Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Woman On 50K+ A Year On Tv Moaning At Loosing Child Benefit


Recommended Posts

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'.

I didn't say that they should get it. In fact I completely agree that they should not (I actually fall into this category and will suffer from the new rules). I was just pointing out what I believe to be flawed reasoning.

I'll try to be clearer.

The less well off are not paying for the more well off people to receive child benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't say that they should get it. In fact I completely agree that they should not (I actually fall into this category and will suffer from the new rules). I was just pointing out what I believe to be flawed reasoning.

I'll try to be clearer.

The less well off are not paying for the more well off people to receive child benefit.

My apologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally child benefit should be scrapped......but governments would not do that because it would be bad for votes...maggie was accused of being the milk snatcher after all.....when 'family allowance' as it was called was first paid it was paid to the second and subsequent children only to encourage people to have children, we lost many over two fairly recent wars and needed to rebuild our stock so to speak......the payment now should be replaced by other ways so that it helps the needy with children but is not seen to be a payment for having children. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is what I was trying to say.

I go to work and try to improve our situation so that I can afford to pay for my children to do things that aren't provided by the state. I see music lessons as a privelage rather than a right, an opportunity I can give them thanks to the fruit of my labour. I therefore object to paying twice over for others to have those privelages through my taxes.

Where is the incentive for somebody not working and getting free lessons to start working so they can then pay for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was trying to say.

I go to work and try to improve our situation so that I can afford to pay for my children to do things that aren't provided by the state. I see music lessons as a privelage rather than a right, an opportunity I can give them thanks to the fruit of my labour. I therefore object to paying twice over for others to have those privelages through my taxes.

Where is the incentive for somebody not working and getting free lessons to start working so they can then pay for them?

...but would you swap with them?......you probably could if you wanted and get free lessons too..... there is a far greater chance that they could not swap with you even if they wanted to. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A £50k earner will be paying over 50% of their top slice of income in tax and national insurance. You seriously don't believe that having over half taken in tax is too high?

Yep, I don't believe that is too high. And yep, I am lucky enough to be one of them.

I believe that the balance is just about right.

I certainly do not want to live in a flat low tax place, like Russia (income tax 13% for all). I would go as far as to say that I'd definitely rather live in a high tax place like Sweden than in Russia.

Have you noticed that all the countries with progressive tax rates, and particularly those with the highest tax rates for the richest, have the best standards of living? Whilst those with low flat rate taxes have huge disparities of wealth coupled with lower quality of life over all such indicators.

I've lived in Sweden and the USA by the way and my wife is Russian.

So once again, despite the bleating, I don't think taxes on income are so high that THESE taxpayers are having to be given benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A potted history of child benefits. I assume it's accurate but I can't vouch for that.

http://

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8041636/Child-Benefit-history.html

Of course it was first introduced in the days well before tax credits and so on so but with tax credits there seems in some ways to be at least a very good chance of a double mitigation of "poverty" for those with children these days.

Edited by billybong
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I don't believe that is too high. And yep, I am lucky enough to be one of them.

I believe that the balance is just about right.

I certainly do not want to live in a flat low tax place, like Russia (income tax 13% for all). I would go as far as to say that I'd definitely rather live in a high tax place like Sweden than in Russia.

Have you noticed that all the countries with progressive tax rates, and particularly those with the highest tax rates for the richest, have the best standards of living? Whilst those with low flat rate taxes have huge disparities of wealth coupled with lower quality of life over all such indicators.

I've lived in Sweden and the USA by the way and my wife is Russian.

So once again, despite the bleating, I don't think taxes on income are so high that THESE taxpayers are having to be given benefits.

+1. Apart from having a Russian wife or living in Sweden or the USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the easiest, cheapest and fairest solution all around is to allow 'family units' to submit a joint tax. Ie everyones personal allowance, threshold brackets etc are pooled, and all income assessed against that pool. Every UK person gets their allowances as soon as they are born, so this seems to be an absolutely fair and equitable way of doing things.

