MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

DirectDebacle

scootw1 wrote: »

Problem is that a lot of them will choose to go for a night out rather than pay their bills. Only last night I asked someone "how come you can afford to go out and spending on fruit machines on only £30 a week?" and he said "well, sometimes you just miss your rent or council tax and pay it again". Housing benefits should be paid direct to the landlord which would stop that sort of thing going on

Problem is that in some quarters anyone who is in receipt of benefit is regarded as a 'benefit scrounger'. People who prefer to stay at home and receive benefit rather than go out to work to support their families certainly fall into this category. They represent a minority of claimants, but nevertheless are a drain on the rest of us.

Has not the stay at home spouse of a higher rate taxpayer who, having lost their child benefit, now has to seek work to make ends meet, been such a scrounger?

Nuttygal

DirectDebacle wrote: »

.
!
Has not the stay at home spouse of a higher rate taxpayer who, having lost their child benefit, now has to seek work to make ends meet, been such a scrounger?

I'm sorry but that statement is bordering on ridiculous! To liken the spouse/partner of a stay at home parent to someone who has chosen to scrounge from the state without just cause is absurd. The stay at home parent and their partner whom you theoretically speak of have made a conscious decision as a partnership for the working parent to not only pay his/her 40% tax but also to support the non working spouse. Therefore contributing to society as a whole yet taking almost nothing back. They are financially responsible to both the state and themselves. The benefit scrounger whom you refer to is prepared to take from society to fund their entire existence whilst making no contribution financially- how is this comparable? Perhaps if the higher tax paying family weren't being taxed to the hilt then they wouldn't find the loss of CB to be so hard.!

It is my belief that far too often those in the higher tax bracket are berated for their "gall to be doing better than others"! They didn't happen to stumble upon a high earning job. They've worked their rear ends off to achieve their success and instead of society being thankful for the huge financial contribution this tax bracket makes they continually berate them and try to make them feel undeserving of their own money!! Perhaps more time and effort should be spent berating those who claim benefits which they are not genuinely entitled to as these are the people who deserve your criticisms.

Perhaps if these people were stopped then those of us in a higher tax paying household might actually get to enjoy some of our hard earned cash instead of watching Joe Bloggs down the road enjoying spending it on his new plasma tv whilst he pretends he can't work!

Dorastar

Nuttygal wrote: »

It is my belief that far too often those in the higher tax bracket are berated for their "gall to be doing better than others"! They didn't happen to stumble upon a high earning job. They've worked their rear ends off to achieve their success and instead of society being thankful for the huge financial contribution this tax bracket makes they continually berate them and try to make them feel undeserving of their own money!! Perhaps more time and effort should be spent berating those who claim benefits which they are not genuinely entitled to as these are the people who deserve your criticisms.

Perhaps if these people were stopped then those of us in a higher tax paying household might actually get to enjoy some of our hard earned cash instead of watching Joe Bloggs down the road enjoying spending it on his new plasma tv whilst he pretends he can't work!

Definitely agree - nicely put (no plasma here in the higher tax bracket)

TheSaint_2

Nuttygal wrote: »

I'm sorry but that statement is bordering on ridiculous!

Couldn't agree more!

Having said that (being a higher rate tax payer) I fully agree that child benefit should be withdrawn from those in the higher bracket. Anyone that says they "need" that money to live has no grasp of the real world anymore.

We all spend according to our means, so if you get a £10 pay rise your spending habits change to use up that cash. They (and i) will adapt to the (slightly!) lower income.
I have said many times that I think it daft that we got child benefit when earning so much - and I am only just over the threshold for higher tax.
By doing this those of us with a bit more income can shoulder some of the debt left to us by the fabulous communist party, while allowing those that need it to retain it.
We all just need to stop being so selfish and think of others for a change.

Dorastar

TheSaint wrote: »

Couldn't agree more!

Having said that (being a higher rate tax payer) I fully agree that child benefit should be withdrawn from those in the higher bracket. Anyone that says they "need" that money to live has no grasp of the real world anymore.

We all spend according to our means, so if you get a £10 pay rise your spending habits change to use up that cash. They (and i) will adapt to the (slightly!) lower income.
I have said many times that I think it daft that we got child benefit when earning so much - and I am only just over the threshold for higher tax.
By doing this those of us with a bit more income can shoulder some of the debt left to us by the fabulous communist party, while allowing those that need it to retain it.
We all just need to stop being so selfish and think of others for a change.

Well wouldn't mind so much if public sector wasn't already losing out in every other way and those with £86k between them were expected to have the broad shoulders too.

hiney777

A family with 1 higher tax payer earning £44,000 will take home £2689

A family with 2 earners on £22,000 will take home £2850 between them

If both these families have 2 children. The higher tax payer will take home £2689 per month
and the family with two lower earners will take home £2990 per month.
That is £301 a month or £3612 per year
So 2 people need earn £19500 each to be on the same as a family with 1 earner on £44000.
£5000 less for the same take home pay.
Come on give these families a break they work hard for less

DirectDebacle

Nuttygal wrote: »

I'm sorry but that statement is bordering on ridiculous! To liken the spouse/partner of a stay at home parent to someone who has chosen to scrounge from the state without just cause is absurd. QUOTE]


It wasn't a statement but a question which you failed to understand. I compared two people who chose not to work because a state benefit(s) enabled them to make that choice. In that respect I see no difference between them irrespective of what income tax bracket they are in.

You suggest it is theoretical, I would suggest it is no more theoretical than the household with two earners magically earning just under the higher rate tax band each. That assumes they are also very greedy and do not have the decency not to claim it.

I couched my post in such a way as to provoke a response. Yours was the 'Outraged of Orpington' I expected but thankfully The Saint came out with an opinion which I hoped to see and I trust is much more representative of those who pay higher rate tax.

To me benefits are something you should only receive if you need them. As a taxpayer I do not begrudge part of my tax being allocated to those that have fallen on hard times. Neither do I hold the view that because some of my taxes are in part used to fund a benefits sytsem then for that reason I should receive something back in benefits. Benefits are supposed to be a safety net. I hope I am never unfortunate enough to fall into it.

On 20th Oct. there is likely to be series of measures announced that will make this small change to the benefits system seem even more insignificant. They may mean that some higher rate taxpayers, particularly those in the public sector, are going to have their wish to receive benefits because they pay for them, granted in a much more generous way than even they wished for.

Very well summed up by The Saint.

We all just need to stop being so selfish and think of others for a change.
[/QUOTE

divastrop

Nuttygal wrote: »

I'm sorry but that statement is bordering on ridiculous! To liken the spouse/partner of a stay at home parent to someone who has chosen to scrounge from the state without just cause is absurd. The stay at home parent and their partner whom you theoretically speak of have made a conscious decision as a partnership for the working parent to not only pay his/her 40% tax but also to support the non working spouse. Therefore contributing to society as a whole yet taking almost nothing back. They are financially responsible to both the state and themselves. The benefit scrounger whom you refer to is prepared to take from society to fund their entire existence whilst making no contribution financially- how is this comparable? Perhaps if the higher tax paying family weren't being taxed to the hilt then they wouldn't find the loss of CB to be so hard.!

It is my belief that far too often those in the higher tax bracket are berated for their "gall to be doing better than others"! They didn't happen to stumble upon a high earning job. They've worked their rear ends off to achieve their success and instead of society being thankful for the huge financial contribution this tax bracket makes they continually berate them and try to make them feel undeserving of their own money!! Perhaps more time and effort should be spent berating those who claim benefits which they are not genuinely entitled to as these are the people who deserve your criticisms.

Perhaps if these people were stopped then those of us in a higher tax paying household might actually get to enjoy some of our hard earned cash instead of watching Joe Bloggs down the road enjoying spending it on his new plasma tv whilst he pretends he can't work!

I don't think that every higher rate tax payer has worked their rear end off to get where they are- more like mummy and daddy paid for them to go to a good school and uni and they have picked up good contacts along the way.
There seems to be quite allot of time and effort being put into berating those on benefits at the moment, especially in the media which is where I assume you have picked up the old plasma tv myth. Those on benefits with such luxury household items are either a) screwing the system by working on the side ( a minority of claimants), b) dealing drugs, o c) are intellectually challenged enough to get household items from such rip-off merchants as bright house etc who prey on people such as these, or d) have been bought these items as a gift which is not illegal or morally wrong as far as I can see.

Fran

divastrop wrote: »

Those on benefits with such luxury household items are either a) screwing the system by working on the side ( a minority of claimants), b) dealing drugs, o c) are intellectually challenged enough to get household items from such rip-off merchants as bright house etc who prey on people such as these, or d) have been bought these items as a gift which is not illegal or morally wrong as far as I can see.

You could add e) Already owned the items before falling on hard times, f) Sold something (or things) in order to buy something else, g) Were given them by better off family members, h) Inherited an amount of money, i) Won some money, j) Had some savings (allowed up to a point).

FBaby

divastrop wrote: »

I don't think that every higher rate tax payer has worked their rear end off to get where they are- more like mummy and daddy paid for them to go to a good school and uni and they have picked up good contacts along the way.
There seems to be quite allot of time and effort being put into berating those on benefits at the moment, especially in the media which is where I assume you have picked up the old plasma tv myth. Those on benefits with such luxury household items are either a) screwing the system by working on the side ( a minority of claimants), b) dealing drugs, o c) are intellectually challenged enough to get household items from such rip-off merchants as bright house etc who prey on people such as these, or d) have been bought these items as a gift which is not illegal or morally wrong as far as I can see.

Yes, they had mummy and daddy who worked hard themselves and put money aside to support their children to go to uni. Shame on them....

But you are right, by choosing to be on benefits, supposedly for the better of the children, you are potentially taking away from your children a chance to go to Uni... I do feel sorry for those children whose parents are choosing to be on benefits. They limit their ability to experience many things in life and as we know children learn more from what they see then from what they are told, they are inevitably more likely to want to live a life of benefits themselves are they grow up