Child benefit U turn being lined up

Emy1501

ILW wrote: »

As now, the offspring of the parents who do not need to rely on benefits to raise their children.

Er child benefit etc is often used buy lenders when calculating affordability. I know few professionals who used it to extend affordability. Are you suggest that those earning 40K+ who are upset about it being cut are unlikely to produce children who will pay any tax? £2000 a year for 3 kids is reasonable amount when things are tight.

ILW

Emy1501 wrote: »

Er child benefit etc is often used buy lenders when calculating affordability. I know few professionals who used it to extend affordability. Are you suggest that those earning 40K+ who are upset about it being cut are unlikely to produce children who will pay any tax? £2000 a year for 3 kids is reasonable amount when things are tight.

I said "rely" on benefits.

zagfles

ILW wrote: »

As now, the offspring of the parents who do not need to rely on benefits to raise their children.

In other words, exactly those who the govt intends to remove child benefit from.

chewmylegoff

I thought the solution would just be to tax bankers more. Ahh well let's just keep paying out more in benefits than we collect in income tax and pretend bankers are the reason there's a deficit. That will help.

We can still pay benefits to the bankers though, no problems there.

ILW

zagfles wrote: »

In other words, exactly those who the govt intends to remove child benefit from.

I fail to see why it is paid to anyone. As far as I know the UK is not suffering from underpopulation.

zagfles

ILW wrote: »

I fail to see why it is paid to anyone. As far as I know the UK is not suffering from underpopulation.

Look up predictions of the ratio of pensioners to working adults in 20 years time.

xylophone

chewmylegoff wrote: »

How do I dare suggest it?

Because they're multimillionaires, that's why.

If we accept that the more you earn the higher the rate of tax you should pay, why does this model break down when it comes to receiving certain state benefits.

I pay tax but I don't seem to be entitled to receive loads of free money. I suppose you think that is equally outrageous? No? Thought not. The fact that someone has paid some tax doesnt mean the state should give them money that they have no need for.

If your parents are receiving a state pension, they paid their NICs - therefore they are entitled to their pension - full stop. If they are multi-millionaires, they may well be paying more in tax than they receive as pension/ winter fuel allowance!

You have yet to explain why it is not illogical and outrageously unfair that a household where the total income approaches £80000 should receive CB while one with an income less than £45000 should lose it - I would have thought that anyone would be able to comprehend that this is ridiculous.

As for your own situation, when you reach the age of entitlement, one assumes that you will receive your state pension.

Of course if you feel at that time that you do not want to claim it, then I am sure that no one will twist your arm.....

Percy1983

xylophone wrote: »

You have yet to explain why it is not illogical and outrageously unfair that a household where the total income approaches £80000 should receive CB while one with an income less than £45000 should lose it - I would have thought that anyone would be able to comprehend that this is ridiculous.

Just a thought on this one.

But the 2 people working earning £80k together get less time with there children and have childcare costs, where as if only one works thats not the case.

zagfles

Percy1983 wrote: »

Just a thought on this one.

But the 2 people working earning £80k together get less time with there children and have childcare costs, where as if only one works thats not the case.

They would also get 2 tax allowances, they would also be able to claim childcare vouchers to reduce their tax.

Generali

Pennywise wrote: »

You're missing the point re unfairness. Under the proposals, a household with one worker earning £45k would lose all child benefit but their next door neighbours where both worked, earning, say, £40k each, would keep their child benefit despite a far higher household income. That's why the proposals were unfair. Not to mention the practicalities of the proposal which was to continue paying the child benefit to the mother, but to deduct it from the father's payslips - an administrative nightmare!

The Govt really shot themselves in the foot with this one and it does beg the question as to their competence when no politician, nor Treasury official, flagged this up before it was officially announced. Also, announcing it so far in advance and leaving a rectification so late in the day has allowed this open wound to fester and done the govt untold harm.

They should have simply scrapped it in the Budget and replaced it by increasing tax credits by the same amount, so that all families receiving tax credits would continue to receive the same overall amount, and families who's incomes were in excess of the tax credit threshold would receive nothing. Simple.

But that's not very unfair. How many households do you think they are that earn hugely in excess of £45,000 where neither partner earns more than £45,000? My guess is not so many and if a few people happen to do slightly better than you out of a particular policy then good on them, you'll probably do well out of another one. Life isn't fair and it certainly isn't the job of the Government to try to make it so!

The point of the proposal AIUI was to make it cheap to administer.

Your tax credit idea is probably a good one but a better idea is to stop taking with one hand and giving with the other. When I was earning over a grand a week, I could have taken tax credits. I chose not to as I didn't feel it was necessary but they were certainly on offer to me.