[Closed] Child benefit cuts

Between the two of use, we earn less than the higher-rate tax threshold. We'd get by without Child Benefit.

If it means that those genuinely in need would be better off, I'd be happy for the threshold to be lowered further. I know couples who put the Child Benefit into ISAs for their kids each month and are planning on sending them to private school once they hit secondary school age; sorry, but they don't [i]need[/i] the Child Benefit.

Of course, the super wealthy will continue to use loopholes to [s]evade[/s] avoid paying taxes and [i]that[/i]'s where the real changes should be made.

scottyjohn - Member

Yeah TJ, that was kind of my point in the first post, I pay a lot and get nothing in return. And dont even start on the IVF thing mate.

Crap. You don't pay a lot by european standards and you get a lot in return

I say again. Your whinge claimed you paid too much tax and don't get enough services

Services cost tax. want more services pay more tax

yunki - Member

would hazard a guess that most housholds in the the South have incomes exceeding £45k and a great deal else where

that is a joke right..?

Just an indication of far out of touch Spongebob is

"£45k is a pretty poor houshold income for the SE region, bordering on inadequate."
Are you saying that this sum would be adequate in other areas of the country then?

Scottyjohn - why did you not receive IVF on the state? Children from prior relationships or postcode?

Currently women who are receiving child benefit but not working keep their pension contributions current. If they lose this will they have to top up their contributions as well?

NO! You haven't been listening! Child benefit is going to be cut for joint incomes exceeding £45K. Most housholds have two people working and the average UK income is £26k. I would hazard a guess that most housholds in the the South have incomes exceeding £45k and a great deal else where. £45k is a pretty poor houshold income for the SE region, bordering on inadequate.

Just been listening to the tory spokesman on TV, it is not joint income it is on a single income, the argument is it is a far simpler way to administer the system.

As for your 45k, you are a million miles from the truth, the average wage is c£26k the median is much lower and the average household income i have a feeling is around the £30k mark. Looking on the ONS website i can't find gross income, only gross disposable which is around the £13k mark but which has had housing costs removed.

Dental treatment I have to pay for, as no dentists around will take on NHS patients.

Tory policy made this happen

how many years were labour in power?

anyhow, i signed up a with a dentist on the nhs earlier this year. have a look on nhs direct for practices taking on near you. there might be a wait, as from what i can tell, they tend to take on a chunk in one go, but you should find one somewhere.

Labour tried to improve NHS dental services and IIRC guaranteed that everyone could get NHS dental if wanted. They even directly employed dentists to do this

And there is the point yet again totally passing TJ by, unbelievable. I pay more and more taxes all the time, and get less and less in return, what bit of that seems difficult for you to understand?

MF, just always waited till the time was right and suddenly realised time was running out. Could have had it on the state but would need to have waited for upwards of 3 years. And Im not getting any younger 😀

Having children is a lifestyle choice - why should those who earn decent money get benefits because they've chosen to have offspring?

I would dispute the idea that having children is a lifestyle choice. Isn't it more about the innate human desire to reproduce? Having children is not exclusive to those who earn decent money either!

If you look at the facts, middle earners defer having children until much later on, until they feel they can afford to give that child a good start. They carefully weigh up the costs and make sure they can support their actions responsibly.

Conversely, people at the on low incomes/no incomes frequently don't even consider the impact having a child has on houshold income. Money concerns are not on the radar as they know they can get benefits and support if needed. Or perhaps they were too stupid to realise that they weren't going to be able to afford a child. Whatever the reasons, they start families much earlier and are more likely to have more children.

Then there are those who make a career out of pressing out babies and this "lifestyle choice" costs society a fortune! The majority of these kids dont get a good start as they live on the borderline of poverty. Their uneducated parents have no clue how to give their children a good start either. You won't stop this minority behaving so totally irresponsibly, but there should be firm moves to encourage good parenting!

+1 Spongebob

If you look at the facts, middle earners defer having children until much later on, until they feel they can afford to give that child a good start. They carefully weigh up the costs and make sure they can support their actions responsibly.

