Losing Child benefit

scootw1

The_Write_Girl wrote: »

Rude......

It wasn't being rude, it's a dose of reality. Problem is that a lot of people don't like being told the truth, and that is that the country cannot afford this.

Dunroamin

anguk wrote: »

I guess it depends on what you would class as low earners. If you have to start repaying when you're earning £15k, I'd say that wasn't a particularly high wage.

Certainly not a high wage but 50% more than NMW.

melly1980

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

I never said comfortable, that's solely your wording. Define their "comfortable" life, and is it purely a single parent income they depend on, living in the same place as you?

no problem

Comfortable - 23K nett. There it is, defined for you. It has to be comfortable because its in line with all these high earners who have this much to live off.

Note the word earners. Those that have earned their money and lifestyle not sat around, fcooked about at school and then do 16 hours on NMW and expect to have as much as those who have actually achieved something and work double (and in some cased triple) the hours.

AgentOso_2

scootw1 wrote: »

It wasn't being rude, it's a dose of reality. Problem is that a lot of people don't like being told the truth, and that is that the country cannot afford this.

The country seems to be able to afford it for joint incomes of ~100K but not for a sole earner on 60K and as for the people who will be impacted by this having to budget, of course they will. Perhaps the government never actually considered the knock on impact of taking this money out of circulation, I for one have a list of cutbacks I am making now in preparation and they are far from indulgencies and they will sadly impact local businesses.

pjread

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

Min wage, 16 hrs, 3 kids, total net (including tax credits & cb) before having to pay transport, housing, food etc = £16,122, dependant on minimum pension at end of work life (probably 67)

£50k, 37 hrs, 3 kids, total net (including tax credits & cb) before having to pay transport, housing, food etc = £38,227, various pension benefits dependant on scheme, potential to choose retirement dependant on pension scheme performance.

£60k 37 hrs, 3 kids, total net (including tax credits & cb) before having to pay transport, housing, food etc = £41,578, various pension benefits dependant on scheme, potential to choose retirement dependant on pension scheme performance. Or if they increase pension by £10k per annum can still get CB and have much greater pension position and choice.

Minimum wage earner limited, if any choice, in housing area, and no financial gain for children at end of life. Housing costs remain constant/increase with time.

£50k & £60k, choose area to live, equity in home at end of mortgage which can be left to children or released by moving to smaller property, mortgage reduces over time.

This is for the 2012/13 year and haven't added the cb to £60k that would be payable to Jan NY.

Still know which position I'd rather be in.

OK, now run it through something like entitledto's calc and get some figures including housing benefit, council tax benefit, etc etc too.

I know I calculated a 35k pay cut would cost me about 6k NET, whilst saving me 4k on travel. Pension contributions currently zero and I don't own a property.

Yes the ten years working and studying and the 4 hour round commute are well worth it.

[edit] I'm not proposing everyone on 50k+ just resigns and goes shelf stacking/pint pulling for 2-3 days a week. Just pointing out they probably wouldn't be any worse off, which I think is wrong [/edit]

drc

I don't understand why they didn't just cap child benefit to two or three children in the budget. Surely that would have been fairer rather than penalising the children of those earning over £50k (which is not that much after tax, especially in London!).

They should not pay people more for each child as this just encourages people to breed for more money and the UK is already in financial dire straights, let alone the problem with worldwide overpopulation. It also discourages people from progressing up the career ladder if they are going to be penalised for working and doing well.

anguk

I don't know why they didn't just cap it according to household income instead of individual income?

Just about every means tested benefit (and that's what child benefit has now become) is assessed on the household so why isn't child benefit?

It really seems daft to me that if one parent is working and earns over £50k they lose it but if two parents are working and earn £49k each they keep it. :huh: