Child Benefit Farce

The_White_Horse

how can it in any way be fair that a household with one £60k earner loses all their CB but a househould on a combined £98k keeps it all??????

This is surely one of the most barmy inefficient ways to administer the cut.

Surely stopping it at age 12 (when both parents could easily work) or capping it for two kids only would be much fairer. Or even AT THE VERY LEAST base it on household income, not one salary!!!!

this is a sickening assault on the middle class tax payers that are the backbone and contributors of 90% of all taxes. Disgraceful.

and all the extra work for HMRC with hundreds of thousands of extra self assessment forms. All because Osbouse is a weak cretin affraid to do what actually needs to be done.

Generali

Any cut in middle class welfare is a good thing IMHO. It's just giving with one hand and taking with the other.

The_White_Horse

it would be ok if there was an equivalent tax cut. I will still be paying the same tax but not getting my small rebate.

the real issue I have is not losing the CB - it is that families that are far better off get to keep theirs. it is a sickening state of affairs.

chewmylegoff

TWH getting upset because his benefits are being taken away. Comedy gold!

Generali

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it would be ok if there was an equivalent tax cut. I will still be paying the same tax but not getting my small rebate.

It's not so much that there's an equivalent tax cut but that your taxes won't rise quite so much in future.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the real issue I have is not losing the CB - it is that families that are far better off get to keep theirs. it is a sickening state of affairs.

It's the politics of envy. I thought you didn't believe in welfare. It turns out you only believe in welfare for you, just like the "scum".

wotsthat

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this is a sickening assault on the middle class tax payers that are the backbone and contributors of 90% of all taxes. Disgraceful.

The government handling of this has been less than competent but if there's a £60k earner in a household then they don't need child benefit (and shouldn't have had it in the first place).

I'm affected by this and although I'll miss the payments it does seem inefficient to tax me and then give money back that I don't need.

Generali

The_White_Horse wrote: »

just stop all benefits

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

The government handling of this has been less than competent but if there's a £60k earner in a household then they don't need child benefit (and shouldn't have had it in the first place).

I'm affected by this and although I'll miss the payments it does seem inefficient to tax me and then give money back that I don't need.

do you think it should be simply cut off at a certain salary (i.e. creating a tax rate of over 100%) or just phased out at a certain figure like the current plan?

michaels

What you don't understand that it is deliberately unfair and an administrative nightmare so that it is a big news issue as it is the main plank of 'we are all in this together'. If it were applied fairly and in an administratively sensible way it would generate much less press coverage and thus would not serve its main (purely political) purpose.

I'm wondering if my employer would be willing to agree to some form of multi-year salary deal capping my salary at 50k 2 years in every 3 and paying me the remainder in the third year - would all still be at 40% but in the two capped years I would get an extra 5k of benefits.

Introduce a silly distortionary rule and you will see silly, distorionary behaviour.

wotsthat

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the real issue I have is not losing the CB - it is that families that are far better off get to keep theirs. it is a sickening state of affairs.

If you are right on the edge of losing CB then just pay a little more into a private pension. This probably apply to you because I seem to remember that you pay more tax than most people earn.

michaels

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you think it should be simply cut off at a certain salary (i.e. creating a tax rate of over 100%) or just phased out at a certain figure like the current plan?

It gives me a marginal rate of 67% whereas apparently a marginal rate of 50% is enough to deter much higher earners from working....