MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

EvieSaver

verloren wrote: »

Time for a letter to my new MP, I think...

(For the record I will lose the benefit because of this, and I'm entirely fine with that; I just don't think it should be done this way).

I'll be sending a letter too - and yes, I also agree with your final point.

PamVegas

sh1305 wrote: »

Why should you get money for a choice? You've chosen to stay at home to look after your children.

Because thousands "choose" to have children with no means to support them and get benefits. Why should she be penalised for her OH being a high rate tax payer while her tax allowance is not being used at all.

EvieSaver

WestonDave wrote: »

For those on the margins one MSE way round this is to make additional pension contributions - that way you still keep the money you've earned (albeit put away for later) and you keep the benefits so in effect the CB goes on pension contributions. Same applies to additional charity donations under gift aid but obviously that doesn't involve keeping the money. Either will reduce taxable income and allow people to drop back into basic rate taxes.

Sorry I didn't see this before my earlier post - thanks for this advice:money:

dazza.mk

ellie43 wrote: »

My gross income is about £9k pa (a mixture of an ill health pension and IB) My husband is a postman and so doesn't earn much either. Income of 44k is something we can only dream of. I can't see how it can be justified in the current economic climate that the tax that we pay goes in part for child benefit for higher rate taxpayers.

The threshold that the govt has set for child benefit is in fact very high compared to other benefits. It would be nice if the same threshold was set when my IB is fully means tested (it is already capped because of my pension), but it is likely that because my husband works my IB/ESA will be stopped completely.

We have been repeatedly told that we will all have to pay, but the loss of £2,000 per annum has a much greater impact on a family earning £20k, than it does on a family earning 50k.

And after the changes it won't go to higher rate tax payers............
But it will potentially go to family of lower rate tax payers with a combined household income of £85k

liz-paul

#19 I don't solely pay into CTF's, it's one of the things it pays for. As far as I'm aware child benefit is to pay for expenses that arise from having kids. One of our expenses is saving for their futures in order to give them a slightly better start in adult life (e.g. paying for further education/starting a business/leaving home etc) so they are not looking to the governement to pay for those things at 18. It not like I'm investing for myself!

Gosh, hadn't seen half the posts when I wrote this.

Yes I made a choice to stay at home with my kids & now I'm being penalised for it. I don't expect to be paid for staying at home but it seems strangely unfair that supposedly it's best for young kids (& no I'm not having a pop at working mums; loads of my friends are) yet everything is geared against you doing it.

And please tell me how I can earn couple of grand a year at home easily without it affecting my kids? Cos every stay at home mum I know is looknig for the answer to that question

commutergirl

sh1305 wrote: »

But why should you get something because you have kids, yet someone who can't have kids, won't? Children are a lifestyle choice.



Er, downsize then? A big mortgage is a choice.

We must remember these children will be the future tax payers so child benefit is helping the parents to provide a little extra support for essentials. These children will hopefully be woring to support us all in our old age when we want to claim a pension.
Don't penalise the working parents who are obviuosly doing their bit to contribute already.

bunny999

liz-paul wrote: »

#19 I don't solely pay into CTF's, it's one of the things it pays for. As far as I'm aware child benefit is to pay for expenses that arise from having kids. One of our expenses is saving for their futures in order to give them a slightly better start in adult life (e.g. paying for further education/starting a business/leaving home etc) so they are not looking to the governement to pay for those things at 18. It not like I'm investing for myself!

Gosh, hadn't seen half the posts when I wrote this.

Yes I made a choice to stay at home with my kids & now I'm being penalised for it. I don't expect to be paid for staying at home but it seems strangely unfair that supposedly it's best for young kids (& no I'm not having a pop at working mums; loads of my friends are) yet everything is geared against you doing it.

And please tell me how I can earn couple of grand a year at home easily without it affecting my kids? Cos every stay at home mum I know is looknig for the answer to that question

Become a registered childminder.

dazza.mk

sh1305 wrote: »

But why should you get something because you have kids, yet someone who can't have kids, won't? Children are a lifestyle choice.



Er, downsize then? A big mortgage is a choice.

Even if you don't have kids, you want others to make that 'lifestyle choice'. Its the next generation of Tax Payers who'll be paying for your Pension/NHS etc. when you are an OAP (just as at the moment you are effectively paying for your parent's generation rather than your own).

Andy_Davies

ellie43 wrote: »

My gross income is about £9k pa (a mixture of an ill health pension and IB) My husband is a postman and so doesn't earn much either. Income of 44k is something we can only dream of. I can't see how it can be justified in the current economic climate that the tax that we pay goes in part for child benefit for higher rate taxpayers.

The threshold that the govt has set for child benefit is in fact very high compared to other benefits. It would be nice if the same threshold was set when my IB is fully means tested (it is already capped because of my pension), but it is likely that because my husband works my IB/ESA will be stopped completely.

We have been repeatedly told that we will all have to pay, but the loss of £2,000 per annum has a much greater impact on a family earning £20k, than it does on a family earning 50k.

And here's the rub....

Those people who will be over the threshold are the people who pay the tax that pays for everyone to get benefits...

40% tax payers contribute well over 50% of the total income tax take

Andy

JimmyTheWig

WestonDave wrote: »

For those on the margins one MSE way round this is to make additional pension contributions - that way you still keep the money you've earned (albeit put away for later) and you keep the benefits so in effect the CB goes on pension contributions. Same applies to additional charity donations under gift aid but obviously that doesn't involve keeping the money. Either will reduce taxable income and allow people to drop back into basic rate taxes.

Does anyone know whether this would work or not?
Also, does anyone know if they are planning on tapering the payments, either above or below the 40% threshold? Would be crazy if they didn't.