Child Benefit Farce

Loughton_Monkey

wotsthat wrote: »

...... arguably that's because benefits are over-generous in some cases. Say there's an odd marginal tax rate of 75% somewhere but you really need the remaining 25% what's the correct course of action?

I'm no benefits expert, but I understand that there are (in effect) cases of an equivalent 100% marginal tax? There's something about being able to work 16 hours (or did it go up) and keep all your benefits. So if such people do 1 more hour's work, they get nothing extra.

If this 'trap' exists, then look no further for one of the most stupid design feature of our benefits system.

GeorgeHowell

It all used to be done by tax allowances. Then the leftie do-gooders got that changed on the grounds that if the old man gets it in his pay packet he'll blow it all on booze, fags, and gambling. Surely nobody believes that now the women get it they blow it all on booze, fags, and gambling .......

paulmapp8306

michaels wrote: »

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.

Seriously ?? if you earn £50k you shouldnt get ANY benefits.

Hell - Im just getting my forces pension of £9300. Becaues of that I only get Child Tax Credits (at 104/week - so worth £5400/year) and Child Benefit of £33.70/week for two children (so worth £1752/year).

So personally Id like two questions answered.

1. How the hell do you get £5k in benefits to loose when i only qualify for £1752 child benefits.

2. If with an income of £9300 I only qualify for £7152 in benefits - what the hell makes you think you should get £k5 when you have an icome of £50k ??

Seriously need to get your priorities right and stop moaning.

paulmapp8306

misread you post a little - Im guessing the £5k is over the 2 years. Thats still £2500 a year, so more than I get.

Im assuming that for more than 2 children - though i had thought you didnt get extra for more than 2 children, but until I left the forces I really didnt care so dont actually know.

think is - when in the forces I was on £37k a year and dint "need" child benefit. It was niec and I didnt turn it down but If Id lost it due to the need for goverment to cut back on spending I would'ny have minded at all, as I think £37k is enough of an income to not need governemt help. It appears you think even with £50k its needed.

Personally Id cap it at the 40% tax rate threshold, but raise the threshold by £1750 (as 2 children is the average and thats the benefit you'd get for 2 children).

John_Pierpoint

The_White_Horse wrote: »

actually, i'm not. my wife (who earns £0.00) claims the benefit.

I on the other hand, will be taxed for a benefit I do not claim.

If wifey went out to work, she would create two jobs.
One for her and one at minimum wage for an otherwise unemployable NEET.
The NEET's contact with your household could be financially and intellectually stimulating for the NEET.
The effect on the development of the White Horse foals, is a matter of conjecture.

The tax saving people have had a go at this already:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4251361

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4246297

It will be even more of an "omni shambles" for children not living with one of their biological parents.

DiggerUK

chewmylegoff wrote: »

..... Comedy gold!

Manipulated comedy, stuffed with tungsten.
..._

Loughton_Monkey

I almost did a new thread on this, but this 'news' is relevant to this debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20116783

Childcare costs mean having a full-time job is no longer worthwhile for many second earners in middle and low income families, a think tank has warned.

The Resolution Foundation says in the most extreme cases a couple might be left just £4 a week better off with two incomes than they would be with one.

It calls for major changes in childcare to ensure working is worthwhile.

.......

The study says the differences in income are eroded by factors such as benefits, tax, tax credits and childcare costs.

.......

"For too many families, the high costs of childcare mean it is not worth going back to work. That is why we set up a commission to look at the affordability of childcare earlier this year.

It appears that the reason childcare makes working not worthwhile seems not to be only the cost of childcare, but the loss of benefits. And in typical BBC spin, the 'cost of childcare' itself is naturally considered the villain, whereas if most people understood the benefits system, they would blame that instead.

To me, this is as ludicrous as implementing a benefits system that says when you retire, you get two thirds of your final salary, less any pension income for which you qualify.... And then bleating that it's not worth saving for one's own pension.

chewmylegoff

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

If wifey went out to work, she would create two jobs.
One for her and one at minimum wage for an otherwise unemployable NEET.
The NEET's contact with your household could be financially and intellectually stimulating for the NEET.
The effect on the development of the White Horse foals, is a matter of conjecture.

The tax saving people have had a go at this already:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4251361

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4246297

It will be even more of an "omni shambles" for children not living with one of their biological parents.

alternatively horsey could do a "job share" with his wife so he works 3 days a week and she 2 - i am sure he is a fan of job sharing as it's big in the public sector - that way their individual incomes would be under the threshold and they could claim their benefits.

he could probably also claim compensation for the fact that the government have forceably paid benefits to his family which has no doubt, given his political stance, left him with a terrible sense of self-loathing, should be a five figure compo claim in it.

dori2o

The_White_Horse wrote: »

actually, i'm not. my wife (who earns £0.00) claims the benefit.

I on the other hand, will be taxed for a benefit I do not claim.

which is another of my issues with this farce. the first is that a family on £60k with one earner and say, three kids will get nothing - whilst a family on £98k with one kid will get it. that is unfair, whichever way you look at it.

however, the real issue - the real "human rights" issue is that one party is taxed for a benefit they don't even claim. it is just not right at all.

if they want to make that "right" then let it flow both ways and allow the higher rate payer to use the other "partners" tax free allowance.

the whole thing is a disgrace.

If you don't want to have the tax charge, then have your wife elect to not have the payments which is one of the options available to you.

Then you don't have to worry about the charge at all.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Should people who don't need CB be getting it? If they don't then it should be stopped - in this context disincentives are secondary.

Means testing seems like a sensible way to identify those most in need. I don't see how that's responsible for causing inter-generation worklessness - arguably that's because benefits are over-generous in some cases. Say there's an odd marginal tax rate of 75% somewhere but you really need the remaining 25% what's the correct course of action?

It's a little difficult to know what 'need' means here; in our western society there is little true 'need'.

Child allowance was originally a tax relief given in recognition that children were expensive to bring up and people felt it 'fair' that parents had a little less tax deducted from their take home income than a childless person with the same gross income.
In due course this was converted to a universal benefit (un-means tested) payable to the mother.
Rich people still 'benefit' from tax reliefs (e.g. pension tax relief at 40% or more ) that they clearly don't 'need'; I'm not sure that tax reliefs and benefit payments are really that different.