Cross Poster Subsidisation

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

In reality how many familys earn between £44K and £87K without one being a top rate earner?
How many earn £44K+ and have a top rate earner.

.

I should imagine a lot of married couples say meet at work and do similar jobs with similar pay.

Really2

No

StevieJ wrote: »

Very good point about the single HR parent.

But their are single working parents on less than £44K, substantially less (£15K).

What is it fair to them that someone on 3X their wage gets a benefit at the same rate as them?

People are getting blinded on it being slightly unfair to some middle to top rate earners.

Not my idea of the people who need it most IMHO.

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

I should imagine a lot of married couples say meet at work and do similar jobs with similar pay.

Very true. However then, when child/children come along one might sacrifice the speed of career improvement or even career. This is a family choice, and thus brings us back to the household v single earner issue. To be honest, I think the biggest problem would be in the case of separation: fairly evaluating the career sacrifices made by only one partner in a situation. But....life sucks sometimes.

StevieJ

More importantly it looks like the destiny of the Ryder cup rests on the shoulders of McDowell who is two up.

Really2

No

StevieJ wrote: »

I should imagine a lot of married couples say meet at work and do similar jobs with similar pay.

Yes, so those ones where one earns £44K+ remind me why they don't get it.:)

You hit my point on the head, it is just as likely someone earning £60K has a spouse earning £60K.

So comparing 2 wages against a single was fairly irelevent. It was targeted at base level.

A person with a child earning over £44K loses the benefit, it just so happens that if a child has two working parents their is a chance they will receive the benefit should neither earn £44K+.

It is based on an individual situation, not a couple.

LilacPixie

No

StevieJ wrote: »

The point is most most HR taxpayers (I am sure) would understand the loss of child benefit but not so happy about financing you when your household income may be higher.

OhI get that bit and as I said I find the way the 'cut off' has been done totally surprising and bizzare. What I am taking issue with the implication from some sections of the press, the opposition and posters on this site that removing child benefit somehow puts them below the poverty line, kids will suffer an labour are referring to 45k+ single earners as vulnerable.

We could do the you earn 45k a year so pay maybe 8k tax. we each earn 30k each so pay 9.5k tax. With 2 kids taking into account CB our net contribution to taxes would be £500 less, 1k ishfor 3 kids and so on. So yes our HH income would be higher but we would probably be working more hours for it.

Anyway its a stupid rule, they should of capped the claimable kids.

Benefits in this country are backwards, really backwards. Totally off topic but I had midwife on Friday and she said at next appointment she will have my form for the HiP grant, bizzarly I am eligable :eek: Also my NHS trust has decided to fund every pregnant female for antenatal vitimins no matter the income so she presented me with a hessian bag for life type thing with 3 months vits, a healthy eating book, lists of what is a portion of 5 a day and if I was a smoker all pregnant smokers are getting offered cash to stop smoking in the shape of a £8 a week voucher for asda to be spent on 'healthy' foods. I would imagine that little lot would cost a fortune no idea who funds it all but I guess taxpayers.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

But their are single working parents on less than £44K, substantially less (£15K).

What is it fair to them that someone on 3X their wage gets a benefit at the same rate as them?

People are getting blinded on it being slightly unfair to some middle to top rate earners.

Not my idea of the people who need it most IMHO.

Slightly unfair?

It's grossly unfair.

I do agree that in these times, CB probably does need to be cut and these people probably don't actually "need" it.

But there are much better ways of doing it.

Who knows, maybe that universal benefit thing will be in and running by the time this actually takes effect and that can be used to run a much fairer system based on household income.

Personally wish they had just made it for 2 kids only though and left it open to everyone.

Really2

No

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Slightly unfair?

It's grossly unfair.

I do agree that in these times, CB probably does need to be cut.

But there are much better ways of doing it.

Who knows, maybe that universal benefit thing will be in and running by the time this actually takes effect and that can be used to run a much fairer system based on household income.

Personally wish they had just made it for 2 kids only though and left it open to everyone.

Glad you edited it from abolished, as that would have been stupid. It is there to help children, abolishing it would punish the ones that need it most.

lostinrates

LilacPixie wrote: »

HiP grant, bizzarly I am eligable :eek: .

Excuse me, but I don't know what this is:o Any one care to tell me?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Glad you edited it from abolished, as that would have been stupid. It is there to help children, abolishing it would punish the ones that need it most.

I didn't write it correct first time round. Was meaning to say abolished and a benefit (say through tax credits) given for up to 2 kids and thats it.

Just got rid of abaloshed in the end! No point abolishing it and calling it something else.