Child Benefit To Be Scrapped For Higher Taxpayers

[Traktion]

I think It's funny that there are people in this thread who have been cheerleaders for cutting benefits for the very poor or as are often described on here as scroungers, lazy, feckless etc.

But when the gravy train axe hovers over them the squeeling starts but but but.......I'll have to invent my own tax fiddle now or deliberately earn less money, not fair blah blah blah.

If you are a higher rate tax payer and this is all the damage that the spending cuts do to you than you are lucky.

The sound of upper/middle income earners moaning when their benefits are cut when others, much poorer than themselves, will have to suck it up is pathetic.

Agreed!

All this talk of fairness for those over 44k still getting the credits is daft - how fair do you think it is for us without any children, having to pay for anything for other people's children? People seem to be happy to forget about the looting when they are getting some of it, but cry foul when they're not.

Besides, the whole point of the benefits system is to help those who really need it. It's not there so you can have a bigger house, a better car, more holidays, better baby sitters... it's to keep people above the bread line. I, for one, don't mind those at the bottom getting a helping hand, should they need it as otherwise they will be doing the looting themselves, out of desperation.

[Traktion]

Innit. Tories thow innit.

They wouldn't have to cut, if Labour hadn't spent far more than they had the balls to tax. Why tax and spend, when you can borrow and spend?

I'm not an apologist for any of the main parties, but mess left over by the previous lot is obvious, and it needs cleaning up.

[stormymonday_2011]

I think It's funny that there are people in this thread who have been cheerleaders for cutting benefits for the very poor or as are often described on here as scroungers, lazy, feckless etc.

But when the gravy train axe hovers over them the squeeling starts but but but.......I'll have to invent my own tax fiddle now or deliberately earn less money, not fair blah blah blah.

If you are a higher rate tax payer and this is all the damage that the spending cuts do to you than you are lucky.

The sound of upper/middle income earners moaning when their benefits are cut when others, much poorer than themselves, will have to suck it up is pathetic.

Amen to that.

[LivingWithTheInlaws]

I don't know if anyone has said this yet - I haven't read the whole thread, but it immediately creates a pay range that is not worth earning. If your pay rises to just below the threshold, the next jump would have to be a number of K more (say £5k for 3 kids) for it to have been worthwhile. I don't think being higher rate has had that kind of disadvantage before. Tax on dividends is different for higher rate tax payers but it doesn't affect many people. Those people on very gradual increases might try and go for a deal where they hold off on any rises for a couple of years in order to go for a higher rise later on that takes them past the disadvantage threshold.

[Oh Dear]

What is most appauling about the whole sorry affair is that if you earn £44k per year (regardless of having children or not) it is still a highly realistic possibility that you are priced out of the housing market. If the cost of housing was massively reduced then the overall cost of benefits would be reduced, requirements for WFTC etc would be largely eliminated. Perhaps even wages might be sufficient to sustain a living for the majority of the working population!

[twatmangle]

I don't know if anyone has said this yet - I haven't read the whole thread, but it immediately creates a pay range that is not worth earning. If your pay rises to just below the threshold, the next jump would have to be a number of K more (say £5k for 3 kids) for it to have been worthwhile. I don't think being higher rate has had that kind of disadvantage before. Tax on dividends is different for higher rate tax payers but it doesn't affect many people. Those people on very gradual increases might try and go for a deal where they hold off on any rises for a couple of years in order to go for a higher rise later on that takes them past the disadvantage threshold.

Yes, as mentioned previously, salary sacrifice, benefit in kind, and various other options will suddenly be offered to those around 40K as alternatives to pay rises.

[mitchbux]

In response to the same comment on the other thread too, soon no higher rate tax payers will be getting CTC from my understanding of the changes announced in the last budget.

I'm aware of the childcare issue but in the example you cite they also enjoy the benefit of an extra tax free allowance, another childcare voucher allowance and not paying higher rate income tax on 30 grand before they still get their extra few grand in child benefit compared to a single earner on anything between £45K and £80K. I think that makes up for any "childcare costs". For those who stay at home to raise children "without childcare costs" (the irony), do you think the likes of tumble tots are free? Aquababies? Sing and sign? Yummy mummy coffee mornings? Dinners? Houeshold utilities? I know you wouldn't expect mothers to raise their children on fresh air in a cold dark house during the winter. The marginal cost of childcare over raising your own children is not as clear cut as you state without even considering the lost earnings angle. I am genuinely surprised if thats what you think. Neither will "It costs money to go to work" wash, as if responsible parents don't go out of ther way to take their kids places during the week or to school.

Those of us who are in single income household who earn around the higher rate cut off are screwed in comparison. The effective message is de-skill yourself, send your wife out to work and child to a baby farm... I don't know why this has got me in such a tiz, I don't need the money as such, it goes into savings for him but this change in policy has a nasty social engineering side effect. I don't mind losing CB because I'm lucky enough to earn a reasonable wage. I don't mind losing CB and seeing poorer families keep it. I don't mind having a disadvantage in competing with double income families who've pimped out their kids to daycare so they can earn more because I've chosen a different family structure. BUT losing one of the few benefits I get and seeing families bring in 50% more money gross and proportionally more after tax WHILST RETAINING CHILD BENEFIT makes my piss boil. There, I said it, if that's classed as envy I don't care. I think that is the crux of the matter for me.

I thought families where one parent worked and the other managed the household were the sort of thing the conservatives respected. Obviously not anymore, anyone know of a good divorce lawyer?

Just thought I ought to point out, for those that don't have kids, that there can be huge costs involved in using professional childcare. I was shelling out £550/month just for one child in 2001, and the school holidays in 2007 were costing me £250/week, despite older kids being 'cheaper' to farm out. OH's then employer wasn't doing childcare vouchers. The loss of CTC is for household income over £40K BTW.

I'm currently a stop at home Mum in a >£44K single income household, We've had a spell of being on a combined of greater than that, and on a single income of much less. I see both sides. No the marginal cost of raising your children isn't clear cut, but at times I have gone without lunch, only gone to free activities, sat in the dark whilst wearing my coat.... When I worked full time I ended up paying over the odds for goods and services, hadn't got time to hang around the reduced section in the supermarket waiting to pounce, paid people to do jobs we hadn't got time to do ourselves... Yes, I did need extra 'work clothes', it was that sort of job, and car expenses were horrific, despite car-sharing with a colleague.

Thankfully those days are gone, we have a happy medium, and a much more relaxed life, which I can't put a price on. It's certainly worth the difference between our current income minus CB, over what our joint income would have left us with after no CTC.

That said, my urine is still capable of causing blisters. I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of your post. OH is away, I've changed the locks.

[MinceBalls]

Agreed!

How fair do you think it is for us without any children, having to pay for anything for other people's children? People seem to be happy to forget about the looting when they are getting some of it, but cry foul when they're not.

Its VERY fair; who do you think is going to pay for the services (care, NHS, pensions et al) you require when you are retired if it isn't the children others are having on your behalf?

[stormymonday_2011]

I don't know if anyone has said this yet - I haven't read the whole thread, but it immediately creates a pay range that is not worth earning. If your pay rises to just below the threshold, the next jump would have to be a number of K more (say £5k for 3 kids) for it to have been worthwhile. I don't think being higher rate has had that kind of disadvantage before. Tax on dividends is different for higher rate tax payers but it doesn't affect many people. Those people on very gradual increases might try and go for a deal where they hold off on any rises for a couple of years in order to go for a higher rise later on that takes them past the disadvantage threshold.

That is the main criticism I would level at the proposal. It effectively puts some people in a 100% tax band on their earnings

It would have been fairer simply to have regarded Child Benefit as income taxable under Schedule E just like Pensions.

People would then be taxed at the correct marginal rate

But of course this is not about fairness or even hitting the 'middle class'. Instead as the BBC commentator suggests the move is probably designed as cover for harsher cuts to come for the poor. The danger for Osbourne is that this divide and conquer tactic may have the opposite effect. It could create an alliance between those on different incomes who feel they have lost out.

On edit - I think this dog's breakfast of a proposal is the first sign that Osbourne is not going to be a 'good' Chancellor. It is doing the exact opposite of what Duncan Smith is claiming to be his aim for benefit reform that is creating an incentive to work and earn. I suspect quite a few employees will simply ask to go part time or take a pass on over time to avoid the benefit cut off.

Edited October 4, 2010 by realcrookswearsuits

[Dorkins]

Its VERY fair; who do you think is going to pay for the services (care, NHS, pensions et al) you require when you are retired if it isn't the children others are having on your behalf?

People with funded pensions can pay for themselves. The government should be looking to move everybody onto a funded pension scheme.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

That is the main criticism I would level at the proposal. It effectively puts some people in an effective 100% tax band on their earnings

It would have been fairer simply to have regarded Child Benefit as income taxable under Schedule E just like Pensions.

People would then be taxed at the correct marginal rate

But of course this is not about fairness or even hitting the 'middle class'. Instead as the BBC commentator suggests the move is probably designed as cover for harsher cuts to come for the poor. The danger for Osbourne is that this divide and conquer tactic may have the opposite effect. It could create an alliance between those on different incomes who feel they have lost out.

On edit - I think this dog's breakfast of a proposal is the first sign that Osbourne is not going to be a 'good' Chancellor

I'm wondering whether there's a big sweetener coming at the end, eg extension of the tax free earnings to 10K.

[MinceBalls]

People with funded pensions can pay for themselves. The government should be looking to move everybody onto a funded pension scheme.

Maybe so, that's a different argument though. I'm just askinf, how that works within the current system. I didn't just mention pensions either.

[noodle doodle]

Maybe so, that's a different argument though. I'm just askinf, how that works within the current system. I didn't just mention pensions either.

he doesn't have an answer, just a flawed argument about no inter-generational transfer of wealth "cos the baby boomers nicked it all"

he still hasn't explained how the current generation of 0-16 year olds are meant to support themselves. i know the victorians had ideas involving mines and chimneys but I thought we'd advanced beyond that. The anti-government interference types see it as regression. The fact is every generation starts owing its existence, physically and economically, to the generations that have gone before. There is no way they can be separated.