Obviously there would need to be some thought put into disrupted family units, and social care to avoid some of the more offensive abuses, but surely more workable than the current disaster.

I don't know if this ever existed in the past (60's-90's) with Married Tax allowance, I married to recently to ever receive it, but they will never do this now as it would result in a massive tax take drop via Husbands transfering stay at home mums £8k allowance against the "Familys" income (the bread winner).

It would also result in many more stay at home mums with husands earning say £30k+ so a big frop in employed and self employed child minders also paying income tax as they would not be needed.

Much better for the goverment to have both parents at work paying tax and also childminders also working paying tax.

My wife earns more than me (£37k) and this covers all our living costs excluding mortgage capital reapyments. My wages (£25k) basically cover mortgage capital and luxuries. For sure with an extra £8k net income and no childcare costs it would be dooable moneywise for me to stay at home if my £8k tax allowance could be offset against the wifes wages. And this is with one six year old kid at school, two or more kids and any kids under 4 it woudl be a no brainer. So they wont do it.

M

M

Link to post
Share on other sites

A £50k earner will be paying over 50% of their top slice of income in tax and national insurance. You seriously don't believe that having over half taken in tax is too high?

If only it were just 50%....don't forget...company national insurance...vat...duty...council tax...council rates on shops...council car park charges...stamp duty...future death duties...etc....I pay around 70% in tax and in return I get fec all and every leech gets the benefit of 8.5 months of my life every year.

If someone wants children pay for them themselves and reduce my taxes so I can afford my own life.

This country is a mess.

Edited by TheCountOfNowhere
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I don't believe that is too high. And yep, I am lucky enough to be one of them.

I believe that the balance is just about right.

I certainly do not want to live in a flat low tax place, like Russia (income tax 13% for all). I would go as far as to say that I'd definitely rather live in a high tax place like Sweden than in Russia.

Have you noticed that all the countries with progressive tax rates, and particularly those with the highest tax rates for the richest, have the best standards of living? Whilst those with low flat rate taxes have huge disparities of wealth coupled with lower quality of life over all such indicators.

I've lived in Sweden and the USA by the way and my wife is Russian.

So once again, despite the bleating, I don't think taxes on income are so high that THESE taxpayers are having to be given benefits.

I'd argue that paying THESE taxpayers the same child benefits as everyone else, and taxing the rich a little more to pay for it, is simply easier and cheaper than means testing. Means testing is intrusive, expensive and a deterrent to working - it's just wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that they should get it. In fact I completely agree that they should not (I actually fall into this category and will suffer from the new rules). I was just pointing out what I believe to be flawed reasoning.

I'll try to be clearer.

The less well off are not paying for the more well off people to receive child benefit.

As a PAYE worker on £57.5K and one child, I am also caught up in the new regulations. As I pay about £18K a year in income tax, it really annoys me when I hear people argue that poor people are paying my child benefit. As far as I am concerned the CB represents a small rebate on the tax that I pay and a recognition that people with kids have less disposable income than those without.

in my case, the reduction in CB is not going to save the government a red cent as obliging me to submit a tax form in order to claw back 75% of the CB, will just mean that I will start claiming those tax reductions which up to now I have not bothered with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a PAYE worker on £57.5K and one child, I am also caught up in the new regulations. As I pay about £18K a year in income tax, it really annoys me when I hear people argue that poor people are paying my child benefit. As far as I am concerned the CB represents a small rebate on the tax that I pay and a recognition that people with kids have less disposable income than those without.

in my case, the reduction in CB is not going to save the government a red cent as obliging me to submit a tax form in order to claw back 75% of the CB, will just mean that I will start claiming those tax reductions which up to now I have not bothered with.

Just put £1k more into a pension via work / personal and your taxable income will be just under £50k, you keep £1k net child benefit so the extra in your pension costs you nothing.

M

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly do not want to live in a flat low tax place, like Russia (income tax 13% for all). I would go as far as to say that I'd definitely rather live in a high tax place like Sweden than in Russia.

