Child Benefit Farce

Equaliser123

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Article on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20146596


Its unbelievable the sense of entitlment some people have.
I don't see why as an average earning childless tax payer, I should pay for a much better off family to go on holiday.

Doesn't work like that at all.

"Average" earners are net beneficiaries from the state.

Okydoky25

lemonjelly wrote: »

So benefits policy should be designed around what it is like to live in london? Despite the fact that the majority of the population do not live there.

Perhaps these poor souls on £60k should move out to an area that is more affordable where they can live within their means, rather than expect the state/taxpayers to subsidise them?

I'm one of those that having had a child moved 80 miles north out of London. I not think its fair that I had to leave my family and the area I grew up in but that's life.

However now I will soon lose a benefit that had I stayed in London making it possible to keep my job (and pay taxes) we could have kept. My husband travels (at great expence) and misses time with his child so that he can keep his so called high salary which he now needs more than anything to support the child and myself as I'm now not working.

I've honestly got no problem losing this, I'm sure we can cut back or the husband can do even more hours at work but only if its done fairly.

Rochdale_Pioneers

TWH - I'm in a very situation to you. I earn, my wife doesn't, we're waiting for the letter telling us to do self assessment. In my case I can increase pension contributions or childcare vouchers a touch to bob back under the threshold. I agree with you that the situation is utterly stupid and grossly unfair.

However, where we differ is that unlike you I don't wage a one-man fatwa against people on benefits. Unlike you I recognise that however unfair I may consider the child benefits rule change to be, it is NOTHING to compared to how unfairly this government is treating the disabled, the sick, the dying, and the truly poor. Or that the government does so cheered on by people like you.

Anyway, I am cheered in one thing. When the man who complains about people getting benefits complains about losing his benefits, you truly appreciate just how selfish, insular and downright stupid people like you truly are.

CLAPTON

Zero_Sum wrote: »

How exactly?

how?

well the better paid pay more tax

that tax pays for schools, NHS etc and pays for benefits like tax credit and child allowances

so

a. if the rich receive some 'benefits' they are only getting their own money back

b. and as they subsidise other people and those people may use some of that to go on holiday ......

Zero_Sum

CLAPTON wrote: »

how?

well the better paid pay more tax

that tax pays for schools, NHS etc and pays for benefits like tax credit and child allowances

so

a. if the rich receive some 'benefits' they are only getting their own money back

b. and as they subsidise other people and those people may use some of that to go on holiday ......

erm I did say I was childless. And (touch wood) have rarely ever used the NHS.

CLAPTON

Zero_Sum wrote: »

erm I did say I was childless. And (touch wood) have rarely ever used the NHS.

clearly that anecdotal info invalidates the entire hypothesis.

shop-to-drop

Zero_Sum wrote: »

don't talk stupid. The median household income is around £35k. If you're a sole earner paying 40% tax, you're holsehold income will still easily be in the top 30-40%

But household containing how many members? Also is this earned income or total income?

Zero_Sum

CLAPTON wrote: »

clearly that anecdotal info invalidates the entire hypothesis.

it does for my circumstances. I accpet an average earner with a few kids would be net takers, but I was talking about me, not the population in general.

Zero_Sum

shop-to-drop wrote: »

But household containing how many members? Also is this earned income or total income?

Earned income, excluding earning children who're still living with parents

shop-to-drop

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Earned income, excluding earning children who're still living with parents

Therefore many will have additional income like tax credits and other benefits topping them up unlike the family in the example with one high earner.

This makes a lot of difference which you seem to be oblivious to this.

Also if this figure is gross before tax this will make a difference too as the one high earner will pay more in tax and NI than 2 lower earners in a household with identical gross earned income.