glee. :T

Somehow though I dont think its going to catch on.........:rotfl:

EvieSaver

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Brilliant idea! Now if you can clothe my ever growing teenager (he is 13 and 5ft 9 and still growing like a weed) feed him a meal that will fill him up at lunchtime all the way until teatime for £20 a week including school pe kit, footie and rugby boots, blazer, tie, 5 shirts (because he is a boy and he smells) trousers, underwear, decent coat oh and shoes (currently he is almost a size 10 - thats an adults 10) I will forgoe the £20 a week I get in CB with glee. :T

Somehow though I dont think its going to catch on.........:rotfl:

Your use of smiley's is just perfect there