Often forgetting some of the potential consequences of having children later in life...

Then there are those who make a career out of pressing out babies

Are there? How many? Who?

MF, just always waited till the time was right and suddenly realised time was running out. Could have had it on the state but would need to have waited for upwards of 3 years. And Im not getting any younger

(Father to twins conceived with IVF, paid for by ourselves because our PCT wouldn't provide ANY IVF treatment whatsoever so sitting in a three year waiting list wasn't even an option). Hey-ho.

yes spongebob - note you said nothing about you being wrong when you lectured someone else for not listening re where the cut off was or on the avergae wage 🙄
It is true everyone well off has child for the right reason and ONLY when they can provide for them and everyone poor is stupid and has them because the state will provide for them.. Insightfull do you prefer Eugenics or sterilisation to stop this?

On the topic I think stopping Universal benefits for the wealthy is a reasonably sensible idea. I see little point in giving money to the most affluent members of our society when we are al lmeant to be in this together. I would also look at teh Winter fuel allowance. Even pensioners abroad for the winter get this.

Then there are those who make a career out of pressing out babies and this "lifestyle choice" costs society a fortune!

Tax evasion, done by the very wealthy and those who run their own business, cost society far far more.

scottyjohn - Member

And there is the point yet again totally passing TJ by, unbelievable. I pay more and more taxes all the time, and get less and less in return, what bit of that seems difficult for you to understand?

And the point you miss is you are taxed at a low rate compared to other countries and services cost money. If you want better more comprehensive service you need to pay for them. Want low taxes accept poor services. Want good services accept high taxes

I bet that you pay less tax than someone on PAYE.

spongebob -If you look at the facts,

good - can you give us some? Facts not daily wail suppositions.

I pay more and more taxes all the time, and get less and less in return, what bit of that seems difficult for you to understand?

The bit where you qualify or quantify either.

Edit!

Also as a parent your child will go on to enter education and require other services prior to them making a contribution in terms of tax. Many would argue that you should pay that contribution directly (I wouldnt) which you wont. In a democracy those elected will make those decisions on your behalf and ensure that your child receives the benefits appropriate to an advanced and wealthy country. You are very fortunate and I would argue you are really getting "more and more".

Anyone self-employed who is paying higher rate tax needs to have a word with their [s]tax avoidance consultant[/s] accountant.

😉

Tax evasion, done by the very wealthy and those who run their own business, cost society far far more.

As a direct measure, in £, possibly. But what is the indirect cost and social impact of high child birth rates amongst young, single non-working women?

But what is the indirect cost and social impact of high child birth rates amongst young, single non-working women?

Half a curly wurly... a bag of pickled onion monster munch and twos on a fagbutt rollie... £2.57 and some pocket fluff..

Anyone self-employed who is paying higher rate tax needs to have a word with their tax avoidance consultant accountant.

Or learn to supress their conscience. 😕

A universal benefit for all regardless of income is an anathema.

Child benefit should be used to support and not encourage.

Those of us who have chosen not to have kids, ever stay overnight in hospital, don't go in for IVF, draw down on resources of education for our offspring, should we get a rebate ?

should we get a rebate?

Maybe you could use the money to pimp your headstone?

[i]Currently women who are receiving child benefit but not working keep their pension contributions current. If they lose this will they have to top up their contributions as well? [/i]

Interesting point, but since they reduced the number of qualifying years you need for the state pension; so not so important.

I can though see another 'tax credit fiasco' turning up here, basically do we get CB based upon last years earnings, this years (possible) earnings or...

And if you earn more than expected, do you pay it all back, or some of it - and is it tax-year connected?

Child benefit should be used to support and not encourage

In your opinion.

In times of low birth rates it may be used to do just that. It may then be removed when the balance is rectified.

There'll be tears on the streets of Warsaw.

😉

You could get a rebate at end of life once they know your total draw on public spending over your lifetime.

Maybe you could use the money to pimp your headstone?

