Child Benefit Farce

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I still can't understand how all those (me included) who are celebrating the removal of benefits from families earning 60k (42k net) are completely content to see it remain for other families earning 100k (72k net) surely if the first lot are undeserving the second lot are even more undeserving or am I missing something?

How big do you think the latter problem is? Are there really millions of couples up and down the country who both earn just under the threshold of 40% tax? We're, IMHO, talking about such a vanishingly small number of people that it's likely to be more a theoretical than an actual problem.

Any removal of middle class welfare is a good thing. Any implementation of policy that is done cheaply and effectively is a good thing. Is it really worth setting up an entire means testing bureaucracy just so a handful of people don't do slightly better out of a benefit than another group?

BobQ

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.

As an academic principle it is stupid and unfair. But its even more unfair on those on under average earnings who are having to pay taxes for the likes of you to receive money you do not need.

Fair enough you are being treated unfairly compared to a couple earning £45K each but do you think people earning near minimum wage give a fig about this?

Personally I would be content to make it a requirement that you can only claim child benefit if you agree to have your income tax assessed as a family unit. But until its feasible to implement such a system this not entirely fair system will do nicely.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

How big do you think the latter problem is? Are there really millions of couples up and down the country who both earn just under the threshold of 40% tax? We're, IMHO, talking about such a vanishingly small number of people that it's likely to be more a theoretical than an actual problem.

Any removal of middle class welfare is a good thing. Any implementation of policy that is done cheaply and effectively is a good thing. Is it really worth setting up an entire means testing bureaucracy just so a handful of people don't do slightly better out of a benefit than another group?

Because of course there isn't already a mechanism in place for distributing benefits according to family income (called tax credits) so a whole expensive new mechanism would need to be created....

Which brings us back to it being a purely political decision designed to have maximum newsworthiness including built in unfairness to make people keep complaining.

Given the choice is it not better to make a tax and benefits system fair rather than unfair?

Zero_Sum

michaels wrote: »

I still can't understand how all those (me included) who are celebrating the removal of benefits from families earning 60k (42k net) are completely content to see it remain for other families earning 100k (72k net) surely if the first lot are undeserving the second lot are even more undeserving or am I missing something?

I really don't think anyone is. Of course its unfair, but thats the Tories for you

John_Pierpoint

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Completely agree. Although I dislike the thinly veiled class-warrior approach of referring to people on £60,000 as "rich" (usually associated with those who can't afford a new 50-inch LED TV being called "poor"), there is no way that people on above average incomes should be receiving any kind of state benefits or welfare (unless their circumstances are exceptionally unusual and difficult through no fault of their own).

Ah but Child Benefit goes deeper into the political and social and financial structure.

The real question is: Should people on a planet of 7,000,000,000 be paid for having kids.

Are all kids born equal? [self evidently not but differences except at the extremes are difficult to measure and it would be political suicide to even discuss the concept ]

Are all parents equally capable of bringing up future citizens [ditto]

Economically does it make sense to import other peoples children rather than breed your own [the labour government seemed to think so].

Do all children deserve equality of opportunity [Yes but they will never get it].

Should we spend greatest resources on the most disadvantaged children ? [because between you and me if we can break the cycle of poverty it is cheaper in the long run]

Just what sort of "society" (M.Thatcher) are we trying to create?

These are the sorts of questions that underlay this topic and that is why it generates so much heat rather than light.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Because of course there isn't already a mechanism in place for distributing benefits according to family income (called tax credits) so a whole expensive new mechanism would need to be created....

Which brings us back to it being a purely political decision designed to have maximum newsworthiness including built in unfairness to make people keep complaining.

Given the choice is it not better to make a tax and benefits system fair rather than unfair?

Yes but not at any cost. Means testing is very expensive, regardless of whether or not you are bolting something onto an existing system.

I honestly can't see why it's so important that a few thousand rich people get a few hundred quid a year that another group of rich people don't get. TBH it sounds a lot like a privileged group that has a loud political voice whining. Aren't there more important issues within the tax and benefits system than this?

The_White_Horse

they should have taken CB away from the non-payers. they pay nothing in, they should get nothing out. Not taken it away from those who pay massive amounts in tax and now get nothing back.

disgusting. wrong priorities. always trying to help the layabout and penalise the hard working decent people. dirty tories trying to score points with the left.

Guess what Osbourne - the lefties will NOT vote for you because of this scheme, they still hate you. But, you have lost my vote as well. Dumb !!! wet blanket tories. Thatcher would never have stooped so low.

GeorgeHowell

michaels wrote: »

I still can't understand how all those (me included) who are celebrating the removal of benefits from families earning 60k (42k net) are completely content to see it remain for other families earning 100k (72k net) surely if the first lot are undeserving the second lot are even more undeserving or am I missing something?

No you're not, it is half baked. But that because our illustrious civil service cannot see a way to implement it properly and quickly -- and you can bet that the Sir Humphreys have been putting every obstacle in the way as they always do with anything they don't agree with. I would bet that task forces are looking at what it takes to do it properly as a phase II, whereby total household income is the determinant. Meanwhile it's better than nothing, and after all one of the basic Tory precepts is : "Life is not always fair .. get over it."

grizzly1911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they should have taken CB away from the non-payers. they pay nothing in, they should get nothing out. Not taken it away from those who pay massive amounts in tax and now get nothing back.

disgusting. wrong priorities. always trying to help the layabout and penalise the hard working decent people. dirty tories trying to score points with the left.

Guess what Osbourne - the lefties will NOT vote for you because of this scheme, they still hate you. But, you have lost my vote as well. Dumb !!! wet blanket tories. Thatcher would never have stooped so low.

Another interpretation is that he is using it to pay for his tax cut at the 45/50% level keeping his "mates" sweet.

Something tells me he won't miss your vote. Many tory voters are so blinkered they will just suck it up and ski in Europe rather than the Rockies.

unkle

An interesting debate that will no doubt rage on for a while. I hadn't personally given it too much thought other than I knew I'd be £1750 down a year!

However what really bought it home as to how unfair it is being implemented (and I say implemented as I totally agree that like any other benefit it should be means tested) was in the Team meeting today where a fight very nearly broke out!

I'm naming no names but:

Staff member 1. Earns £48k before Pension, wife earns £44,000 (works here also!) - so combined earnings of £92k and I'm told the equivalent of a single salary of around £108k (due to allowances & 20% band etc).

Staff member 2 (1's boss!). Earns £63k before pension, Wife works as a mum (and I say work as it's hard work!) on £0 salary.

So No 1. had great delight that although as a family they earn near on £100k they will still get their full £2,450 child benefit (3 kids) whereas No 2. will lose the £1,750 (2 kids) they currently get.

No 2. was extremely peeved, and I can understand why. I pointed out that Number 1 will breach £50k come pay rise time to which he replied he'd simply pay more into his pension to keep under £50k which is when No 2 totally lost it!

So I hope the above gives a real life example of the unfairness of the implementation of the new rules. If nothing else I now have an issue that two staff aren't going to be getting on too well for a while! and I could only sympathise with No 2, namely because although i'm well passed the £60k limit between my wife and I we also clear less than No 1 as a family who will be keeping all their child allowance!

I called an end to the meeting when number one started to mention help with child care costs..............