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

[campervanman]

£50k/year must be average as £50k/year is required to buy an average UK house.

[GloomMonger]

£50k/year must be average as £50k/year is required to buy an average UK house.

I wish. 4 * earnings + £50k deposit buys a well below average house in a rough area in London. But I take your point :angry:

[Bloo Loo]

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?

50K is rich...its double what more than half the population receives.

its 50 times more than probably the other 7 billion on the planet receives.

Indeed, 50K helps provide for the children better than 25K, or 10K, yet they all get the same. Even the Queen was entitled.

Good reasons for him not to receive it. I mean...earning 50K IS the aim here....to cover your costs yourself, your entertainment and other of lifes little luxuries, things to separate you from the scum who only earn 25K( not aimed at the poster)

In the fairness case, I dont think its fair toddlers are put in a class...they should be with their mothers..that is natures way and will become again when all this BS ends. But Financialisation has meant that the mother has to cease being a mother and remain a "job".

Edited November 1, 2012 by Bloo Loo

[Free Thinker]

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?

Yes, good question.

As you say, it does help to provide for my children. But that is only for the short time they are children and I will still be able to provide for them without child benefit - My wife and I will ensure any sacrifices we make will affect only us wherever possible.

I believe that a, long term, balanced government budget would benefit them for far longer and to a greater extent. Although I do not believe that I was part of the cause of the financial situation we find ourselves in (I did not vote for the Labour party, nor was I involved in inflating the housing bubble) I still want to see it fixed. For me, a reduction or removal of (previously) universal benefits has to be part of this. I do not agree with the way it has been implemented, but I do agree with the principal (a much better option would be to have tied it to the tax credits system, which already has a mechanism for determining household income, to remove the inherent unfairness of the new rules). I do not necessarily believe that we will ever have a balanced budget, there are so many problems and we do not have a suitable form of government to allow hard decisions to be made, but that's probably a discussion for another thread.

[crashmonitor]

£50k/year must be average as £50k/year is required to buy an average UK house.

Homes have averaged about four times household income since the war. On that basis the average household income should be over 40K, though it's about 37K.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

Surely other countries must have better ways of doing it. For example Japan manages its income tax allowances by looking at the household. So first they calculate how much it costs one person to live, that's the initial tax allowance then they simply expand it accordingly. So if you have a non-working spouse, they expand the allowance a bit more, if you have kids a bit more (all set amounts for set situations). It seems a lot less fuss than applying for benefits and all the rigamarole involved. I think taxation in the UK needs a thorough overhaul, it is unnecessarily complex and confusing. What do other developed countries do?

[Blue Peter]

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?

Look at it another way. The 50K earner isn't actually earning 50K. The whole point of this site is not just that houses are over-valued, but so is the whole economy. The housing boom didn't just inflate house prices, the extra money sloshing around the economy inflated the whole she-bang, especially the higher end of salaries (all those graphs showing most of the money given to those who already had most). That means quite a high proportion of our economy is fantasy, and therefore quite a high proportion of the 50K earnings is also fantasy. So, not getting CB on 50K is going a very small way to taking away some of the fantasy money and trying to sort out the mess that the whole economy is in,

Peter.

[Bloo Loo]

Surely other countries must have better ways of doing it. For example Japan manages its income tax allowances by looking at the household. So first they calculate how much it costs one person to live, that's the initial tax allowance then they simply expand it accordingly. So if you have a non-working spouse, they expand the allowance a bit more, if you have kids a bit more (all set amounts for set situations). It seems a lot less fuss than applying for benefits and all the rigamarole involved. I think taxation in the UK needs a thorough overhaul, it is unnecessarily complex and confusing. What do other developed countries do?

how does that work for Tokyo dweller and a peasant on the rim of Mount Fuji, where housing would be cheap?

[Riedquat]

Not read all of the last 11 pages, but the rebuttal to "why should I pay someone else to have kids" is that they are (hopefully) creating the next generation of taxpayers that will pay for your pension (and other ponzi related benefits).

I pay for all sorts of things for their kids through general taxation anyway that I don't get personal benefit from, such as their schooling. So it's completely fair to ask "Why should I pay for someone else to have kids". CB should be scrapped altogether, at least for anyone born later than 9 months from now (probably too hard to get rid of it for people who reasonably assumed they could get it when they had the children and need it for them). If you can't afford kids don't have them, it's that simple and quite honestly there's no rational argument against that because it boils down to taking responsibility for your actions.

[GloomMonger]

50K is rich...its double what more than half the population receives.

its 50 times more than probably the other 7 billion on the planet receives.

Indeed, 50K helps provide for the children better than 25K, or 10K, yet they all get the same. Even the Queen was entitled.

Good reasons for him not to receive it. I mean...earning 50K IS the aim here....to cover your costs yourself, your entertainment and other of lifes little luxuries, things to separate you from the scum who only earn 25K( not aimed at the poster)

In the fairness case, I dont think its fair toddlers are put in a class...they should be with their mothers..that is natures way and will become again when all this BS ends. But Financialisation has meant that the mother has to cease being a mother and remain a "job".

Again, what relevance do 7 billion other people have to being rich in the UK. Using your argument, the average person on the dole is rich compared to the $ a day worker in third world countries. Everyone earning £50k used to earn less earlier in their careers. Why would someone earning £20k and receiving CB begrudge someone earning £50k receiving CB? A single child family earning £20k could well be better off than a two child family earning £50k.

[Bloo Loo]

Again, what relevance do 7 billion other people have to being rich in the UK. Using your argument, the average person on the dole is rich compared to the $ a day worker in third world countries. Everyone earning £50k used to earn less earlier in their careers. Why would someone earning £20k and receiving CB begrudge someone earning £50k receiving CB? A single child family earning £20k could well be better off than a two child family earning £50k.

because the person receiving the CB at 20K pays taxes that would be a little less if the 50K< self sufficient earner didnt take what they dont need...sort of smacks of Billy Bunter taking one more pie to keep every one else slim and trim...clearly, he is doing the thin people a service.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

how does that work for Tokyo dweller and a peasant on the rim of Mount Fuji, where housing would be cheap?

I believe it works out better for the farmer than the Tokyoite, but I would have to check the details thoroughly to be absolutely certain. This is mitigated to a certain extent by companies offering the Japanese equivalent of London Weighting and other goodies such as housing and commuting allowances (plus bonuses etc) which may not be available to your average rice farmer.

http://www.mof.go.jp/english/tax_policy/tax_system/japanese_tax_system_1999/zc001c05.htm

[GloomMonger]

Yes, good question.

As you say, it does help to provide for my children. But that is only for the short time they are children and I will still be able to provide for them without child benefit - My wife and I will ensure any sacrifices we make will affect only us wherever possible.

I believe that a, long term, balanced government budget would benefit them for far longer and to a greater extent. Although I do not believe that I was part of the cause of the financial situation we find ourselves in (I did not vote for the Labour party, nor was I involved in inflating the housing bubble) I still want to see it fixed. For me, a reduction or removal of (previously) universal benefits has to be part of this. I do not agree with the way it has been implemented, but I do agree with the principal (a much better option would be to have tied it to the tax credits system, which already has a mechanism for determining household income, to remove the inherent unfairness of the new rules). I do not necessarily believe that we will ever have a balanced budget, there are so many problems and we do not have a suitable form of government to allow hard decisions to be made, but that's probably a discussion for another thread.

Good answer and I agree with you. I guess I'm in the all for one, one for all camp.

[ViciousChicken]

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?

Having over half of one's total income taken in tax is too high, but a 50k earner certainly isn't in that position. A look at the online income tax calculator suggests that such a person would take home slightly south of 36k- so they'd be left with much nearer to three quarters than half. I don't consider that particularly steep, personally.

People have mentioned other taxes, and things that aren't taxes at all, later in the thread, but a lot of these are voluntary. For example I've never paid stamp duty, car tax or council parking charges, pay only Band A council tax, and try to keep to a minimum the number of VATable things I purchase. I find it hard to believe no 50k earner has any ability to minimise the other taxes and 'taxes' they pay.

[sleepwello'nights]

Having over half of one's total income taken in tax is too high, but a 50k earner certainly isn't in that position. A look at the online income tax calculator suggests that such a person would take home slightly south of 36k- so they'd be left with much nearer to three quarters than half. I don't consider that particularly steep, personally.

The arguments are based on what you pay on the element of your income once certain thresholds are breached. Once you get into the higher rate of tax every pound you earn is taxed at 40% and then 12% national insurance until another threshold is breached.

People have mentioned other taxes, and things that aren't taxes at all, later in the thread, but a lot of these are voluntary. For example I've never paid stamp duty, car tax or council parking charges, pay only Band A council tax, and try to keep to a minimum the number of VATable things I purchase. I find it hard to believe no 50k earner has any ability to minimise the other taxes and 'taxes' they pay.

So if we all moved into lower council tax band dwellings, purchased more fuel efficient cars with lower road fund licences, stopped buying alchohol and cigarettes ( I know there would be health benefits) how do you think the government would cope with the lower tax take? I suspect they would increase taxation on other things that you couldn't do without.

[EmmaRoid #FBPE#JC4PM#GTTO]

I think I've done this right but there's no longer a fiscal cliff at the income cutoff as in the original higher rate/complete loss of benefit proposal.

I think that between £50k and £60k taxable income, the marginal rates of tax on that portion of income become:

0 child = 42% (2% NI + 40 % Income Tax)

1 child = 52%

2 children = 60%

3 children = 66%

4 children = 73%

Not sure what happens at 8 kids when by calc you pass 100%

[Mayalabeille]

So here is what's going to happen since the government take half thought decision:

hmmmmm... should she work full time with her 50K€ and lose the benefit

or...

should she just work part time organizing finishing Friday lunch time every week for a proportional salary of 44999€ and keep her benefit.

Effectively she is only 1586€ net worse off if she cut her hours and enjoy every Friday afternoons off.

Other solution 2 more weeks holiday and just take it out of my salary Mr Boss.

As long as this government take decisions without thinking them through but just to make a bit of noise so people keep talking about the actions they are taking, this country won't go anywhere.

but heho, who am I to have a point of view on the decisions made in this country.... been paying tax in here for 7 years and still does not have the right to officially (vote) express myself - unless I pay for it of course.

[ViciousChicken]

The arguments are based on what you pay on the element of your income once certain thresholds are breached. Once you get into the higher rate of tax every pound you earn is taxed at 40% and then 12% national insurance until another threshold is breached.

Nobody suggested otherwise. But someone on 50k is not shouldering a colossal tax burden, which was my point. This is not to say I don't sympathise with some 50k earners who'll lose the benefit, though. It's utterly ludicrous for 2 x 49k earners to keep it when 1 x 50k doesn't, and it'd boil my pi$$ if I were in the latter group.

So if we all moved into lower council tax band dwellings, purchased more fuel efficient cars with lower road fund licences, stopped buying alchohol and cigarettes ( I know there would be health benefits) how do you think the government would cope with the lower tax take? I suspect they would increase taxation on other things that you couldn't do without.

Perhaps. If that were the case though, it would be totally different from the situation now, the one I'm discussing. Like it or not, a lot of the other 'taxes' on top of NI and income tax are currently at least partially voluntary.

[The Masked Tulip]

There was just some lady on Fivelive where it was claimed she and her husband earn 100K a year but they are losing their 2K a year child benefit.

There was another lady, not sure if it was the same one, talking about how child benefit is part of her mortgage calculations - said something about it being justified because people with children need bigger houses.

[Si1]

if all these 50k moaners are incapable of realising how simple it is to circumvent this new rule (via salary sacrifice or other legal means - I bet payroll departments are working on it right now) then how on earth do they earn 50k when they're numb-nuts?

