Losing Child benefit

Sixer

Any sensible person finding themselves in an anomaly like this would be mad not to save more into a pension in return for an increase in take-home income! There are ethics and there is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I'd certainly do it.

The actual problem is a stupid policy and a refusal to back down having announced it. How the chancellor could possibly call this a simplifying budget when it contains this stupid mess with its stupid anomalies and its stupid complexity, I simply cannot imagine.

The solution isn't for thousands of people to deliberately accept less money in the name of being pointlessly virtuous and pretending the chancellor hasn't made a prize common garden bird out of himself. The solution is a simple decision between CB remaining a universal benefit or being subsumed into TCs and the forthcoming UC. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

FBaby

anguk wrote: »

How much tax a week would someone earning £60,000 a year pay, (after they'd put extra money into a pension etc so they could still get child benefit)?

I know they'd receive £87.30 a week child benefit for 6 children but I haven't got a clue about tax rates and I don't know if you pay tax on gross pay or pay after pension contributions etc.

I believe before any pension contribution or childcare vouchers, they would pay in tax apprx £19K a year, so take away the £4,500 he gets for CB, that's still a contribution of over £15K.

anguk

FBaby wrote: »

I believe before any pension contribution or childcare vouchers, they would pay in tax apprx £19K a year, so take away the £4,500 he gets for CB, that's still a contribution of over £15K.

Thanks, that's quite a sizeable sum! :eek: I can understand now why some people try to avoid paying tax if you're paying that much. £60k a year sounds great on paper but if the reality is that you're only actually coming home with about £40k it makes you look at in a different light, it's almost like a third of the time you're working you're doing it for nothing!

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

That's assuming that they will indeed become tax payers rather than relying on benefits like their parents. Considering the odds making a adult more likely to be on benefits if their own parents were themselves on it, I think if anything it is likely to make the controversy even more of an issue in years to come.

The OP in this case is on £60k. If his kids follow in his footsteps they are an incredibly worthwhile investment from the taxpayer's point of view.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

OP is looking to maximise their benefits. Maximising benefits is not OK.

So if the OP managed to cut his tax bill by £5000 that would be OK with you, but if he increased his benefits £1000 that wouldn't???

Which is the bettter deal for the taxpayer?

On the taxes they pay - their 6 children will still need education and healthcare; both funded from the taxes of those with children and those without.

And as above will be repaid many times over if they end up earning what their father does now.

zagfles

Sixer wrote: »

Any sensible person finding themselves in an anomaly like this would be mad not to save more into a pension in return for an increase in take-home income! There are ethics and there is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I'd certainly do it.

The actual problem is a stupid policy and a refusal to back down having announced it. How the chancellor could possibly call this a simplifying budget when it contains this stupid mess with its stupid anomalies and its stupid complexity, I simply cannot imagine.

The solution isn't for thousands of people to deliberately accept less money in the name of being pointlessly virtuous and pretending the chancellor hasn't made a prize common garden bird out of himself. The solution is a simple decision between CB remaining a universal benefit or being subsumed into TCs and the forthcoming UC. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

I suspect that's the way it's going. It's exactly what happened over the last 12 years with the old married/additional personal allowance. First replaced by a children's tax allowance tapered for higher rate tax payers, then subsumed into tax credits but with a high income threshold (£50k, co-incidence? - though it was joint), then subsumed into the bulk of tax credits.

FBaby

zagfles wrote: »

The OP in this case is on £60k. If his kids follow in his footsteps they are an incredibly worthwhile investment from the taxpayer's point of view.

We're going around circles. I think the reference to 'people on benefits' in this instance relates to those who receive more in tax money then they contribute.

fogartyblue.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If they are paying tax into the system and not taking welfare, then they are giving.

But my argument is that they should be 'giving' a lot more if I had my way. There would be no room for any 'financial planning' in order to reduce their tax bill. What yoy earn gross from all sources should be taxed - no deductions - no loopholes.

AgentOso_2

For me, this is the straw that has broken the camel’s back for good with theConservatives. I won’t be voting for them with their current set-up as thispolicy is just idiotic.

It's funny how the rhetoric of the cost saves by removing means testing has disappearednow that they have introduced… means testing. Oh and I’m sure the extra 500Ktax returns that will be filled in and processed can be easily absorbed?

Also, how on earth can they introduce something with the cliff edge scenarioand think this is reasonable. E.g. the couple on 49K against the sole earner on60K!

What about the people that are on a very variable wage (like myself) thatmake a large portion of their wage from bonus/commission etc, it makesfinancial planning nigh on impossible.
Woe betide anyone in this country that wants to makeanything of themselves – you get nothing back for trying hard.

fogartyblue.

AgentOso wrote: »

For me, this is the straw that has broken the camel’s back for good with theConservatives. I won’t be voting for them with their current set-up as thispolicy is just idiotic.

It's funny how the rhetoric of the cost saves by removing means testing has disappearednow that they have introduced… means testing. Oh and I’m sure the extra 500Ktax returns that will be filled in and processed can be easily absorbed?

Also, how on earth can they introduce something with the cliff edge scenarioand think this is reasonable. E.g. the couple on 49K against the sole earner on60K!

What about the people that are on a very variable wage (like myself) thatmake a large portion of their wage from bonus/commission etc, it makesfinancial planning nigh on impossible.
Woe betide anyone in this country that wants to makeanything of themselves – you get nothing back for trying hard.

I told my wife exactly that before the last election.

It was fairly obvious then which way things were going to go.

The current cabinet genuinely believe that they have the right to rule, not as elected politicians but as the 'landed gentry'.

It's in their blood, their families have always ruled the lands.

Look at the likes of Downton Abbey - generations born to lead and rule the working classes.
Same with the current series about Titanic, Listen to and watch those in 1st class, they genuinely believe that they are far superior to those that work the land.

It is therefore no surprise to see that they are creating a power vacuum which will widen the gap between the have's and the have not's.

A lot more of this is to come within this parliament.