MSE News: Chancellor: child benefit cut will go ahead

tyllwyd

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

No, I'm wondering why the taxpayer should be sponsoring a human being (ie his wife) who presumably can work, to stay home. ...

I still don't understand - if the OP is working but his wife is not, in what way is the taxpayer sponsoring her to stay at home?

slipons

I am a higher rate tax payer and find it amazing that we continue to provide no incentive for honest hard working people to better themselves and have a family. I have worked hard in my educational and professional career to attain a position that pays above the higher tax rate band. My disposable income is probably less than many on low pay who benefit from tax credits, free school meals etc etc. Unfortunately next year i will be refusing to pay all the requests for "voluntary contributions" i receive from my childrens school and will be writing a formal letter to the head teacher explaining that i can no longer afford this due to losing my child benefit entitlement.

kevin137

slipons wrote: »

I am a higher rate tax payer and find it amazing that we continue to provide no incentive for honest hard working people to better themselves and have a family. I have worked hard in my educational and professional career to attain a position that pays above the higher tax rate band. My disposable income is probably less than many on low pay who benefit from tax credits, free school meals etc etc. Unfortunately next year i will be refusing to pay all the requests for "voluntary contributions" i receive from my childrens school and will be writing a formal letter to the head teacher explaining that i can no longer afford this due to losing my child benefit entitlement.

And who can blame you, i am sure there are many others that will be doing the same...!!!

RedSky

slipons wrote: »

I am a higher rate tax payer and find it amazing that we continue to provide no incentive for honest hard working people to better themselves and have a family.

Why do you need the gov's help as an incentive to "better" yourself? Wouldn't you be achieving a greater state of "better" by providing for your family without relying upon help from the gov?

Paulta

RedSky wrote: »

Why do you need the gov's help as an incentive to "better" yourself? Wouldn't you be achieving a greater state of "better" by providing for your family without relying upon help from the gov?

A greater state of "better", if we all got off our bottoms and worked a bit harder and sponged less of the system we could all achieve "better".

Take my example, my partner is restricted to part time working due her health, we have one child (not a houseful like some). I have got off my bottom and provided a salary that just tips over the maximum (which I would lose the child benifit!) in short I'm earning x2 slighlty above UK average salaries (recovering the monies my partner cannot earn) and yet I'm penalised for this. I pay my taxes so why shouldn't i get a bit back (as I spend my Child Benifit on items for my child, e.g. Shoes, Food, additional education, which fuels local and national jobs, so I'm supporting the Government by keeping people in employment and hopefully raising a child that will have good values and support the Country in future years!).

Did you know this, if you are a person that was born in the EU say Polland (and other EU states) and you work and live in the UK you can legally claim Child Benifit for Children that don't live in the UK and you can send this money home (How is this allowed!!! this is not putting money back into the UK!!!!!). Stop this option and the UK Government could save drastic amounts of Cold Hard Cash!:mad:

RedSky

Paulta wrote: »

I have got off my bottom and provided a salary that just tips over the maximum (which I would lose the child benifit!) in short I'm earning x2 slighlty above UK average salaries (recovering the monies my partner cannot earn) and yet I'm penalised for this.

I disagree you are being penalised. I would argue that our starting point is our earnings without any financial benefits. Should we receive a financial benefit then we are gaining, and only if we are deducted money are we are losing or paying a penalty. As Family Allowance was first introduced in 1946 it is easy to no longer see this as a benefit but the norm.

In your scenario, although I see you regard yourself as earning the equivalent to two salaries (and recovering what your partner is unable to earn), for tax purposes we are assessed on our individual earnings and not our combined household earnings. Hence we can only use one tax free personal allowance for income tax purposes and cannot offset any unused allowance from our partners against our own earnings.

Verdi_Fan

My daughter and daughter-in-law both gave up work in order to "Help mend broken Britain", as David Cameron quite rightly calls our once-respected country, thereby reducing their family incomes considerably.
My son and son-in-law both earn a little over the threshold, so pay tax at the higher rate. Out of their earnings, they scrape together enough money to send their children to private schools, thereby relieving the State of a huge burden, tens of thousands of pounds in fact per annum, which it would cost the State if the 3 children were removed from their present schools and sent to State schools.
It is iniquitous that these mothers, the backbone of Britain, who now earn nothing, should have their Child Benefit removed, when couples are allowed to earn over £80,000 pounds between them and farm out their children to various childminders.
I take great exception to those people who suggest that families like mine, who have no plasma screen televisions and the like, and save the State all this money on an already stretched State education system, should be penalised financially and mocked for doing their best for both the State and their own children.

RedSky

Verdi_Fan wrote: »

I take great exception to those people who suggest that families like mine, who have no plasma screen televisions and the like, and save the State all this money on an already stretched State education system, should be penalised financially and mocked for doing their best for both the State and their own children.

I doubt your purpose for choosing private education was to cut the State's education bill. Although this is a consequence, its sounds as though you feel you should be reimbursed the expense saved. Should the same apply to those with private roads or private security?

As to being penalised financially, it is debatable as to whether withdrawing a benefit is effectively imposing a penalty.

Verdi_Fan

My daughter and daughter-in-law did exactly what David Cameron wanted. They gave up their jobs to help mend our appallingly "Broken Britain". Both their husbands earn over the threshold for 40% tax.They do not own plasma screen TVs and other extravagent electronic devices. They do not smoke or go to the pub.They do not earn over £80,000+ per year, which families where both parents work are able to do without penalty. HOWEVER, by scrimping and saving in the past, they are just about affording to send my 3 grandchildren to private schools, thereby saving The State, tens of thousands of pounds a year in an already bursting-at-the-seams State Education system.
It is totally counterproductive of the Chancellor to remove their Child Benefit, which is what he intends, as my grandchildren may now have to enter the State school system. Private schools' class sizes and class numbers are already decreasing because of this. These children are starting to attend State schools instead. This will only get worse as the new plan is implemented.
How petty! Why doesn't he simply continue to pay Child Benefit to those mothers whose earnings are nil or under the 40% threshold. He has shot himself in the foot with this iniquitous plan.
As to those of you who snipe that all those over the threshold don't know how lucky they are and must be rich, I am disgusted with your attitude. When your children's class sizes are over the legal limit, perhaps you will reflect on why this is occuring.

JimmyTheWig

You've already posted that, Verdi Fan!