D
Dawg
What, a couple on going on twice the national average wage loses some benefits for having kids? Why should they get it anyway? Subsidizing the affluent.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point of benefit payments was to help people who had fallen on hard times; a measure of how civilized we are as a society.
I had no idea it was to tax poor people to give money to the middle classes for having little Justins and Arabellas.
Silly old me.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point of benefit payments was to help people who had fallen on hard times; a measure of how civilized we are as a society.
I had no idea it was to tax poor people to give money to the middle classes for having little Justins and Arabellas.
Silly old me.
Upvote
0
Regardless of the argument of whether or not child benefit should be paid, the way this change is being implemented is foolish and unfair. The threshold should be based on household income, not on an individual income. As it will stand, a household with an income of £40k more than another household could be receiving the benefit, whilst the household with the lower income doesn't receive it.
Children's tax credits are based on combined household income, so why not Child benefit? I think they've dropped a bit of a b*****k.
Jeff
Children's tax credits are based on combined household income, so why not Child benefit? I think they've dropped a bit of a b*****k.
Jeff
Upvote
0
I think on first inspection it seems like a dumb idea (1x£45k=no bens, 2x£40k=bens) but I'm not so sure. The 40% tax bracket is the watershed whereby the person is considered to be a higher earner. The new system stops higher earners getting benefits.
Although I understand the 2x£40k argument and don't entirely agree with the new 'policy', it's a simple and clear rule however unfair it might seem.
d
Although I understand the 2x£40k argument and don't entirely agree with the new 'policy', it's a simple and clear rule however unfair it might seem.
d
Upvote
0
hit the nail square on the head there Jeff how can they miss such a gaff,I would hope its picked up on but im not holding my breath lol
what i want to know is why all pay outs are not means tested ? why do we pay winter fuel allowance to expats in spain? or to oaps with millions in the bank, at the expence of the old people who really need the extra help.
Upvote
0
So, Nick says to Dave, c'mon, you've got to let us have at least one of our policies. We've given you power, it's not fair that you're making all the decisions and we're getting loads of crap from our members.
George says to Dave, I have a cunning plan......lets let them have their most contraversial one, and implement it really really badly (evil s******s), and give them all the credit in the media ("we're working really closely with the Libdems on this one")
Yeah! says Dave, then next time they get all uppitidy we'll just remind them how badly it went last time, and we can just carry on doing everything our way.
Hehehehe, George and Dave roll around on the floor laughing.
Back in your box, Nick!!
George says to Dave, I have a cunning plan......lets let them have their most contraversial one, and implement it really really badly (evil s******s), and give them all the credit in the media ("we're working really closely with the Libdems on this one")
Yeah! says Dave, then next time they get all uppitidy we'll just remind them how badly it went last time, and we can just carry on doing everything our way.
Hehehehe, George and Dave roll around on the floor laughing.
Back in your box, Nick!!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Is it just not a lot more simpler than all of this. Its a lot cheaper to implement, and requires very little moderation and overseeing if its based on a single declared taxable figure.
Where as there are several million people in this country currently working the system everywhich way possible to ensure that their "household" income drops out on the right side to ensure that they can get whatever benefits it is that they're after.
Upvote
0
C
crossdaz
I think winter fuel benefit only comes into play if you are already receiving another benefit - so in that sense it is means tested.
I'm not really upto speed with this new change or even what child benefit is I'm guessing it's not going to be devastating for a couple paying 40% tax to lose it?
There was an argument put forward sometime ago that suggested everyone should just get a set amount of benefit whether they needed it or not - the logic was that it costs so much to administer the current system that this would be cheaper and fairer all round.
Upvote
0
it has seemed nonsensical to us for over 10 years now (age of our eldest child) - both Mrs B and I each earn well over £44k and we have been getting child benefit - that is madness, so cancellation of that seems sensible.
Individual vs household income - let's sort the detail out later but in principle it must be right.
BUT why wait until 2013? Why not implement this immediately or from April 2011?
Personally, I gain from this pontification and dithering - but GET ON WITH IT !
Individual vs household income - let's sort the detail out later but in principle it must be right.
BUT why wait until 2013? Why not implement this immediately or from April 2011?
Personally, I gain from this pontification and dithering - but GET ON WITH IT !
Upvote
0
I'd say one household with an income of £80K getting the benefit (2 workers each earning £40K) and one household with an income of £45K (one worker, earning £45K) not getting the benefit is a principle and not a detail.
Upvote
0
C
crossdaz
Here's a principal for you:
People with no kids should pay less tax than those who do. Argue against it if you can?
I pay tax regardless of what I get, which seems to be a damn site less than you do, because I live in a so-called civilised society and that's how it works.
Get over it
Upvote
0
As a 46 year old with no kids I'm going to argue against that motion. Today's kids will be looking after me when I'm older and I'm glad of them and happy to help people who have kids bring them up.
It's a point of view m'lud.
d
Upvote
0
C
crossdaz
I'm not arguing for it - just saying there is a valid argument. My taxes seem to be subsiding a lot of lifestyle choices - it comes with the territory. I'm happy to live in a place where everyone contributes to the common good.
I don't have much sympathy for people who are obviously going to lose a few quid a week because of this minor change.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #27
Are you sure you will be happy with a 130 quid a week.in a society that now thinks people need helt to bring up there kids if they only earn £800 a week.:|
Anyhow you have the wrong end of the stick as by the time you retire you will have more than paid for any old age benefits you get and the kids will be busy squandering your hard earned on various financial scams if history serves me right.
Earl
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'd say that one household earning £45k doesn't need the benefit anyway. Why should they be subsidised by others on half those earnings? Getting the rules right to ensure it doesn't go to the former of your examples is just some detail to be sorted.
Upvote
0
yes, its not as if this is set in stone, its only just been mooted hasn;t it at the party conference:| Mind you, a bit clumsy:redface:
I can never get my head round why we have to wait so long for these things to kick in. 2013???
Upvote
0
How about this ( lifted from onlymoney.co.uk)
Tower Watson also points out that individuals can preserve eligibility for child benefit by contributing to a personal pension or by sacrificing part of their salary and instead receiving higher employer pension contributions, which do not count towards taxable income.
For a couple have three children under 16. This means that their child benefit will be £2,449 a year if they qualify for it. One partner earns £47,500 and has no other taxable income. The other either does not work or earns less than the higher rate threshold.
Currently, the higher earner pays 5% of their salary into an occupational pension, on top of the contributions that their employer makes for them. This £2,375 employee contribution reduces the salary assessed for income tax to £45,125.
Calculator: The miracle effect of investing child benefit
That £45,125 level is £1,250 above the higher rate threshold. This parent is therefore a higher rate taxpayer, so the family would not qualify for child benefit from 2013.
However, the employee could choose to increase the contributions they make to their pension, paying an extra £1,250. If taken as income, this £1,250 would be taxed at 40%. So paying it into a pension reduces the employee's take-home pay by £750.
However, it also means they are no longer liable for higher rate tax on any of their income. Because neither parent would then be a higher rate taxpayer, the family would now qualify for £2,449 of child benefit.
Overall, the employee could therefore boost their pension fund by £1,250 and their family's disposable income by £1,699.
Do you get the feeling we're being shafted yet again?
Tower Watson also points out that individuals can preserve eligibility for child benefit by contributing to a personal pension or by sacrificing part of their salary and instead receiving higher employer pension contributions, which do not count towards taxable income.
For a couple have three children under 16. This means that their child benefit will be £2,449 a year if they qualify for it. One partner earns £47,500 and has no other taxable income. The other either does not work or earns less than the higher rate threshold.
Currently, the higher earner pays 5% of their salary into an occupational pension, on top of the contributions that their employer makes for them. This £2,375 employee contribution reduces the salary assessed for income tax to £45,125.
Calculator: The miracle effect of investing child benefit
That £45,125 level is £1,250 above the higher rate threshold. This parent is therefore a higher rate taxpayer, so the family would not qualify for child benefit from 2013.
However, the employee could choose to increase the contributions they make to their pension, paying an extra £1,250. If taken as income, this £1,250 would be taxed at 40%. So paying it into a pension reduces the employee's take-home pay by £750.
However, it also means they are no longer liable for higher rate tax on any of their income. Because neither parent would then be a higher rate taxpayer, the family would now qualify for £2,449 of child benefit.
Overall, the employee could therefore boost their pension fund by £1,250 and their family's disposable income by £1,699.
Do you get the feeling we're being shafted yet again?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #31
Thats politics at its most devious.
Sweets today and let someone else have the problems further down the line.
The terrible twins are holding on for dear life at the moment and may not be around on implementation day.
Seems to me they are heading for a monumental hot air catastrophe.
If only economics was as simple as Pinky and Perky.
Earl
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I pay tax regardless of what I get, which seems to be a damn site less than you do, because I live in a so-called civilised society and that's how it works.
Get over it
A little presumptious - I'm not 'lucky enough' to be taxed at the higher rate.
As we are talking about child benefit, my personal opinion is is that in this case the benefit should be based on the household tax rather than individual tax - after all, its not the children that are actually earning. It 'works' with the Child Tax Credit which is calculated on household income.
I'd agree, but then there will households earning £85K that will get the benefit, who equally, or more so, don't need it. My personal feeling is that whatever level the threshold was set, it should have been based on household income, not the income of one earner.
I think there might be a few parents on £45K negotiating a small pay cut in a couple of years time!
Upvote
0
G
Gord
Anyone who believes that adding more complex rules to a system which already fails is a good idea, is living in cloud cookoo land.
The choice Osbourne has is more likely to be:
1/ Do nothing
2/ Make manageable changes ( simple but not quite 'fair' to everyone )
3/ Make complex changes ( fairer, but not manageable, worry about getting the overpaid/underpaid £billions back later )
He's gone for option 2.
I think that there will be section of society that with these changes, as with the maximum benefits changes, they are taken beyond their means. They need time to make the necessary changes ( move house ? )
It's refreshing to see the coalition addressing the unnecessary state dependence mechanisms.
The choice Osbourne has is more likely to be:
1/ Do nothing
2/ Make manageable changes ( simple but not quite 'fair' to everyone )
3/ Make complex changes ( fairer, but not manageable, worry about getting the overpaid/underpaid £billions back later )
He's gone for option 2.
I think that there will be section of society that with these changes, as with the maximum benefits changes, they are taken beyond their means. They need time to make the necessary changes ( move house ? )
It's refreshing to see the coalition addressing the unnecessary state dependence mechanisms.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Long may it continue, ferk knows what the last lot where thinking about but it was not long-term.
A badly thought through policy, hopefully theyll see how badly the maths work out.
Nice to see the general consensus - Tony as a complete gobshit and the snotgoblin worst PM ever. Not much to compete with is it!
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
The Most Dangerous Moment in Business Is When Everything Is Going WellThey Saw It Coming. They Did Nothing. The Lessons Every Business Owner...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI and Your Business: Useful Tool, Not a Magic WandThere is no shortage of noise around artificial intelligence right now...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Companies House WebFiling security incident: what happened, what to check, and what to do nextCompanies House has confirmed that its WebFiling service suffered a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Spring Budget 2026: A Quiet Update for UK BusinessesChancellor Rachel Reeves delivered the UK’s Spring Statement on 3 March...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Practical Ways to Make Your Small Business More Resilient (Especially When the Unexpected Happens)Running a business means juggling plenty of things you can plan for and...- UKBF Editor
- Updated:
