Child Benefit Farce

paulmapp8306

The governemt needs to make its mind up.

EITHER a household is treaded as a single income - OR individuals are treated as having their own income. This shoud apply to EVERYTHING - from income tax, to benefits, to council tax, to icome in general.

for instance, my wife isnt currently working but I am. I pay tax (a lot) and my wife non - however she is deemed to have an income from me (ie a household income) so cant get benefits. Fair enough, its based on the household income. On the other hand though, we have individual tax allowances evne though my wife isnt working - why? why isnt that ALSO based on a household income. That way my Tax allowance would ne higher as it would be a household one.

Just seems in some cases were treated as individuals and in others households. Usually whichever benefits the government more.



I also dont get Tax credits/benefits (which is similar in a way). When I leave my current job Ill have a pension (a relatively small one at £10k or so). I wont get working tax credits (or other low income based payments) because Im not working - but I also wont get benefits because I have an income. Surly it should be based on working hours OR on income? I should either get a top up to my income (pension) because its low, OR I get benefits because Im not working. Surly you cant let people get nothing on a low income just because that income isnt derived from a job.

grizzly1911

ukcarper wrote: »

Yet 50% of people in London earn less than £28k a year and 80% earn less than £46k.

I wonder how many of them get supplementary benefits of some sort or another?

As a tax payer why should I subsidise people to live in London?

GeorgeHowell

ukcarper wrote: »

Yet 80% 0f people working in London earn less than £45.5k and only 10% earn more than £64.2k.

No doubt, but the cost of living and level of taxation in rip-off Britain is such that even people towards the top end of "normal" incomes who have substantial financial commitments cannot live the life of Riley.

ukcarper

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I wonder how many of them get supplementary benefits of some sort or another?

As a tax payer why should I subsidise people to live in London?

I suppose the only benefit that will be different is house benefit which will obviouslybe higher but then as average pay in London is higher the Level of other benefits will be lower and the amount of tax raised from working London people will also be higher.

ukcarper

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

No doubt, but the cost of living and level of taxation in rip-off Britain is such that even people towards the top end of "normal" incomes who have substantial financial commitments cannot live the life of Riley.

Depending on where you live your outgoings will be higher mainly due to housing costs. But if you are going to remove Child Benefit I would say that removing it from the top 10% of earners is a reasnoble place to start.

The_White_Horse

i don't earn £60k. if i did, i'd just partake in some salary sacrifice to beat the idiotic system.

As i say, I pay vast amounts of tax. I always thought of the CB as an immensely small rebate and also, something that went straight to the wife, so I didn't have to think about it.

All I am saying is that one earner on £60 losing it all, compared to two earners on £98k between them keeping it all, IS PLAINLY RIDICULOUS.

It has almost made me not want to vote tory again because clearly they are idiots. It was so easy to say "households" on £60k or over.

that said, can't vote lefty, can't vote tory, can't vote lib dem. so depressing.

as bill hicks once said "i am partial to the puppet on the left" "and i am partial to the puppet on the right - oh hang on, they are both being controlled by the same puppet master"

The_White_Horse

grizzly1911 wrote: »

As a tax payer why should I subsidise people to live in London?

maybe because London subsidises the whole country? I am happy for regional taxes with London and home county taxes staying in those regions only.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Family one 41.2k after tax all child benefit lost - sounds fair to me.
Family two 71.6k after tax all child benefit retained - sounds fair to Generali.

I didn't say it was fair in fact I explicitly said it wasn't.

The_White_Horse

the real issue, apart from the clear stupidity and unfairness, is the fact that one person is being taxed for another person's benefits. It is MADNESS. if you want to treat families as a unit for tax, then fine - do it - but do it properly. not this way, so you extort more tax out but don't reciprocate in terms of tax allowance. It is one of the biggest civil liberties I have EVER seen. The whole system just ridden rough shod over, to claw back a pathetic bit of tax. Disgraceful. They should be imprisoned for this.

Generali

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the real issue, apart from the clear stupidity and unfairness, is the fact that one person is being taxed for another person's benefits. It is MADNESS. if you want to treat families as a unit for tax, then fine - do it - but do it properly. not this way, so you extort more tax out but don't reciprocate in terms of tax allowance. It is one of the biggest civil liberties I have EVER seen. The whole system just ridden rough shod over, to claw back a pathetic bit of tax. Disgraceful. They should be imprisoned for this.

That's just how benefits work. It's why there are so many single mothers in relationships that don't want to move in with their OH.

Seriously man, you're talking about a few hundred quid a year and you are one of the privileged few. Move to a new company and the pay rise will be vastly more than the child benefit you're bleating about.