Losing Child benefit

anguk

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that someone who earns a good wage and did not claim anything other than child benefit for their 6 children, should have turned down that benefit at a time when they were entitled to it?

I take it you don't claim CB for your one child?

At what salary level/number of children do you think people should have stopped claiming (even when they were entitled)?

If someone is entitled to child benefit then they should claim it but if someone is now not entitled to it should they deliberately adjust their earnings just so they can claim it?

I guess it's a very grey area and down to ones own conscience or morals. With some benefits it would be called deprivation of assets but I don't think that applies with child benefit.

Murgatroyd21

anguk wrote: »

If someone is entitled to child benefit then they should claim it but if someone is now not entitled to it should they deliberately adjust their earnings just so they can claim it?

I guess it's a very grey area and down to ones own conscience or morals. With some benefits it would be called deprivation of assets but I don't think that applies with child benefit.

If it's acceptable to be looking at ways to maximise state aid with salaries in excess of £50k, because they can and because they are entitled to it, those same people can't criticise someone else for doing exactly the same, i.e. claiming what they are entitled to. What difference if it's for IS, HB, CT, CTC, WTC, CB or any other benefit? Should see less criticism on the board, in theory!

FBaby

I don't think anyone about to loose CB has a massive issue with it, what they have an issue with is that they will continue to pay high taxes that will subsidise those who choose to work 24 hours as a household (and moan about it). Just about anyone who earn £50k will be working full-time, likely to have to travel to work, experience stress, work extra hours etc.... why should they end up with less disposable income to provide more to those who work less?

There is such a de-incitivising culture in this country, it is really disheartning. Anyone working long hours and contributing the maximum they can in taxes should be rewarded whatever their income, not the other way around. Looking at ways not to lose CB is a perfect exemple of it, another way people end up trying to maximise their disposable income because of the way the government encourages it.

zagfles

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

If it's acceptable to be looking at ways to maximise state aid with salaries in excess of £50k, because they can and because they are entitled to it, those same people can't criticise someone else for doing exactly the same, i.e. claiming what they are entitled to. What difference if it's for IS, HB, CT, CTC, WTC, CB or any other benefit? Should see less criticism on the board, in theory!

Indeed - there's far too much judgemental rubbish on this board. We should be discussing entitlement and rules, not sitting in moral judgement on anyone asking about entitlement and rules.

zagfles

anguk wrote: »

If someone is entitled to child benefit then they should claim it but if someone is now not entitled to it should they deliberately adjust their earnings just so they can claim it?

I guess it's a very grey area and down to ones own conscience or morals. With some benefits it would be called deprivation of assets but I don't think that applies with child benefit.

With pensions the govt provide an allowance (generally 100% of earnings with £3600 min and £50k max IIRC) which everyone is entitled to use, and there are specific rules in tax, tax credits and benefits as to if/whether/how much of pension contributions are deductible. With tax and tax credits, and now child ben, pension contributions up to the tax limit are deductible, with most benefits they are half deductible.

So using pension contributions as a way to reduced assessed income is not some "grey area" dodge, it's something that has been specifically legislated as allowable within limits. Just like people can avoid tax on interest by using their ISA allowance.

As to morality - I'd question the morality of the tax system taking no account whatsoever of dependants, a £60k salary might sound a lot but it supports 8 people, a £7500 income per person is hardly massive. The likes of the OP are way overtaxed IMO, and should use every mechanism they can to get some of that tax back.

MissMoneypenny

LuckyLouise wrote: »

£55,000 is still way more than a lot of households are managing on!!!!

Before you ask how many children I've got . . . I've got one, if you have six don't expect the rest of the country to pay for them.

I can't believe you are also trying to fiddle the system so you will still be eligable.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, it just makes my mad!!!!!!!:mad:

That's why some MPs are calling for a limit to the number of children that welfare will pay for.

MissMoneypenny

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that someone who earns a good wage and did not claim anything other than child benefit for their 6 children, should have turned down that benefit at a time when they were entitled to it?

Replace that "entitled to" with 'state handouts' (which is what they are) and you might see why someone on a high wage should not be given benefits from the welfare state.

fogartyblue.

anguk wrote: »

If someone is entitled to child benefit then they should claim it but if someone is now not entitled to it should they deliberately adjust their earnings just so they can claim it?

I guess it's a very grey area and down to ones own conscience or morals. With some benefits it would be called deprivation of assets but I don't think that applies with child benefit.

I just don't believeeeee it!

This is not something that has just come about.

For decades people have been 'adjusting' their income in order to avoid high levels of tax being paid. It's called 'Financial Planning' I doubt that there is one MP that doesn't carry out this activity on an annual basis.

There is nothing illegal about it.

Mind you when you have benefit claimants trying to do the same in attempting to maximise their entitlement to increase their income, they are called 'scroungers' & 'parasites'.

In my mind there is no distinction between the two.

Or maybe everyone that tries to re-arrange their affairs in such a way that their income goes up should be tarred with the same brush.

I doubt that many businessmen or MP's would see it that way?

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

As to morality - I'd question the morality of the tax system taking no account whatsoever of dependants, a £60k salary might sound a lot but it supports 8 people, a £7500 income per person is hardly massive.

On morality - I assume they chose to have that many children on that wage? Should welfare sub their life choices? Cut the coat according to cloth time perhaps.

FBaby

fogartyblue. wrote: »

IIn my mind there is no distinction between the two.

Or maybe everyone that tries to re-arrange their affairs in such a way that their income goes up should be tarred with the same brush.

I think there is a difference, in one scenario it's an adjustement to give less in the other it is an adjustement to get more. Quite a distinction between giving and taking.