MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

danlojo

LOL Kimitatsu :rotfl:

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.

I have one of those too!!!:D

WASHER

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317438/George-Osborne-axes-child-benefit-higher-rate-taxpayers-slaps-cap-welfare.html

The Daily Mail are stating at anyone over 37,401 will lose child benefit.

The Guardian are saying Approx 42K, the BBC and Sky are saying 44k.

Where can I get a definite figure from?

Jet

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

About time too.

Child benefit was originally brought in to help to feed and clothe the poorest families - it was paid to Mothers so that Fathers didn't drink it up the wall.

And how many mothers still rely on that benefit to do exactly that? There are a lot of controlling men out there who are the breadwinners who lose nothing from their income but the wife / partner will do so.

As far as I am concerned the coalition government are penalising the most vulnerable as if both partners earn similar amounts but are under the higher rate tax band, she doesn't lose the child benefit, the more vulnerable "stay at home" women are more likely to do so. Why not tax the wages of the higher rate tax payer? This is effectively another tax, but on the most vulnerable!

Juicyloo

I think the whole point of this is going back to the whole point of the Welfare System, whereby set up to ensure the welfare of everyone in the system- the welfare as in basic standards of living, not maintaining those living outside their means- listen to yourselves for goodness sake.

I have been on both sides of the equation so am well qualified to comment.

Earning over 44k for a family are more than average, and I have no sympathy with this entitled to society whatsoever- about time everyone had a wake up call.

As for the scroungers on benefits- every story is different, and generalisation is ignorant.

Jobs above minimum wage are hard to come by nowadays due to employers expecting the tax credit system to compensate for low wages. Have seen massive changes in last 10 plus years.

Have no sympathy whatsoever for the people on the threshold- downsize, look at lifestyle cuts, just like people on benefits have to!

And yes am on benefits due to looking after my parents (CA) but also in a grade F property and am middlle class- I hate this country at the moment.

Aless

sh1305 wrote: »

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

Err, yes quite clearly. The point is it is a choice which reduces the burden on the tax payer not increases it and it is a choice they pay their own money to make. Having children you cannot support is a choice and it is a choice which burdens those who do work and pay taxes.

qetu1357

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. 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.

Well said.

If you have a system where even more people pay in but never take anything out, the people paying in will start to think "why should we?"

sinstar

I think it is RIDICULOUS that a household with 1 person paying higher rate tax will lose their child benefit while a household with the same income split between 2 people won't. They should introduce a household income threshold, that would be much more fair.

How is it fair that a single person earning £60k pays MORE tax, and loses their Child Benefit, while a couple each earning £30k not only pay LESS tax but also keep their Child Benefit?

I honestly thought this must be a joke when I heard it.

Juicyloo

Aless wrote: »

Err, yes quite clearly. The point is it is a choice which reduces the burden on the tax payer not increases it and it is a choice they pay their own money to make. Having children you cannot support is a choice and it is a choice which burdens those who do work and pay taxes.

But not everyone has the priviledge of a good education like you obviously did (and I also went to grammar school). The gap just gets wider and wider the longer a child goes on in life. Everyone is entitled to choice in a democracy but unfortunately the less well off do not seem have those choices. Believe me I know- passed my 11 plus back in 1976 and went to a private school- my education-free- was a world away from that which my kids have had, but they have done/are still doing well. I come from a working class background and would not pay for any of these things.

sinstar

WASHER wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317438/George-Osborne-axes-child-benefit-higher-rate-taxpayers-slaps-cap-welfare.html

The Daily Mail are stating at anyone over 37,401 will lose child benefit.

The Guardian are saying Approx 42K, the BBC and Sky are saying 44k.

Where can I get a definate figure from?

HMRC website states the higher rate of tax is applicable to any earnings over £37,400. So if anyone in the household is earning over this amount they'll be paying higher rate tax so will lose Child Benefit.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

Aless

Juicyloo wrote: »

But not everyone has the priviledge of a good education like you obviously did (and I also went to grammar school). The gap just gets wider and wider the longer a child goes on in life. Everyone is entitled to choice in a democracy but unfortunately the less well off do not seem have those choices. Believe me I know- passed my 11 plus back in 1976 and went to a private school- my education-free- was a world away from that which my kids have had, but they have done/are still doing well. I come from a working class background and would not pay for any of these things.

My parents were pretty poor when I grew up and I went to a comprehensive. My parents both left school at 14/15 and worked all their lives. However I worked hard, went to an excellent university and have a good well paying job. My sister and I were (and still are) the first (and only) people in my entire family to go to university. I do not agree with university fees etc. and I worry about people being priced out of education which I think is a terrible and short termist thing. My point is a theoretical one about surely it is a good idea that people who pay in the most feel like they get something for what they put in.