Gone baby gone Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 she will get full child benefit and probably child tax credit as well.... No child tax credit for a family with only one worker and total income > £32K. I covered this earlier in the thread. This is with todays "generous" child tax credit regime, when it changes in April, expect those thresholds where CTC stops to reduce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Set up a LTD.....that seems to be all the craze at the moment, the wife can be the secretary........ Limited companies no longer need a secretary. One director is all you need IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quicken Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 However, this is the bit that galls me and I know some will think badly of me for saying it but, as I've said before, I set up my business when we had nothing, husband had lost his job and I didn't want to do the whole housing benefit, getting used to a life on benefits thing etc. Over the years I've continuously reinvested my profits and took no income over the first four and half years. We didn't have the safety net of tax credits as my income grew because we naturally lost it despite not physically getting paid each month. That's all fine as tbh I'm glad to be out of that system. This year I've drawn a very tidy sum and off the back of that hard work I'll now lose my CB (which I still refer to as family allowance). How do you start with nothing (so no savings), and survive while taking no income? Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomMonger Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Looking at the http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/policy/policy-changes/ website it says this: What is the charge?In the March 2012 Budget, George Osbourne announced plans to introduce a ‘high income child benefit charge’ which will come into effect from 7 January 2013. The charge will apply to taxpayers who have an adjusted net income over £50,000 in a tax year, where either themselves or their partner are in receipt of child benefit. If both partners have adjusted net income over £50,000, the partner with the higher income is liable for the charge (regardless of which partner is in receipt of child benefit). Am I being stupid, but net income is after tax. What does it mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 How do you start with nothing (so no savings), and survive while taking no income? Q yep, interesting - many people don't really count tax credits as benefits (!) and also don't consider living in parental house as a benefit of value either - aka living off nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Looking at the http://www.revenuebe...policy-changes/ website it says this: Am I being stupid, but net income is after tax. What does it mean? at a guess, it may be the equivalent gross salary back-calculated from net earnings - so trying to consider untaxed dividends, grants, other benefits etc into account Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I think this too. I would have been happy to lose it for one child, even if it is phased out eventually, rather than losing it for 3 all at once. I've done this with my own business this past month. Not because of the child benefit thingy but because it made financial sense when I was presented with my exorbitant tax bill for January. However, this is the bit that galls me and I know some will think badly of me for saying it but, as I've said before, I set up my business when we had nothing, husband had lost his job and I didn't want to do the whole housing benefit, getting used to a life on benefits thing etc. Over the years I've continuously reinvested my profits and took no income over the first four and half years. We didn't have the safety net of tax credits as my income grew because we naturally lost it despite not physically getting paid each month. That's all fine as tbh I'm glad to be out of that system. This year I've drawn a very tidy sum and off the back of that hard work I'll now lose my CB (which I still refer to as family allowance). What it tells me is if you want to work hard to improve your lot then knock yourself out but your children aren't as valued by 'us' as the rest. It also piddles me off when my son, who is still a minor, can't get orthodontal treatment and I'll have to pay for it privately after all the tax I pay. We have a new thing at our school now. Music lessons used to be free to any child who wanted to take up an instrument. Then they started charging. Now if you claim benefits your child can have free lessons. I think it's turned into a bit of a rant but it stops being about the money. It's the principle. Sorry, but i am finding it very difficult to find an ounce of sympathy for you, in even one single point that you've raised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlemalt Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 and the tax system. we tax the people to then give it back to them or mostly other people, bassed on their life choices. i dont get any credits/money/rebate for NOT having kids. not do i get any benifits for working and EARNING my money whe nis then taxed and given to people, who made different life choices. do i get my life choices subsidised by the state? why should i pay for people to have kids? I'd love to earn what she does, (twice the agerage wage) and hoepfully i will. but why should she get handouts from the government and i dont? i dont get any credits/money/rebate for NOT having kids. not do i get any benifits for working and EARNING my money whe nis then taxed and given to people, who made different life choices. maybe you will have children one day or be an aunty or uncle so why begrudge people a little financial perk? do i get my life choices subsidised by the state? maybe. Do you smoke, drink heavily, engage in sports likely to result in injury, have some undiagnosed preventable disease/illness that will need NHS treatment? why should i pay for people to have kids? because someone will need to wipe your ar5e when you're old or earn money to pay the taxes that'll fund paying for it besides they don't need old people fighting in WWIII mistaking the office vending maching for the drone control unit I'd love to earn what she does, (twice the agerage wage) and hoepfully i will. but why should she get handouts from the government and i dont? it's called society where we don't just think of our own butt all day long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlemalt Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Should remove child benefit after 2 kids before they bring this in. I agree that nobody having more than two children should expect additional child benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Geez there's huge entitlement culture on THIS THREAD, never mind the wider UK as a whole? Since when were general taxes meant to pay for music lessons and orthodontic treatment of kids whose parents earn twice, or more of, the national average wage? I am utterly astounded and amazed. I had no idea it had gotten this bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtlessmanc Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Geez there's huge entitlement culture on THIS THREAD, never mind the wider UK as a whole? Since when were general taxes meant to pay for music lessons and orthodontic treatment of kids whose parents earn twice, or more of, the national average wage? I am utterly astounded and amazed. I had no idea it had gotten this bad. Its not about entitlement, its about a crazy system where working hard to gain more within a convenrional familty unit is actually counterproductive. Of course the fundamental problem is that large swathes of the country are in a situation that they NEED benefits to survive working in an "ordinary" job. what we need is a sensible system where the average wage is enough to live on and benefits are restricted to those who cannot find work but at least are trying. With the current system the govt are attacking the middle classes who are paid on PAYE because they are the only ones with any money that can be got at easily, lower paid people are on benefits and will get it back in other ways, the richer can avoid tax. so we head towards a country where being middle class does not exist because it does not pay- in other words - the third world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battenberg Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 How do you start with nothing (so no savings), and survive while taking no income? Q Yes I can see what you mean, I was wrong. I obviously had something in order to start. I think what Si! said is more accurate. Tax credits were available so I apologies if it sounds misleading. I think my point's been missed on the back of people trying to analyse how I've started a business from what, I shall now say, is very little rather than nothing. That wasn't what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was is it worth it to work harder and harder or should I have just stayed worse off through work but better off in the system. Sorry, but i am finding it very difficult to find an ounce of sympathy for you, in even one single point that you've raised. Oops, did I miss something. I wasn't looking for any so I shall make a note to self not to seek you out for any should I require it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 I earn £54k and am the only earner in my family with 2 kids. I seriously am going to drop half a day to get back under the threshold because of this CB change. I can use the extra half day to support my wife's business start up. Why not? It is hardly worth me working that last 1/2 day. EP Why don't you work harder to make up the shortfall or spend less !!!! No wonder our country is in a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 We're about to lose all our CB. Which we can afford to lose. It's the only benefit payment we have ever received! But, on the topic of benefits, I have recently been astounded to find out that the WTC/CTC don't account for assets. I know of someone who has shedloads (millions) of assets in non-income generating holdings (the house they live in etc) who is still able to rake in four figures a month of handouts. I'm hoping it's because they've misread the Ts&Cs and it's only a matter of time before they have HMRC on their back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battenberg Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Geez there's huge entitlement culture on THIS THREAD, never mind the wider UK as a whole? Since when were general taxes meant to pay for music lessons and orthodontic treatment of kids whose parents earn twice, or more of, the national average wage? I am utterly astounded and amazed. I had no idea it had gotten this bad. Then that's my mistake. I thought that dental treatment for under 16's was on the NHS. I am sorry if that has not always been the case and I have clearly misread the situation. With regards to the music lessons you've misread what I was saying. I'm more than happy to pay for music lessons but I think that should be the same for everybody. I don't see why kids on benefits should get them free. That's just my feeling on it. Honeslty Sherwick, I don't know if I've aggrieved you in some way but IRL I'm one of the last people with a sense of entitlement. If I was I wouldn't be working. I'd be sat on my @rse claiming everything under the sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 The same sorts of benefits may have been around for a long tme, but I do believe they have been getting progressively more generous each time they have been revised. It's difficult to find figures on the totals spent (by Government design I think), but here is a 1998 briefing paper comparing the new WFTC system with what had gone before. Edit: the link didn't work, so here's the address: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP98-46.pdf According to this Wail article from April 2012, there are now 6.4 million families on tax credits, with the bill rising from £2.3 billion in 1999 to £31 billion today. I make that equivalent to roughly 22% annual inflation. I find it hard to believe there was anything similar in the 40's or 50's. Tax credits come in different varieties - there is working tax credit, designed to support people on low incomes and child tax credit, to help families with the cost of raising children. They are very different things. Child tax credit is a replacement for "family credit" a benefit available in the 90s. Working tax credit is a replacement for a number of other benefits and allowances. Child benefit however is not part of the tax credit regime. The changing landscape of tax and benefits makes it very difficult to compare across the decades, but since 1946, when the first family allowance order books became valid, mothers have received a weekly payment from the state for at least their second child - regardless of family income. In 1987 John Major said that 'there ought to be no question' about its universal entitlement. Now it appears, there is some question about it's