[Closed] Child benefit cuts

Can't read all that through but it seems quite a few people have missed the point (as usual). The issue is not about whether people on £ 45k need benefits (they probably shouldn't have them), it's about treating people equally and consistently, not attacking one small group (higher rate tax payers) because the general population will be happy with that. Typical political cowardice from politicians cushioned from the real world. If the government isn't fair in it's treatment of different groups in the same circumstances then it's not setting much of an example for the rest of society.

If you want to change a benefit from universal to means tested as is being done here you have a simple choice - either a taper of a solid cut off / threshold.

Tapering is expensive to administer, a threshold is not = so they have gone for the threshold at a tax point which makes it cheap to administer. It will produce anomalies tho - thats just the way it is.

The main anomaly here is if you have multiple children and earn just under the cutoff a pay rise will make you significantly worse off

Similarly if at the moment you earn just over the cutoff you will lose thousands, but earn just under it you wont - thus the person just under the cuttoff will actually have more spending

However - as the only people affected are the riche earning doubnle the average wage then though titty!

However - as the only people affected are the riche earning doubnle the average wage then though titty!

Right up to that point it was a fairly intelligent post.

In this case it's not a taper vs. cut off argument, it's how you determine the cut off. Even then it's a bit ironic when they whole gist of the rest of their benefits policy seems (sensibly) to be around a taper system to help people at the bottom end of the income scale who do make an effort. If the government won't make an effort to be properly fair even though it's difficult it sends a very bad message out to everyone else, be fair to people around you unless it gets a little bit difficult.

so £45 000 a year does not make you rich?

By Osbournes sums thats under a million people a year will be affected - 5% of the workforce? 10%?

I don't think the richest few % of the country earners should be bleating about the loss of benefits do you? After all - wa are are all in this together 🙂

The could always bring in a tapered payment system, that takes account of a couples' earnings not just one person.

Of course that costs money, so the taper would have to kick in much lower to pay for the admin...

I think you've all missed the point, its not easy to means-test anything.

Current CB is (usually) paid to the mum (or sole parent).

And now they have decided its to be based on household income (BTW does that include earning children?). So we'll need to record who lives in a house and 'join' their income to get the household income.

Also if we earn too much this year, but a lower amount next year - do we have to re-apply - and at what point? When we've passed the year-end, of before when we think we might not earn?

And then if we earn more, do we pay it back?

As usual its a government implementing a policy based on 'citizens' working standard weeks/incomes - not reality. What about a Salesman who has a good year and a bonus after Christmas - that puts him over, does he need to repay the £700?

I met a black ex-miner in Cardiff, who had worked hard to earn over twice the average wage. He told me he couldn't understand why he was getting child benefit. 🙂

44K a year is a lot of money. It is perfectly possible to keep a kid or two on that kind of wage even in London, let alone in the rest of the country.

I'm guessing from this that you've no kids and don't live in the SE?

nob

Who is "richer"? Someone earning 45k with no savings and a big mortgage or someone earning 20k, but lives in a similar sized house with no mortgage because they inherited it and have a savings account with a huge balance?

Rich is defined by more than just earnings IMO.

my head hurst I agree with the tories, mind you its clever of them to come out with this first.

so £45 000 a year does not make you rich?

Not by a long stretch, especially if that's your only household income. Is a household with 2 incomes of £ 22.5k rich, bet the individuals earning £ 22.5k don't think of themselves as rich.

Put it into context, 3.5 times £ 45k is £157k, the average house price is currently around £ 225k so someone earning this can't afford an average priced house without massively over extending themselves.

After all - wa are are all in this together

but once again we aren't are we, the middle income earners who generally rely on the state for less are asked to fund everybody else.

The key to this whole argument is not whether people (or households)earning £ 45k a year should get benefits (they probably shouldn't and whilst that'll hurt me personally at some point in the future, it'd be difficult to argue for it), it's about the way the Tories have hoodwinked people with the whole higher rate tax payer thing. They've really played to people's prejudices (ever stopped to think that at least some people on higher incomes might just earn them through skills, experience, commitment, income generation, probably not, it's way more fun to just be blindly prejudiced against people who are different).

Final thought, they've just sounded the death knell of universal benefits, probably rightly. That means one thing in the long run, the thresholds for who's eligible will only go one way, down, doesn't matter who's in power.

[img] [/img]

anagallis_arvensis earlier...

😉

br

that system already exists for tax credits. Far from perfect admittedly but maybe the government should try and make a fair but comples system work better rather than just taking the easy option.

😯 3.2% less in take home, VAT up 2.5% in Jan.

As I understand it, all higher rate earners have to submit a tax return at year end. Child benefit will be paid as normal and will them be taken back through tax paid.

(It really annoys me that policies like this have me agreeing with the Tories.)

am i correct in thinking that this has gone six pages and as of yet no one has said....will someone think of the children.

we are above the threshhold and dont care because we can afford it.
funny that.

yes ho hum that case is true but it probably applies to a very small number of cases [if any] in the real world. It seems clear that someone on more money will almost always have more money than someone who gets less money. If STW want to donate me about 20k this year I will happily let you know the outcome of this experiment.
The principle is ok but the public service mechanism that delivers this is rubbish but cheap ....like most Tory public sector policies.
A good idea badly executed basically

Not by a long stretch, especially if that's your only household income. Is a household with 2 incomes of £ 22.5k rich, bet the individuals earning £ 22.5k don't think of themselves as rich.

But they are.

We're on a combined income of £sub-40k. We're not rich, but we're a damn site better off than many and would manage without Child Benefit, though we'd have to go without somewhere. If we had an extra £5k a year, it'd be entirely surplus income.

Of course, we haven't over-extended ourselves to buy a house in the 'right' part of town, two cars and a plasma TV.

Of course, we haven't over-extended ourselves to buy a house in the 'right' part of town, two cars and a plasma TV.

Miketually - I'm a higher rate tax payer and used to do one; but the inland revenue told me they didn't want a tax return any more. As everything is PAYE and I did the sums at home and noone owed anyone anything I haven't sent them one for a few years now.

So the top few % of earners who earn almost double what the average person does is not rich? Hmmmmm It really is only the top few % thsat earn this much.

The average house price is only 225 k including the south east. the rest of the UK its a lot less

I am not being blindly prejudiced against people earning that much - a pal of mine is a highly skilled highly regarded doctor - he earns well more than that. He is probably worth it.

Some folk here need a reality check. £45 000 barely adequate to live on? Not rich?

Try jobseekers allowance of £60 odd quid per week, try working in asda for £14 500 per annum Try being a care assistant in a nursing home for £6.50 an hour Driving a bus for £18 000 pa

A good idea badly executed basically

I don't think the Tories have exclusive rights to that. Point I made earlier though is that if the government can't be bothered to do things in a properly fair way how the can you expect private business to do the difficult things when they are morally the correct thing to do when the government can't be bothered.

Looking at Salary medians for people in full time in PAYE. 50% is ~£25K, top 25% above ~£32K, top 10% above £44K, top 5% above £58K.

*Caveat this exludes self employed, contractors who may be very well payed, but it's most of the population.

So to everyone who is a higher rate tax payer. You are well off nationally and you are going to suffer a little bit financially but to joe average you are doing well.

Higher rate tax payer and really not bothered to see child benefit go.

stumpy - its not fair that rich people are losing a benefit they don't need?

[i]that system already exists for tax credits. Far from perfect admittedly but maybe the government should try and make a fair but comples system work better rather than just taking the easy option. [/i]

Yes, and have you filled in the forms, plus had to keep up changes to income.

And as for the £45k and rich - that doesn't buy a family house where we are (especially at the current mortgage rates).

IME rich starts at 6-figure household incomes, especially when talking of two plus kids etc. And even then its more, 'well-off', than loaded. And this is IME.

And TJ, if it wasn't for people like me who were paying in excess of the average salary just in tax, nevermind NI, there wouldn't be the cash for the NHS and all the other services. But I fail to see why we should be screwed.

And as for the £45k and rich - that doesn't buy a family house where we are (especially at the current mortgage rates).

How are the 90% of people earning less than that buying their family homes? Or the teachers, nurses, etc?

6-figures is triple what I'm earning. We have two kids and could afford for the wife to give up work while they were younger.

TandemJeremy - Member
stumpy - its not fair that rich people are losing a benefit they don't need?

Agreed! Until recently, Richard Branson was automatically entitled to Child Benefit. WTF? I mean, really, WTF? Those who don't need it shouldn't get it. That allows more for those who really do need and deserve it.

IME rich starts at 6-figure household incomes

have you ever looked at what go's on in the world?

agree stump and agree TJ.
I dont believe in gideon unites the left and right I take it all back he is a political genius 😯

£45 000 barely adequate to live on? Not rich?