Edited October 4, 2010 by noodle doodle

[R K]

People with funded pensions can pay for themselves. The government should be looking to move everybody onto a funded pension scheme.

How? With what?

[Mr. Spin esq.]

Agreed!

All this talk of fairness for those over 44k still getting the credits is daft - how fair do you think it is for us without any children, having to pay for anything for other people's children? People seem to be happy to forget about the looting when they are getting some of it, but cry foul when they're not.

Besides, the whole point of the benefits system is to help those who really need it. It's not there so you can have a bigger house, a better car, more holidays, better baby sitters... it's to keep people above the bread line. I, for one, don't mind those at the bottom getting a helping hand, should they need it as otherwise they will be doing the looting themselves, out of desperation.

Rubbish.

The whole point of benefits is to buy the lower class so they don't revolt. That is why all today's noise about cutting benefits will never EVER happen. The cap at 500 quid a week is laughable. Read some books on UK politics going back 30+ years and you will see that benefit payouts have been increasing - even though governments all talk about cutting or limiting benefits.

By the way... when are the ficticious austerity plans going to kick in again? This month, next month, next year, next decade, or never.

My money is on never. The UK will hyper-inflate before benefits and/or government jobs are ever cut.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Mr. Spin esq.

[mitchbux]

Its VERY fair; who do you think is going to pay for the services (care, NHS, pensions et al) you require when you are retired if it isn't the children others are having on your behalf?

More importanly who will be staffing the NHS when Traktion has retired...

[Injin]

More importanly who will be staffing the NHS when Traktion has retired...

What NHS?

[sharpe]

Apologies if already posted.

Child benefit to be scrapped for higher taxpayers.

My link

It should be called child tax reduction; as anyone in this category is already paying a lot of tax. That tax reduction is now being removed and the most overburdened sector is paying more tax again

[evictee]

Some questions which might have interesting consequences:

* How are absentee parents treated in the assessment?

* If an undue benefit is claimed regardless, the money will be reclaimed through the tax code. Whose tax code? The claimant, or the person whose earnings cause the disqualification?

* Can the threshold be avoided by paying into a company pension?

* Can the threshold be avoided by paying into personal pension which involves PAYE at the higher rate before reclaiming?

[Traktion]

Its VERY fair; who do you think is going to pay for the services (care, NHS, pensions et al) you require when you are retired if it isn't the children others are having on your behalf?

Well, I'm forced to pay to educate them, so maybe they owe me something anyway?

I didn't ask for the NHS or pensions (the latter, I may not get from the government anyway, by the time I get there). I can guarantee that the unborn didn't either... and they will have to repay for the previous generation's profligacy.

You can justify the hows and whys, but in the end each person is responsible for their own well being. Should people not be saving and preparing for hard times and old age themselves?

[White Craw]

It should be called child tax reduction; as anyone in this category is already paying a lot of tax. That tax reduction is now being removed and the most overburdened sector is paying more tax again

Yes you have a good point there.

IIRC, child benefit and the family element of CTC were introduced as replacements for child and married couple's tax allowances respectively.

[Traktion]

he doesn't have an answer, just a flawed argument about no inter-generational transfer of wealth "cos the baby boomers nicked it all"

he still hasn't explained how the current generation of 0-16 year olds are meant to support themselves. i know the victorians had ideas involving mines and chimneys but I thought we'd advanced beyond that. The anti-government interference types see it as regression. The fact is every generation starts owing its existence, physically and economically, to the generations that have gone before. There is no way they can be separated.

Are you suggesting that without child benefits, children would be left to fend for themselves? Don't be daft - parents have been bringing children up for millennia, long before said credits existed.

It's interesting that the very idea that parents should have to pay for their children is met with such a response. Perhaps if they helped their children when they were young, who in turn returned received favour when they were old, a similar equilibrium would be achieved. But hey, don't let that get in the way of a good rant at my expense!

Edited October 4, 2010 by Traktion

[mitchbux]

What NHS?

Yes, I nearly added that I didn't think it would actually exist by then.

Those that do have to fund their own training are going to want large amounts of wealth throwing at them in return for their skills, it's going to get ugly.

Very ugly...

[Traktion]

More importanly who will be staffing the NHS when Traktion has retired...

I would imagine the next generation would be, unless you are suggesting a cull of the young?

[Traktion]

Rubbish.

The whole point of benefits is to buy the lower class so they don't revolt. That is why all today's noise about cutting benefits will never EVER happen. The cap at 500 quid a week is laughable. Read some books on UK politics going back 30+ years and you will see that benefit payouts have been increasing - even though governments all talk about cutting or limiting benefits.

By the way... when are the ficticious austerity plans going to kick in again? This month, next month, next year, next decade, or never.

My money is on never. The UK will hyper-inflate before benefits and/or government jobs are ever cut.

I'll leave you with your cynicism. I support helping out those who need it, whatever the political/conspiratorial reason is.