[Si1]

There was another lady, not sure if it was the same one, talking about how child benefit is part of her mortgage calculations - said something about it being justified because people with children need bigger houses.

I think here is part-answer to my above question - they have maxed out their mortgage so could not take the hit of a bit of salary sacrifice to lower their gross official salary

having a mortgage traps them in the UK, having no financial room to manouvre traps them in their job/tax-situation

being reaped by the govt - sitting ducks

Edited November 1, 2012 by Si1

[Austin Allegro]

Completely agree with your assessment, but just wanted to add that people's thought processes are really screwed up around this.

If she's earning £50k she'll be paying more than £14k in tax and NI i.e. the government takes a huge chunk of her income, and gives her a bit back. Now it's giving her less back but she should be angry about what it takes in the first place, not that it has decided she should get less of a rebate. What business is it of the government to decide what she and her children need to live on!?

I had a chat with someone at work during a general election who said he didn't care about politics.

'Don't you care how much income tax you pay?'

'Well, not really, cos it's taken off my payslip before I get it, isn't it? So that money was never really mine to start with, was it?'

This is the type of mentality that you have to bear in mind with UK'ers!

[TheCountOfNowhere]

I had a chat with someone at work during a general election who said he didn't care about politics.

'Don't you care how much income tax you pay?'

'Well, not really, cos it's taken off my payslip before I get it, isn't it? So that money was never really mine to start with, was it?'

This is the type of mentality that you have to bear in mind with UK'ers!

No one seems to think about how much tax they are paying...everyone seems to think more taxation is necessary when in reality we all need massive cuts in tax.

I keep telling people I am taxed 70% of my income, that is no joke. It might even be more !!! This is from direct/indirect taxes, i.e. income tax, NI, Company NI, class 1A NI, VAT on good. Duty on good. Tax on fuel. Council tax. Council hidden charges like business rates/rents/Parking. Air tax. Death duties.

You can't do anything to avoid tax. We pay VAT on goods which are priced at a level because of the transport costs which is already taxed and has duty !!!

When you think about it/add it up it is beyond shocking.

I have to work 8.5 months just to pay tax!!!

Does anyone think that is justifiable or un-realistc ?

[GloomMonger]

I had a chat with someone at work during a general election who said he didn't care about politics.

'Don't you care how much income tax you pay?'

'Well, not really, cos it's taken off my payslip before I get it, isn't it? So that money was never really mine to start with, was it?'

This is the type of mentality that you have to bear in mind with UK'ers!

Are you suggesting voting will reduce your income tax?

[markyh]

So here is what's going to happen since the government take half thought decision:

hmmmmm... should she work full time with her 50K€ and lose the benefit

or...

should she just work part time organizing finishing Friday lunch time every week for a proportional salary of 44999€ and keep her benefit.

Effectively she is only 1586€ net worse off if she cut her hours and enjoy every Friday afternoons off.

Other solution 2 more weeks holiday and just take it out of my salary Mr Boss.

As long as this government take decisions without thinking them through but just to make a bit of noise so people keep talking about the actions they are taking, this country won't go anywhere.

but heho, who am I to have a point of view on the decisions made in this country.... been paying tax in here for 7 years and still does not have the right to officially (vote) express myself - unless I pay for it of course.

Or just put £1k this year and all future pay rises until kids are over CB age into a pension to keep taxable income below £50k. It's so simple I can't understand why anyone on the £50k threshhold can't see this simple fact.

Not looked at the exact rules but I assume it's £50k of net taxable income so you will always deduct your tax free allowance anyway, and as that's £8k currently you can earn up to £58k before you file £50k net taxable on a normal income. If you know you have or will earn £59k at April 5th then on the 1st of april put £1k - £2k lump sum into your pension so your tax return shows £49999 or less at a net income.

So simple and anyone can do it you just need to plan for it. We already have, wife is only only £37k but if she gets any promotion or big rises anywhere near £50k before our kids are 18 we will dump the extra into her pension to keep CB.

It's not rocket science.

M