Child Benefit Jan-Mar 2013 50k earnings limit

zagfles

woodbine wrote: »

you mean just in the same way that all means tested benefits take NO account of outgoings?
any family who cant manage on an income of £50,000 + a year is doing something terribly wrong or they are living way beyond there means.
you are trying to defend the indefensible and it dont wash with me !

So why do you think some families on that sort of income and even higher can get tax credits? £50k after tax between say 4-6 people is not a vast income, it's less that twice the average wage for the whole family, so under half the average wage per person.

A couple with no kids each earning an average wage is far better off than a family of 6 on £50k. But they aren't considered "rich" are they. They still get their 2 tax allowances, there's no cut to that "benefit" is there, in fact it's increasing.

But people aren't interested in that, they want soundbites. Cut benefits for the rich, we're all in it together etc. Don't bother analysing the figures. Design policy which makes good headlines in the Sun.

princessdon

woodbine wrote: »

you mean just in the same way that all means tested benefits take NO account of outgoings?
any family who cant manage on an income of £50,000 + a year is doing something terribly wrong or they are living way beyond there means.
you are trying to defend the indefensible and it dont wash with me !

So please explain in the example I used above why a single parent earning £60K a year (take home pay after tax of £3200 pm) is entitled to nothing. That £3200 is what they get for working 40 hours a week plus. Regardless of outgoing.

Single parent working say 20 hours a week (8000k PA), gets £4200 per month on same 2 outgoings (rent and childcare).

They get more than £1000 a MONTH benefits and pay no tax/NI than someone earning £60K and paying over £1500 a month to support those that work part time.

It can't be right can it, yet I did the Direct.Gov calculator (took a while) and it showed that someone working 20 hours a week would get over £1K a month more than the same parent working 50 hours and earning £60K. £1K a month (tax free) is a lot of cash.

zagfles

princessdon wrote: »

So please explain in the example I used above why a single parent earning £60K a year (take home pay after tax of £3200 pm) is entitled to nothing. That £3200 is what they get for working 40 hours a week plus. Regardless of outgoing.

Single parent working say 20 hours a week (8000k PA), gets £4200 per month on same 2 outgoings (rent and childcare).

They get more than £1000 a MONTH benefits and pay no tax/NI than someone earning £60K and paying over £1500 a month to support those that work part time.

It can't be right can it, yet I did the Direct.Gov calculator (took a while) and it showed that someone working 20 hours a week would get over £1K a month more than the same parent working 50 hours and earning £60K. £1K a month (tax free) is a lot of cash.

People who like this policy aren't interested in analysing the numbers, they just see people earning lots more than them so they must be rich and therefore not need benefits. Regardless of the tax, childcare, number of people they they support etc.

The difference isn't as wide as you suggest though because in your example the one on £60k will be entitled to tax credits. Which just shows how stupid the policy is - they're poor enough to be entitled to tax credits but they are too rich for child benefit!