We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Child Benefit Farce 2
Comments
-
Fairness?
So a system has been implemented that sees a very small minority of people unfairly benefit, in order to see greater financial savings.
That is often the way with policies though.
It often works the other way against the disadvantaged in society who are less capable, financially as well as socially, in dealing with the change.
The big difference here is that small minority are more vocal by nature perhaps stoicism is needed.
No doubt regional pay differences and property costs accentuate the issue."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I have no problem with this, earning just over 60k and wife off work at th moment. It's fine as long as we can go ahead with the 10 billion cut in benefits Osborne has touted for thos lower down the food chain. After 13 years of socialist oppression, I want to see them find out what real life is like.0
-
I have no problem with this, earning just over 60k and wife off work at th moment. It's fine as long as we can go ahead with the 10 billion cut in benefits Osborne has touted for thos lower down the food chain. After 13 years of socialist oppression, I want to see them find out what real life is like.
New Labour, socialist? come off it:rotfl:.0 -
Why not combine the change with rolling off CB for children above 12 as well, for everybody. Let's make a serious dent in the deficit.
Unfortunately the over 12s are even more costly to parents.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
I have no problem with this, earning just over 60k and wife off work at th moment. It's fine as long as we can go ahead with the 10 billion cut in benefits Osborne has touted for thos lower down the food chain. After 13 years of socialist oppression, I want to see them find out what real life is like.
By real life you mean one that we had pre-1900 where people died though the lack of basic health care, the poor lacked educational opportunity and the rich granted the poor whatever charity they thought they could afford while ensuring that remained at their station? God bless you sir (doffing his cap)!
If you think the Blair years were socialist oppression then they were largely a failure since inequality in wealth and income continued to rise which is hardly what socialism should be delivering. There are legitimate points to be made about tacking dependency on benefits, but if the agenda is purely driven by cutting benefits for the sake of doing so this inequality that has been growing over the recent decades will just grow worse.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
somethingcorporate wrote: »Rubbish, where did you get that idea from?
It's always been pre-tax.
Sorry, you're correct. The Inland Revenue mentioned the calculation is based on adjusted net income, which I took to be 'net' of tax.
I've looked into it and the adjusted net income is your taxable income minus pension contributions and minus gift aid. For those who are on the 'cusp' of threshold, they can increase their pension contributions and still receive child benefit.
Here is a link to the HMRC 'tax calculator':
https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-tax-calculator0 -
-
Isnt the average wage of an MP about 65K - are they all going to be putting x amount into their pension to get below 50 or 60K?Year 2019 (1,700/£17000mortgage repayment)Overall mortgage (71,400/165568) (44
.1%) (42/100) payments made. Total paid 2019 year £1,700
Total paid 2017 year £15,300Total paid 2018 year £13,6000 -
These changes are obviously unfair in that those still earning a higher household income in a joint earning family will keep their money, while those who have a lesser household income but still above the threshold will lose theirs.
The bureaucracy of how it will be implemented is going to be a nightmare both to implement and police. Just when in a new partnership does a new partner become liable for someone elses children is going to be just one minefield. Many people already find self assessment difficult this is just going to increase. The tax office even delayed sending out letters because they were having difficulty in trying to find the words to explain the system.
There is also the looming possibility that it could be classed as illegal according to EU law. The idea of clawing tax back is difficult to achieve with 100% effectiveness as we frequently see. Add in that a large amount of child benefit actually leaves these shores and goes to children in other countries. Our government has no jurisdiction to claw tax money back from those countries, hence the policy is actually discriminating against it's own citizens. Sounds stupid but then much of EU law is.
As back of the envelope policies go I don't think a more chaotic way of changing the benefit could have been found. It will descend in to farce and is very unlikely when all red tape has been gone through to save even a fraction of that which it is suppose to save. Who ever came up with it should have their head on a chopping block for stupidity if nothing else.
How much simpler it would have been to keep the benefit universal but state that from 10 months hence the benefit would only apply to two children for everyone. Those with more than two now would gradually see the benefit tail off as it stopped when the child either left education or reached 18 which ever came sooner. It would have been a more long term plan but it would in the end have been quicker to implement, simpler to understand and in the long term save more money than this current idea will.[FONT="]“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” ~ Maya Angelou[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]0 -
runninglea wrote: »Isnt the average wage of an MP about 65K - are they all going to be putting x amount into their pension to get below 50 or 60K?
Do they actually contribute at all (to their pension)?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards