Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
SarahBell

Child Benefit Issue - Tax Credit To Go?

Recommended Posts

The child benefit issue could easily be amalgamted into the tax credit system. Cancel direct payment of CB and get people to claim for it.The rich wouldn't get it and they could sort it out easy peasy by adjusting numbers.

However it's not been done. So why?

Have they just forgotten they have a system that could administer it or is it because tax credits are going to be abolished and there's no point in meddling with the CB into it?

Did tax credits get a mention in the cuts?

Very relevant to house prices as mortgage companies were taking into account how much tax credits couples would get as to how much they could afford to take on.

Edited by SarahBell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The child benefit issue could easily be amalgamted into the tax credit system. Cancel direct payment of CB and get people to claim for it.The rich wouldn't get it and they could sort it out easy peasy by adjusting numbers.

However it's not been done. So why?

Have they just forgotten they have a system that could administer it or is it because tax credits are going to be abolished and there's no point in meddling with the CB into it?

Did tax credits get a mention in the cuts?

Very relevant to house prices as mortgage companies were taking into account how much tax credits couples would get as to how much they could afford to take on.

Isn't it all going o be rolled into universal credit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current “complex” system of means-tested working age benefits and tax credits will gradually be replaced by a Universal Credit that will “sharpen” work incentives and reduce fraud and error, Mr Osborne said. But he pledged that low income families with children would be protected from the adverse effects of the “essential savings”.

One way this would be achieved was through an increase in the child element of the Child Tax Credit by a further £30 in 2011-12 and £50 in 2012-13 above inflation, he said

He defended the decision to axe child benefit for high earners and scotched speculation that it would be scrapped for all children over 16.

The package of welfare reforms includes freezing the working tax credit for three years from next April, changing working tax credit eligibility and ending payment of the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance.

http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2010/10/21/welfare-benefits-hit-as-osborne-tries-to-make-work-pay-51140-27517801/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know... What's the timetable for that?

on This Week last night, one of Blair's old backroom staff (forgot name) said that Blair tried this but too many VIs in civil service and society

he observed that with this govt it has ALREADY been pushed back to next parliament (guessing that is after another GE) due to cost, so effectively into the long grass, won't get done, too politically difficult. Seeing as Blair tried this, Major before him, good idea, just ends up getting bodged and more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...changing working tax credit eligibility

I wonder what this means?

Working tax credit is for people in low paid work; it was meant as an incentive to take on such work rather than languish on the dole, yet here they are freezing it for 3 years (effectively cutting it) and cutting some people out of it altogether, by the sounds of it. I thought they wanted to 'make work pay'? :blink:

Edited by acer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what this means?

Working tax credit is for people in low paid work; it was meant as an incentive to take on such work rather than languish on the dole, yet here they are freezing it for 3 years (effectively cutting it) and cutting some people out of it altogether, by the sounds of it. I thought they wanted to 'make work pay'? :blink:

You misheard. They said "Make workers pay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of Child benefit was for it to be a universal benefit paid to for the second and subsequent children. Because it was a universal benefit there was no stigma attached to being in receipt of it. There were also other claims that because it was paid to the mother it was more likely to be used for the benefit of the recipients children.

There is no reason why it could not still be paid as a universal benefit. Income tax rates could be adjusted to take account of those with an income above whatever threshold is determined to be adequate not to need the benefit.

To my mind a better solution than imposing an arbitrary cut off, and possibly slightly fairer. If you think about it its a small step towards a citizens income, a child is entitled to a payment from the state for no other reason that it is alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of Child benefit was for it to be a universal benefit paid to for the second and subsequent children. Because it was a universal benefit there was no stigma attached to being in receipt of it. There were also other claims that because it was paid to the mother it was more likely to be used for the benefit of the recipients children.

There is no reason why it could not still be paid as a universal benefit. Income tax rates could be adjusted to take account of those with an income above whatever threshold is determined to be adequate not to need the benefit.

To my mind a better solution than imposing an arbitrary cut off, and possibly slightly fairer. If you think about it its a small step towards a citizens income, a child is entitled to a payment from the state for no other reason that it is alive.

Good post. The government's Child Benefit proposals are a ludicrous mess which even incentivise marginal higher rate taxpayers with children to ask for a pay cut. If, as some people claim, they don't need the money then those without the costs of bringing up children need the money even less. Just leave it as a simple universal benefit and raise the tax rate to 41% for the next four years. Means testing just creates incentives to under achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of Child benefit was for it to be a universal benefit paid to for the second and subsequent children. Because it was a universal benefit there was no stigma attached to being in receipt of it. There were also other claims that because it was paid to the mother it was more likely to be used for the benefit of the recipients children.

There is no reason why it could not still be paid as a universal benefit. Income tax rates could be adjusted to take account of those with an income above whatever threshold is determined to be adequate not to need the benefit.

To my mind a better solution than imposing an arbitrary cut off, and possibly slightly fairer. If you think about it its a small step towards a citizens income, a child is entitled to a payment from the state for no other reason that it is alive.

I agree child benefit should continue to be paid to all...the higher paid could pay for it in a different way via their taxes...it is only a government ploy to make it look as if they are being fair by taking something away from the high tax payers. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't object to losing tax credits or child benefit, but I do object to 2 household with dual income, latch key kids getting it when their household income is nearly double ours! When will governments stop penalising those of us who believe that children become better citizens when one parent is at home to look after them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't object to losing tax credits or child benefit, but I do object to 2 household with dual income, latch key kids getting it when their household income is nearly double ours! When will governments stop penalising those of us who believe that children become better citizens when one parent is at home to look after them.

They would say that two people working are paying more tax than one person working....that is why child benefit should be paid to all or not paid to anyone....start playing around with it causes more unfairness and bureaucracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I glanced over IDS's welfare reform proposals earlier today and unless something has changed with the CSR this is still in the consultation stage and new legislation will be proposed in the new year.

They are looking at all possibilities including a negative income tax. My hope is that housing benefit will disappear altogether but then again I think there is the same chance as my hope that football and x-factor will do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.