What constitutes official advice

unholyangel

stcyrus said:

I have had personal reasons to look into the HICBC and at each turn I find it to be more farcical. The justification that an individual earning 80,000 should have a universal benefit removed plays well to the masses, far less so when the individual earns 50000. That is why Mr Osborne opted to us the figures he did. As the COE he made a choice to be less than clear on the people who would be impacted. I consider this aspect of the speech to be misleading and crafted to obscure.
When a state official chooses to obscure then the state can hardly claim its the individual who is at fault

Why do you think 50k wouldn't have the support of the masses?

The median full time wage is 30k (much lower if you include part timers). Meaning "the masses" earn far less than 50k. 

Also as I highlighted, you're selectively quoting parts of the speech that support your view and ignoring the parts that don't. The part right after the section you screenshot gives the rules as they are (kicks in at 50k and by 60k you're repaying 100%) and very succinctly too.

sheramber

Why stick at £80, 000 ? He also suggests 'or £100,000. Surely that would be even better.

getmore4less

Does it matter what was talked about by various ministers or enquiries that may discuss  suggest /advise?

Loads of talk about the lockdowns that many have misinterpreted to means things that are different to what was implemented.

What got put into legislation is what you need to be looking at.

Jeremy535897

As I pointed out earlier, it is not all one way, despite comments here. See
https://www.litrg.org.uk/latest-news/news/200714-hmrc-told-high-income-child-benefit-charge-assessments-not-valid