MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

keithnic_2

I see from the BBC news that 83% of people think that removing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers is a sound idea. Very close to the amount of the population unaffected by this decision.

I note that the average wage is £26k in UK and checked what benefits one would get. You would pay £6k in nat insurance and income tax. However, that family would get £4.5k in tax credits, £1,000 council tax benefit and if they had two kids £1,760 in child benefit.

Effectively a family with one earner on average wage and two children would be RECEIVING a net £1,260!!! They get free education, health service, defence, etc, etc and then they then have the nerve to suggest that higher rate taxpayers should contribute more towards their lives. Its pathetic. Please someone tell me I have done my figures wrong.

Sponge

I don't know where you got your information from, but I'm on significantly less than the average wage and do not qualify for council tax benefit. I think your calculations are incorrect.

The notion that only higher rate tax payers work hard (suggested on page 1) is highly insulting. I work damned hard and don't earn anywhere near enough to be taxed at the higher rate. For those same high rate tax payers to also complain they can't survive without CB is infuriating. You are not poor! You earn over £44,000 per year !!!!!!! You do not need CB.

ajaxgeezer

qetu1357 wrote: »

A child is like any other luxury......a cocaine habit.

What!?

.... sure, remove some words, take it out of context, but the point is still the same. What is the logic that just because someone knocks a kid out then they should receive an automatic tax free bonus? The benefits system is there for the needy.

Kids are a lifestyle choice - you want it, you pay for it. When you pay for the luxury of my golf club membership, I'll be happy about paying for the luxury of people's sprogs.

murraymint1976

I personally think it is disgusting that the government are going to take this benefit away from those families that are in reality earning much lower than 2 parents working under the higher tax threshold. I HAVE to stay at home with my children as my husband HAS to work away mon - fri to make any decent money. We live in Cornwall where opportunities aren't easy to come by, We will lose this benefit if the government plan goes through.
Why should my family be £1700 worse off each year when a afamily earning around £80,000 between them will essentially be this amount better off (for 2 children)??? I do actually use my allowance for the kids, I use it to buy shoes, clothes, nappies etc.
To add insult to injury, this comes on top of the proposed loss of the child tax credits as well!!!
I didn't vote this government in this time and I certainly wont be voting for then next time either! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Kimitatsu

Armada wrote: »

Kimitatsu wrote: »

QUOTE]
From new born to 3 years of age, a good case can be made for given a benefit for those children.
From the age of 3 it is a very weak case for giving a benefit directly to the parent/s for them....From that age they can be in the education system (which cost a lot of money) until they are 18 years of age. The CB should be given to the place children spend the majority of the waking school days.

So what do we pay tax and NI insurance for then? And what about the 12 weeks of the year when they are not at school? I dont doubt we have a very good education system, but for the amount of tax and national insurance we pay as a household we could certainly afford to send the children to a very good public school. Before anyone points it out, I am aware that tax and ni goes to far more than that but as a simple example it shows the point.


Child benefit doesn’t cover the total up keep of a child...it is not supposed to...It’s not supposed to cover extra mural activities etc...
Why not? So because I am not a benefit scrounger, dont "pop out kids" etc etc and I can afford to feed and clothe my children you are criticising me for giving them a rounded education? And yet when prospective employers visit these schools, they are all keen to know what extra curricular activities the children do, because it demonstrates abilities to be part of teams, and to get off their backsides rather than sitting playing computer games all the time.

In your case, I suggest you move to an area where your children will be able to do the activities you suggest they need without inconveniencing you and putting you to unnecessary expense...Libraries have computers, supermarkets/chain stores have cheap school clothes.....If you can’t afford what you say you need without CB, then you will have to cut your and your children’s cloth...by you and them giving up things.

I can only imagine from your posts that you dont have children! I live in a rural area, and yes I could move to a city where there are more facilities such as those you have described........but who will run the farms, who will learn the skills to be able to do those things tomorrow? We live where we live so as a family unit we can spend time together and my husband is close to where he needs to work.....or perhaps we should live seperately and I should claim benefits instead?? School uniform once they get to secondary school is all logo'd and as one other poster has pointed out, if they dont wear it then they are sent home, so disrupting their education.

Unfortunately you are not going to see what you want, as the government are just going to do it....CB isn’t meant to benefit everyone, it is meant to benefit children.....If the money is taken away from parent/s guardian it will be used for the best thing you cangive a child....an education.......Now that would be all parents looking to the future for their children.

So spending money on extra curricular activities is not spending money on the children? Not all children are academic so I assume in this utopia that you would have facilities for children who dont learn in traditional ways?

Not relevant to the debate!

But it is because without the banks making monstrously bad decisions, we would not have had to bail them out and then we would not all be paying for the mistake.

Not really relevant to the debate!.....but........
The percentage that pensioners put in the government pot is far higher than what they are getting back.

I think it is safe to say that everyone who has posted on this thread is concerned at the money they will lose not because it "pays" for their children, but it does contribute towards them. You patently have no idea how much it costs to clothe and shoe a child....so perhaps you should come into the real world!

Kimitatsu

ajaxgeezer wrote: »

.... sure, remove some words, take it out of context, but the point is still the same. What is the logic that just because someone knocks a kid out then they should receive an automatic tax free bonus? The benefits system is there for the needy.

Kids are a lifestyle choice - you want it, you pay for it. When you pay for the luxury of my golf club membership, I'll be happy about paying for the luxury of people's sprogs.

thing is if you find it difficult to make ends meet then you can go to rehab (state funded) or you can rehome your dog (also defined by the state).......difficult to do that with kids.

Either make CB a universal benefit given to all, or abolish it for everyone and add the increases into CTC, that would seem the fairest way of all to me.

JimmyTheWig

sh1305 wrote: »

Couples already receive a tax break, technically - a single person pays tax on anything above £6475. A couples pays tax on anything above £12950. (2 lots of £6475)

No, that's not true.
If only one of the couple works then the combined tax-free allowance is effectively £6475 (as the non-working person doesn't use their allowance).
I would presume that the tax break being suggested is to change it to what you have said.

mardatha

Oooh aren't things suddenly different when they start to get tough with the well-heeled ? Now try to imagine what it's like for the sick and unemployed genuine people who are already on the breadline, scrimping and scraping like hell every single day ... and facing a barrage of abuse in forums and in the press. What goes around comes around indeed!

Naughty_Noonoo

I have read a lot of different arguments on this matter. It seems to me that certain people simply think that earning 45k is like being a millionnaire, that is far from the truth.
Now if benefits are to be removed from the so called wealthy like me on 45k then I would like benefits to be non cash and only to be used against food and clothes. Other benefits relating to rent, council tax and fuel can be paid direct to the relevent authorities. All too often I see people stood outside a Supermarket with a trolley full of booze and junk food, puffing away on cigs and scratching lottery tickets, talking on a mobile phone and their children are dressed in rags. These people do not work but manage to have subscription TV channels and hi-spec electrical equipment. They can afford to go to the pub and bingo but are often too ill to work. If this element of society were dealt with properly then people like me would accept decisions like the Child Benefit cuts. At present my child Benefit goes towards the cost of food and clothes for my children and nothing else.

ajaxgeezer

Kimitatsu wrote: »

thing is if you find it difficult to make ends meet then you can go to rehab (state funded) or you can rehome your dog (also defined by the state).......difficult to do that with kids.

Either make CB a universal benefit given to all, or abolish it for everyone and add the increases into CTC, that would seem the fairest way of all to me.

... purely opinion of course, but abolishment is the only way to go. There is no logic that says that just because you knock out a kid then you should get freebie cash, whereas there is a lot of logic (to me) in the welfare state profviding for those in genuine need - just the way the benefits system is supposed to work.

Your analogy of state funded rehab if you can't make ends meet is a great one, as the same levels of hardship should see a kid looked after too.