universality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Why don't you work harder to make up the shortfall or spend less !!!! A good example of the perverse incentives the tax and benefits system creates. No wonder our country is in a mess. See above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Then that's my mistake. I thought that dental treatment for under 16's was on the NHS. I am sorry if that has not always been the case and I have clearly misread the situation. It most certainly has NOT always been the situation!! At least, not before 1997.. With regards to the music lessonsy.. I don't see why kids on benefits should get them free. That's just my feeling on it. I'm sorry, i cannot let that comment pass. Can you not think of a single reason why poorer kids whose parents are on benefits get their lessons paid for, whilst richer kids don't?? Doesn't anything cross your mind?? Here's a clue: it is to do with why the Welfare State funded by general taxation was set up all those years ago. I'm not being funny, but either you're a troll, or you need to start reading up on this country's history... Edited October 31, 2012 by SHERWICK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I'm sorry, i cannot let that comment pass. Can you not think of a single reason why poorer kids whose parents are on benefits get their lessons paid for, whilst richer kids don't?? Doesn't anything cross your mind?? Here's a clue: it is to do with why the Welfare State funded by general taxation was set up all those years ago. The welfare state wasn't set up to achieve equality of outcomes for everyone regardless of ability or effort. That's how it seems to be expected to work now. If a child is born into a family who can't give it the opportunities a child born into another family has, whilst I agree it is not the child's fault, it is not the taxpayers responsibility to compensate that child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punter Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 The changing landscape of tax and benefits makes it very difficult to compare across the decades, but since 1946, when the first family allowance order books became valid, mothers have received a weekly payment from the state for at least their second child - regardless of family income. In 1987 John Major said that 'there ought to be no question' about its universal entitlement. Now it appears, there is some question about it's universality. in 1987 we could probably afford it, now we cannot. we're running a 130bn a year deficit and have a 1 trillion national debt. we simply have to get our house in order and scrapping all child benefit is a no brainer, it's a stupid handout and should be first on the list of things to go along with our 12bn a year in overseas aid and 10bn year EU subscription, but it wont because our politicians are too spineless and prefer to set us on a path to Greek style ruin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 The welfare state wasn't set up to achieve equality of outcomes for everyone regardless of ability or effort. That's how it seems to be expected to work now. If a child is born into a family who can't give it the opportunities a child born into another family has, whilst I agree it is not the child's fault, it is not the taxpayers responsibility to compensate that child. True. But my point (poorly made) was that the Welfare State was originally set up to help poor people via general taxation, (admittedly though, not to help poor people have music lessons, as you point out) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Thinker Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 What I find interesting (this may have been covered but I'm not going to read all 130 replies on this thread) is that many people see a person on £50K plus receiving child benefit as a "hand out" rather than seeing it as a very small rebate on the significant amount of tax they pay. It is very likely the case that people on these levels of income are actually (but probably only just) net contributors so no-one else is paying for this benefit. They are! In other words, to those asking "why should I pay for them to have children, visit the dentist, have music lessons?" the answer is, you aren't. FT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 What I find interesting (this may have been covered but I'm not going to read all 130 replies on this thread) is that many people see a person on £50K plus receiving child benefit as a "hand out" rather than seeing it as a very small rebate on the significant amount of tax they pay. It is very likely the case that people on these levels of income are actually (but probably only just) net contributors so no-one else is paying for this benefit. They are! In other words, to those asking "why should I pay for them to have children, visit the dentist, have music lessons?" the answer is, you aren't. FT Um, why are they getting a 'rebate' when the entire point of the Welfare State is to help poor people? Have we no poor people that need help? If not, then all should get a 'rebate', not simply those with children. If we have poor people that need help, then those who are better off shouldn't get a 'rebate'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 True. But my point (poorly made) was that the Welfare State was originally set up to help poor people via general taxation, (admittedly though, not to help poor people have music lessons, as you point out) Hasn't it got out of hand though to the extent that taxes on income are so high that taxpayers are having to be given benefits because too much is taken from them in tax. The perverse incentives create ridiculous situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Hasn't it got out of hand though to the extent that taxes on income are so high that taxpayers are having to be given benefits because too much is taken from them in tax. The perverse incentives create ridiculous situations. I'm sure these middle class people will be able to modify their spending habits and cope with these changes without too much of a problem. After all, it's how the middle classes have always lived (before 1997). So no, I don't think taxes on income are so high that THESE taxpayers are having to be given benefits. I think that THESE taxpayers have gotten so used to the benefits that they've factored them into their spending habits and, like a drug, do not want to kick the habit. But you're quite right about some perverse incentives creating ridiculous situations in the benefits arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.