Half a curly wurly... a bag of pickled onion monster munch and twos on a fagbutt rollie... £2.57 and some pocket fluff..

OK - good to see that you have your research ready to support your case...

Lol. There are consultants working alongside me at my current contract who pay no tax at all. They are prt of some loophole company setup by a former director at Delloitte, whereby they get paid in Bellarussian roubels and the upshot is they pay no tax and its legit.

They offered me an intro to it, as the joining is by referal only, but I do have a conscience, and want to pay my fair share into the society in which I live. I just dont like havin the p*ss ripped out me 😀

Those of us who have chosen not to have kids, ever stay overnight in hospital, don't go in for IVF, draw down on resources of education for our offspring, should we get a rebate ?

You've [i]chosen[/i] to never stay overnight in hospital?

Maybe you need to think of your taxes as paying back for [i]your[/i] education?

Luckily for you, my kids will eventually pay tax, which will pay your state pension and for health care later in life.

I'm loving the middle class outrage over this 🙂

montylikesbeer - Member

A universal benefit for all regardless of income is an anathema.

There are reasons for universal benefits. The take up is much higher than means tested benefits, they don't contribute to poverty traps and administration is very simple

if they are paid out of taxation all that happens is taxpayers pay extra tax to pay for the benefits - so the net effect for them is the same.

The my kids will pay for your state pension is a bit of a weak argument imo. I expect there won't be a state pension or retirement age will be much higher by the time I reach 65

How can you avoid higher rate? I mean you can avoid some NI but if you take dividends you still have income so have to pay tax - so there's something else you can do?

Anyway, we'll now have a system a bit like stamp duty - someone who earns just over the higher rate level will lose the whole lot so will end up with a lower income than someone just under it - 'please don't give me a payrise' some might ask.

I don't think that any tax is fair as such, it's about what works. The closest I can think of a fair tax is some sort of variation on tax on expenditure so that basics are free of tax but luxuries get a lot whatever that amount might be.

How can you avoid higher rate? I mean you can avoid some NI but if you take dividends you still have income so have to pay tax - so there's something else you can do?

Dividends are only taxed at 20%, aren't they? Capital Gains?

The my kids will pay for your state pension is a bit of a weak argument imo. I expect there won't be a state pension or retirement age will be much higher by the time I reach 65

Brilliant! If we have enough people of a working age we won't have this problem you tool!

The my kids will pay for your state pension is a bit of a weak argument imo. I expect there won't be a state pension or retirement age will be much higher by the time I reach 65

^What he said^ 🙂

I have come to the conclusion that I am a champagne socialist. I'm a higher rate earner, but have no problem with paying tax to fund services for other people.

I find the idea that "I've paid a lot in tax, therefore I'm entitled to receive services" a little odd. Yes, you gett hem when you need them, but you don't get them just because you've paid in.

OK - good to see that you have your research ready to support your case...

ha... well I DO have research ready... cos that bloke what hangs around by the corner of Stella Dobwalls house and buys booze and fags for blowies told me.. and if you don't believe me you can ask Stella Dobwall.. cos she was leaning out of her bedroom window to show Matthew Mason her tits and she heard him say it..

The problem is the abundance of old people not a lack of young people. More young people means more old people in the future. The system has to change to be sustainable.

I have children, I have them because I wanted them, not out of any altruistic desire that they could support society in the future.

Shoot the old? They are overconsumers of services and dont pay much tax

uluru - Member
The bbc report said only households where one or both pays the higher tax rate. So two people earning 26k each would still get the benefit.

Dividends are only taxed at 20%, aren't they? Capital Gains?

No, dividends must be declared on your tax return and will attract extra tax.

The problem is the abundance of old people not a lack of young people. More young people means more old people in the future. The system has to change to be sustainable.

The concept of "old" and "young" needs to change.
"Young" equals those of working age who can contribute to taxation and the support of the "old", those not in whats considered full time employment.

The boundaries will shift and become more blurred as people continue to work in some way that contributes but may be more flexible. People will live considerably longer in future and jobs are becoming less manual and will be achievable into older age.