MSE News: Chancellor: child benefit cut will go ahead

waynej69

okay, can we be clear about this..

"rich" and "Poor" define please? surely they are relative terms and hence basically meaningless.

saying that "you pay high rate of tax hence you must be rich" is as bad as saying "you claim benefits hence you must be lazy" - neither statment is true, as both make blanket assumptions that imply simplicity when the reality is very complicated.

By stopping child benefit to those with "higher incomes" The government is effectively saying "We should make Child benefit Means-tested"

I have absolutley no problem with making child benefit means tested, but what I do feel is absurd is trying to do that whilst (and I qoute my MP directly) "trying to avoid a complicated means testing system"

there are many fair ways of making child benefit means tested:

1) tie it to the claimants income only - therefore the lowest earning parent in a household could claim. - if both are "high rate tax payers" then beneift is lost.

2) Tie it to "Household income" - therfore the households with more money coming in would lose the benefit.

3) Abolish child benefit completely and join it in with an existing "means tested system, like the TAX credit system (in theory.. assuming that systme worked properly.....)

I for one hope the govenrment takes a serious look at how they will make "child benefit" means tested, fairly.....

rant avoided... hopefully?

cheers,

zagfles

spidystrider wrote: »

My husband earns £44,000 before tax and I am a stay at home mum. We have 3 kids and a huge mortgage, so this is going to take a tidy sum away from us.
I wouldn't mind so much, but it's ridiculous that in homes with both parents out at work, they could bring in over £80,000 and still keep their child benefit.
It doesn't make any sense at all.

As I've written before I think this is all a publicity stunt by the govt. They want people who others regard as "rich" to be whinging about the unfairness of benefit cuts. This keeps it in the headlines that benefit cuts aren't just hitting the "poor". Particulary after the defeat in the Lords last night.

Politics is all about soundbites. It doesn't matter whether it's "fair" or not, just as long it gets favourable soundbites. The vast majority of voters won't look at this in any detail to judge it, they'll just read headlines about the "rich" whinging about benefits cuts and think "good" before moving onto page 3 for in-depth analysis of Julie, 22 from Brighton's assets.

krisskross

If there is only one wage earner and that one is in the higher tax bracket then if they must take away the child benefit allow the non working wife/husband to gift their tax free allowance to the working partner.

After all those couples earning £40K a year each do have the benefit of 2 tax free allowances plus they keep child benefit.

callum9999

waynej69 wrote: »

okay, can we be clear about this..

"rich" and "Poor" define please? surely they are relative terms and hence basically meaningless.

saying that "you pay high rate of tax hence you must be rich" is as bad as saying "you claim benefits hence you must be lazy" - neither statment is true, as both make blanket assumptions that imply simplicity when the reality is very complicated.

By stopping child benefit to those with "higher incomes" The government is effectively saying "We should make Child benefit Means-tested"

I have absolutley no problem with making child benefit means tested, but what I do feel is absurd is trying to do that whilst (and I qoute my MP directly) "trying to avoid a complicated means testing system"

there are many fair ways of making child benefit means tested:

1) tie it to the claimants income only - therefore the lowest earning parent in a household could claim. - if both are "high rate tax payers" then beneift is lost.

2) Tie it to "Household income" - therfore the households with more money coming in would lose the benefit.

3) Abolish child benefit completely and join it in with an existing "means tested system, like the TAX credit system (in theory.. assuming that systme worked properly.....)

I for one hope the govenrment takes a serious look at how they will make "child benefit" means tested, fairly.....

rant avoided... hopefully?

cheers,

I broadly agree with your post but not the bit I've highlighted. Those comparisons are ridiculous. The judgement about the higher rate taxpayer is making a financial assumption based on their income. The judgement on the benefit claimant is making a character judgement based on their income.

Of course rich and poor are largely meaningless terms due to their subjective nature, but in the absence of an official definition, I don't think calling those in the highest tax band "rich" is something you can particularly scoff at - a quick browse told me there are around 3 million higher rate tax payers. Is labelling the people with the top 5% of income in the country "rich" really that bad?

zagfles

callum9999 wrote: »

I broadly agree with your post but not the bit I've highlighted. Those comparisons are ridiculous. The judgement about the higher rate taxpayer is making a financial assumption based on their income. The judgement on the benefit claimant is making a character judgement based on their income.