Have you noticed that all the countries with progressive tax rates, and particularly those with the highest tax rates for the richest, have the best standards of living? Whilst those with low flat rate taxes have huge disparities of wealth coupled with lower quality of life over all such indicators.

Economics is complex, but at its root is human behaviour.

I think you are confusing cause and effect. I disagree with the assertion that Sweden is wealthy because it has high taxation and that Russia is poor because it has low taxation.

I would think it more likely that Sweden became rich and then developed policies to redistribute its wealth amongst its population. Russia is poor and its population does not have the income cushion to be able to redistribute income through taxation.

If even income distribution was able to create a country with a high standard of living then surely the communist experiment that peaked in the last century would have had a different outcome. As it is there is undeniable evidence that to each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities led not to utopia but to deprivation, corruption, neglect of infrastructure, destruction of the fabric of society, and countries where the population were so desperate they would betray their families, friends and neighbours.

Remove the ability to improve your quality of life through your own endeavours and the politics of envy surfaces. Its simply human nature. Perversely it is more unfair to take away an individuals ability to improve their quality of life through their individual effort than to forcibly take away what you have to share equally with everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only it were just 50%....don't forget...company national insurance...vat...duty...council tax...council rates on shops...council car park charges...stamp duty...future death duties...etc....I pay around 70% in tax and in return I get fec all and every leech gets the benefit of 8.5 months of my life every year.

I tried to find some comparisons of overall taxes for different countries. There is no easy way, even countries within the EU where free trade is hoped to harmonise taxation policies have major differences. Because I couldn't find any straightforward comparison I restricted my reply to income tax and NI.

Even the US with standard federal taxes is subject to different state tax rates. There are wide disparities in living standards across the US. Taxation is a factor but there are others. Geography, climate, natural resources, culture all play a part.

When things get so complex i retreat to first principles. If i pay less in tax I will spend more on the things I want, I will have the freedom to choose how I use my income. That's the key for me the freedom to choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CB is NOT a rebate.

It is a payment, from tax already collected and the shortfall borrowed, admin costs added, banking costs added, and all the other efficiencies that government manages to frack up.

you £50K earners are so poor, that during the 2007 run up to the credit crunch, ONLY YOU and those earning more were OFFICIALLY able to have 5 times income mortgages....

THATS how poor the system thinks you are.

EVERY ONE ELSE, thats 95%, had to lie and cheat to get your deal, CB or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CB is NOT a rebate.

It is a payment, from tax already collected and the shortfall borrowed, admin costs added, banking costs added, and all the other efficiencies that government manages to frack up.

you £50K earners are so poor, that during the 2007 run up to the credit crunch, ONLY YOU and those earning more were OFFICIALLY able to have 5 times income mortgages....

THATS how poor the system thinks you are.

EVERY ONE ELSE, thats 95%, had to lie and cheat to get your deal, CB or not.

I doubt anyone earning £50k considers themselves poor and it's irrelevant what the system thinks. If the systems takes 70% of your income and loans it back to you, doesn't make you rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt anyone earning £50k considers themselves poor and it's irrelevant what the system thinks. If the systems takes 70% of your income and loans it back to you, doesn't make you rich.

oh yes they do...read some of the early comments on this thread....and the lady on the telly certainly felt hard done by.

The issue seems to be more about "its not fair" than they are poor in these high ( very high) earners...and they have a case...but pleading poverty is not the case...its ugly...

But the government just denies the stupidity of it....I guess its time for the Tories to go in a fog of arrogance....

Link to post
Share on other sites

the easy way of doing a 'benefit' that supports children would be to add something to the tax code for each child.

Parents could move this between them so if one worked they could get the benefit properly.

If none work you don't get any benefit.

Have a child and your tax code changes.

You could scale it nicely too so there was no huge benefit for having tons of kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yes they do...read some of the early comments on this thread....and the lady on the telly certainly felt hard done by.

