Child Benefit Farce

The_White_Horse

what are you talking about? two people earning £30k each will pay far less tax than one earning £60k. Are you mental?

my position is not inconsistent at all. i am happy for everyone to get it. I am happy for no one to get it. I am not happy for people on £60k to not get it, whilst people on £98k are getting it.

I fail to see how this is controversial in any way.

Generali

The_White_Horse wrote: »

what are you talking about? two people earning £30k each will pay far less tax than one earning £60k. Are you mental?

my position is not inconsistent at all. i am happy for everyone to get it. I am happy for no one to get it. I am not happy for people on £60k to not get it, whilst people on £98k are getting it.

I fail to see how this is controversial in any way.

You never said anything about 2 people earning £30,000 each. You were comparing couples where one earned £60,000 and one where they made £98,000 between them.

Do you honestly think that there'll be any sympathy for someone earning £60,000 a year not getting extra in benefits?

The_White_Horse

£60k is a pittance in London with a family, having bought houses in the last decade.

It might be a lot for someone in Leeds who bought their house in 1990.

wotsthat

The_White_Horse wrote: »

what are you talking about? two people earning £30k each will pay far less tax than one earning £60k. Are you mental?

my position is not inconsistent at all. i am happy for everyone to get it. I am happy for no one to get it. I am not happy for people on £60k to not get it, whilst people on £98k are getting it.

I fail to see how this is controversial in any way.

Would you be highlighting this injustice if you had a joint household income of £98k rather than just your £60k?

Doubt it.

Certainly doesn't look as if you pay more tax than most people earn as you claim either.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

You never said anything about 2 people earning £30,000 each. You were comparing couples where one earned £60,000 and one where they made £98,000 between them.

Do you honestly think that there'll be any sympathy for someone earning £60,000 a year not getting extra in benefits?

To be fair to 'High_Horse', I think he is becoming lucid on the issue. The government were, I believe, rather humble in admitting that the new rules are not what they would have liked, but the best 'fudge' available to means test it.

Stage 1, in my view, should have been to abolish it completely. As an emergency measure, they could have added a similar amount to child tax credits [ouch!]. This would have meant automatic 'means testing'.

Stage 2, however, having put all child benefits into the same means tested basket, would be to re-consider both the qualification, and amount of child tax credits. Personally I cringe at paying anything directly for having a child, and to pay 'per child' ad infinitum is simply unsustainable, stupid, uneconomic, unnecessary, and an offense to 'hard working Joe Public'.

michaels

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.

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

To be fair to 'High_Horse', I think he is becoming lucid on the issue. The government were, I believe, rather humble in admitting that the new rules are not what they would have liked, but the best 'fudge' available to means test it.

Stage 1, in my view, should have been to abolish it completely. As an emergency measure, they could have added a similar amount to child tax credits [ouch!]. This would have meant automatic 'means testing'.

Stage 2, however, having put all child benefits into the same means tested basket, would be to re-consider both the qualification, and amount of child tax credits. Personally I cringe at paying anything directly for having a child, and to pay 'per child' ad infinitum is simply unsustainable, stupid, uneconomic, unnecessary, and an offense to 'hard working Joe Public'.

I think child benefit is anachronistic. The original idea was that women whose husbands wouldn't give them any housekeeping would go hungry along with the kids. These days she'd leave and get benefits until she got a job.

The Tories probably felt it was impossible politically to scrap child benefit (nasty party and all that crap) but needed a quick budgetary fix. A cheap and effective way to get rid of a benefit for people that don't need it is to decide arbitrarily that some are rich because they pay 40% tax.

It may not be completely 100% fair but who cares? Seriously! TWH earns £60,000 a year which will put him well into the top 5% of earners. If TWH can't pay his own way then who the heck can? I suspect our eyes have been bigger than our stomachs with the mortgage myself.

lemonjelly

The_White_Horse wrote: »

£60k is a pittance in London with a family, having bought houses in the last decade.

It might be a lot for someone in Leeds who bought their house in 1990.

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?

chewmylegoff

The_White_Horse wrote: »

what are you talking about? two people earning £30k each will pay far less tax than one earning £60k. Are you mental?

my position is not inconsistent at all. i am happy for everyone to get it. I am happy for no one to get it. I am not happy for people on £60k to not get it, whilst people on £98k are getting it.

I fail to see how this is controversial in any way.

it's not contraversial and it's obviously unfair.

it's just quite funny that you are caught by it after all your vitriol against benefits claimants.

probably karma or something.

ukcarper

The_White_Horse wrote: »

£60k is a pittance in London with a family, having bought houses in the last decade.

It might be a lot for someone in Leeds who bought their house in 1990.

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