Of course rich and poor are largely meaningless terms due to their subjective nature, but in the absence of an official definition, I don't think calling those in the highest tax band "rich" is something you can particularly scoff at - a quick browse told me there are around 3 million higher rate tax payers. Is labelling the people with the top 5% of income in the country "rich" really that bad?

The "highest tax band" is the 50% band for those on over £150,000

There've been loads of threads on this on the benefits board, with calculations showing that for larger families, someone on £44,000 would end up with about the same take home income as someone on about £15,000. If one is "rich" then so is the other.

krisskross

A £44K salary will give an income of about £2700 a month. Not what I would call rich exactly.

Many many families living on benefits rake in much more than this a month yet they are considered to be on the poverty line.

There is a bloke on the benefits board at the moment claiming to receive £631 a week, that is £2700 a month for just 2 people with no council tax to pay, free prescriptions, help with dental and optical.

zagfles

krisskross wrote: »

If there is only one wage earner and that one is in the higher tax bracket then if they must take away the child benefit allow the non working wife/husband to gift their tax free allowance to the working partner.

After all those couples earning £40K a year each do have the benefit of 2 tax free allowances plus they keep child benefit.

The Tories promised that but there's no way they're going to implement it now - the LibDems are against and they've taken their plan to raise the personal allowance instead. Transferrable tax allowances will cost a lot, and could only be afforded by rising tax rates. Which personally I'm fully in favour of but it's not politically possible in this country. Successive govts have been obsessed with lowering the tax rates.

Dorastar

Will giftaiding etc actually make any difference - we already giftaid to church and charity and since am £565 over the magic number but combined way under the 80k and set to lose out to the tune of £1600 per year, is this seriously a get out of jail free card? Would prefer to hang on to the CB if possible.

Presumably it is on gross pay too - so pension taken out of wage at source would not make any difference as that is going up 3% if govt has its way = £220 approx loss per month for no real gain tbh - would rather put the £220 on a horse if it would help state coffers! Or does it mean if I contributed to another not work-run pension I could still hang onto it - am confuddled. Maybe I should move out, live round the corner at mums and then dh could claim the CB as he earns a lot less - oh no I remember now I'm actually honest - damn

clearingout

zagfles wrote: »

This applies equally to a 2 parent family with one earner as it does to a single parent. And they have one more adult to support.

Agreed. But they always have the potential of bringing in a second full-time wage whereas a lone parent is just that - alone!

Isn't Universal Credit going to 'force' the second parent into working if they want to claim (assuming the household is below thresholds)? Or have I not understood that correctly? Presumably that's about reducing the welfare bill? If more households have two people in some kind of work, presumably the lower all the benefit bills are going to be and the more money there'll be going into the PAYE pot?!

I don't really get this reform at all.

waynej69

callum9999 wrote: »

I broadly agree with your post but not the bit I've highlighted. Those comparisons are ridiculous. The judgement about the higher rate taxpayer is making a financial assumption based on their income. The judgement on the benefit claimant is making a character judgement based on their income.
?

my point being that both are equally invalid, hence I don't think the comparison is ridiculous.

The important part is that both are making sweeping assumptions based on incomplete information.

accepted that only the "extremes" will make the headlines.. the family on benefits , never worked, 250 children, getting X millions in benefits etc. etc.

It is human nature to believe that others have it eaiser than you, hence the "rich" bleating about how hard done by they are, and the "poor" doing the same.

a fact for you however:

I was helping someoen get there finances in order, they earn significantly (50%!) less than I do, yet significantly (100%) more monthly disposable income than I do ..... purely down to the benefits they are entitled to, and the subsidised rent that they don't pay, becasue according to the calculators they can get it back in housing benefit. etc. etc.

this alone says to me that the entire systme is due an overhall, who knows maybe I will go reduce my hours at work, earn less and be better off, with far more time to post here ;-)

more seriously, i repeat my previous sentiment, I am "pestering" my MP to do his bit to make sure that should Child benefit become means tested (and I am not saying I neccessarilly agree with that, so many benefits etc. are already means tested - I accept it, I don't neccessarilly agree) it is done failrly as opposed to "Easilly"

cheers agian!
I