The issue seems to be more about "its not fair" than they are poor in these high ( very high) earners...and they have a case...but pleading poverty is not the case...its ugly...

But the government just denies the stupidity of it....I guess its time for the Tories to go in a fog of arrogance....

I haven't read anyone pleading poverty on this thread. I haven't seen the interview with the woman on the telly but it is just an opinion after all.

It doesn't matter how people feel about it, myself included. People are going to lose it regardless and they're just going to have to suck it up.

If there's one thing we are entiltled to its to moan in the same way we moan about increasing food and fuel prices. It will no doubt be another demographic next week.

Edited by Battenburg
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read anyone pleading poverty on this thread. I haven't seen the interview with the woman on the telly but it is just an opinion after all.

It doesn't matter how people feel about it, myself included. People are going to lose it regardless and they're just going to have to suck it up.

If there's one thing we are entiltled to its to moan in the same way we moan about increasing food and fuel prices. It will no doubt be another demographic next week.

Suck it up?....If that is all we can do in this and any other Political event, then I guess we have lost our freedom already.

Its going to be a drip drip of losses for us all...there is, after all, no-one else going to pay for the deficits and overspending, but us.

Looting is the order of the day.

Bankruptcy?....its a weapon to be used now, and we know it hurts the zombie feeders....just look at the lengths Governments are going to to keep the zombies alive....zombie entities really do need to be laid to rest. Default is the only way to do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yes they do...read some of the early comments on this thread....and the lady on the telly certainly felt hard done by.

The issue seems to be more about "its not fair" than they are poor in these high ( very high) earners...and they have a case...but pleading poverty is not the case...its ugly...

But the government just denies the stupidity of it....I guess its time for the Tories to go in a fog of arrogance....

In my opinion:

It is not fair that a person earning 50K of taxable income should be in receipt of child benefit.

It is not fair that a household with 2 people with a total taxable income over 50K, but neither singly above the threshold, should be in receipt of child benefit (especially since they will actually be paying less tax so are probably more wealthy than the individual tax payer).

it is not fair that a person who has worked hard (I've assumed people do not earn that much money without working hard - although I'm sure there are some exceptions) to allow their children to be brought up by a parent rather than being left in childcare should pay for a household with 2 lower earners to receive benefits for their children.

A final point, and this is from my own experience, a family with a single "high" earner can indeed feel poor. Yes, I never have to worry about where the next meal will come from. However; I know people who earn far less than I do who also do not have these worries and can also afford family holidays, new cars, big televisions etc. that I cannot afford. By the time I have paid for all the things that some lowers earners can get for free or at a discount (housing etc.) there really isn't much left.

having said all that, I repeat, I do not believe I should be in receipt of child benefit. But that does not mean that it will not make my life, and life for my wife and children, a lot more difficult without it.

Edited by Free Thinker
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion:

It is not fair that a person earning 50K of taxable income should be in receipt of child benefit.

It is not fair that a household with 2 people with a total taxable income over 50K, but neither singly above the threshold, should be in receipt of child benefit (especially since they will actually be paying less tax so are probably more wealthy than the individual tax payer).

it is not fair that a person who has worked hard (I've assumed people do not earn that much money without working hard - although I'm sure there are some exceptions) to allow their children to be brought up by a parent rather than being left in childcare should pay for a household with 2 lower earners to receive benefits for their children.

A final point, and this is from my own experience, a family with a single "high" earner can indeed feel poor. Yes, I never have to worry about where the next meal will come from. However; I know people who earn far less than I do who also do not have these worries and can also afford family holidays, new cars, big televisions etc. that I cannot afford. By the time I have paid for all the things that some lowers earners can get for free or at a discount (housing etc.) there really isn't much left.

having said all that, I repeat, I do not believe I should be in receipt of child benefit. But that does not mean that it will not make my life, and life for my wife and children, a lot more difficult without it.

Can I ask why you don't believe you should receive it? You work hard, you are heavily taxed, you are not rich, the CB helps provide for your children. What's your reasoning?

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • 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.