Child Benefit Farce

ukcarper

BobQ wrote: »

There is no fair way to pay a universal benefit.

For some benefits like a bus pass for those above retirement age, you can argue that because of their small value it is not economic to means test the benefit, even though you might accept it would be fairer if those above a certain income (say average income) did not receive the benefit.

Child benefit is much more substatial in value and some means is required to stop the well paid (like TWH) from claiming it. This new system is in some cases unfair but is relatively simple to administer and is a necessary step in this process. I am sure that there are better and fairer ways of doing this but the present system will suffice until that arrives.

Is the bus pass just a way to subsidise buses.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Indeed. And median household income is about £27,000 from memory.

It's the mean thats £27k median is just over £21k that is ASHE 2011 so might be a bit more now. That earnings per person not household but then they are only taking it way from people earning more than £50k

Zero_Sum

BobQ wrote: »

There is no fair way to pay a universal benefit.

For some benefits like a bus pass for those above retirement age, you can argue that because of their small value it is not economic to means test the benefit, even though you might accept it would be fairer if those above a certain income (say average income) did not receive the benefit.

Child benefit is much more substatial in value and some means is required to stop the well paid (like TWH) from claiming it. This new system is in some cases unfair but is relatively simple to administer and is a necessary step in this process. I am sure that there are better and fairer ways of doing this but the present system will suffice until that arrives.

I'd be suprised if many wealthy pensioners actually used public transport anyway, so aren't actually getting the benefit from them.

Linda_D_2

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.

Benefit scroungers like you are the lowest of the low. Why should others pay for you to breed your spawn?
Though it is the kids I feel sorry for having scum like you as a father.

Zero_Sum

ukcarper wrote: »

It's the mean thats £27k median is just over £21k that is ASHE 2011 so might be a bit more now. That earnings per person not household but then they are only taking it way from people earning more than £50k

All the figures I've seen suggest that the median salary is around £26k, with the mean around £30k.

Just googled that ASHE 2011, which confirms the £26k median figure.

skivenov

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I would be quite happy for CB to be cut entirely. What I don't like is:

(a) people on higher incomes getting a benefit that people on lower incomes are prohibited to collect

(b) a party being taxed for a benefit they don't even claim

If the Govt said (a) we are stopping all CB or (b) we are stopping all CB for HOUSEHOLDS with an income over £60k or (c) we are allowing a family tax free limit - which is double the single persons - then I would not have any issue.

all three of my ideas are perfectly fair.

(a) The goverment's made a step in the right direction - let's hope they keep at it!
(b) Does that mean you don't like the fact that people without children have been, up to now, contributing towards your CB and schools for your offspring?

ukcarper

Zero_Sum wrote: »

All the figures I've seen suggest that the median salary is around £26k, with the mean around £30k.

Just googled that ASHE 2011, which confirms the £26k median figure.

That's full time employees not all employees

Zero_Sum

ukcarper wrote: »

That's full time employees not all employees

Yes, that would make sense then.

BobQ

ukcarper wrote: »

Is the bus pass just a way to subsidise buses.

Maybe it is. But if it helps those who cannot drive or cannot afford a car to be able to afford to get out and about in their retirement I have no problem with it being a subsidy to bus firms too. Equally if it incentivises some more affluent people to not use their cars and reduce greenhouse gases I can accept that too.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Maybe it is. But if it helps those who cannot drive or cannot afford a car to be able to afford to get out and about in their retirement I have no problem with it being a subsidy to bus firms too. Equally if it incentivises some more affluent people to not use their cars and reduce greenhouse gases I can accept that too.

Alternatively, one can say it encourages un-necessary journeys, increases taxes (as they are funded by taxes), burns un-necessary fuel, increases C02 emissions and helps destroy the planet.