There's a big difference between those two extremes, of course it's adequate to live on, money to chuck around far from it, especially if you aren't lucky enough to have parents around you subsidising the child care costs through either their money or time.

Try jobseekers allowance of £60 odd quid per week, try working in asda for £14 500 per annum Try being a care

Been there, done that, most people earning good money will have at some point earnt a lot less. I've been made redundant 3 times and have taken what ever work was available, I do know what it's like living on a low income.

I think there's a lot more people around the country with joint incomes in excess of £ 45k than people realise, either that or the tide of personal debt in this country is even bigger than I realised.

Fair point about the average house price being skewed by the South East (although rather a lot of people live down there so it's still pretty relevant to them). Let's look at the North West, not the most affluent part of the UK, plenty of terraced housing, average house price £ 153k. So you still need to be earning around £ 44k to make the standard mortgage calculation. Only the rich can sensibly afford an average North West home?

TJ

stumpy - its not fair that rich people are losing a benefit they don't need?

I've said a couple of times that I agree I don't think households on this level of income should get benefits. I was gobsmacked that we were eligible for tax credits given our income (a Labour policy I think).

What I have an issue with is people thinking £ 45k a year makes you rich, comfortable yes, lavish lifestyle, far from it. And I take exception to the Tories playing to people's prejudices when they tackle something contentious like removing universal benefits (which needs doing) by trying to make out only people who 'don't deserve it' will be affected. A lot of hard working people who are not rich are suddenly going to find their modest holiday is no longer affordable. This is not going to hurt the genuinely rich at all, it'll hurt middle income households and lot more people are in that bracket than most people realise.

The problem isn't who gets money and who doesn't, the problem is that our culture has no grasp of effective management of resources.

Name one body or organisation in the government that ensures optimum efficiency when it comes to how our resources are managed. It's like a sink without a plug and we chuck more and more money into it. They take out loans from their friends after paying their lackies a fortune to do nothing. Then we pay back interest on the loans.

All the smart people are in business, they spend all thier time coming up with ideas on how to get money, away from us. The idiotic incompetent politicians and their even more useless lackies are the wrong people for the job.

Here's a simple question for you folks, if our entire species is up sh1t creek who led us here?

We could say it was the bankers or the politicians or this group or that, but the simple fact is the rich and poweful have shown a complete inability to lead our people anywhere except to hardship, heartache and the pointless way of life that we all call the ratrace.

Wake up! you can debate these policies or this political groups incompetence for a thousand years, it changes nothing.

Politics doesn't work, for one simple fact the average person in our culture is a TV brain washed imbesile, politicians have to connect with said imbesiles to get voted in.

So basically Morons talking sh1t to imbesiles sums up politics!

The bottom line is we need two things, effective management of resources and a philosophy that emphasizes quality of life not just the persuit of wealth, power or status!

And as for the £45k and rich - that doesn't buy a family house where we are (especially at the current mortgage rates).

Surely most people don't buy a big family house as their first house?

of course it's adequate to live on, money to chuck around far from it,

An interesting aside. Those on the left choose to call George Osborne "Gideon", as he chose to use a different name. However, no one chose to call Gordon Brown "James" after he chose to use a different name. I wonder why....

Now, if Torquil Farquar Willington-Smythe Brown had chosen to change his name to Gordon, I wonder if it would have been the same....

Hurrah for inverse snobbery!

😉

A lot of hard working people who are not rich are suddenly going to find their modest holiday is no longer affordable.

A lot of hard working people who are not rich are suddenly going to find their modest holiday is no longer affordable. This is not going to hurt the genuinely rich at all, it'll hurt middle income households and lot more people are in that bracket than most people realise.

Stumpy - sorry squire but you need a reality check

£45 000 is not middle income - its the top 10% of full time earners so the top 5% of all workers! Its nearly twice the average!

Far less people are in this bracket than you seem to think. It is not on household incomes but single earners. You are talking 500 000 people, The top 500 000 earners in the country.

Reality check for Stumpy please!

I think I'm going to give up on this, I've said repeatedly I don't think HOUSEHOLDS on £ 45k should get benefits and I don't think a HOUSEHOLD income of £ 45k makes you rich. And that's the key to what's got me angry about what the Tories are doing, HOUSEHOLDS on £45k will (correctly) cease to get the benefit whilst other HOUSEHOLDS on £ 80+k will. How can this be right.

Right I'm off to bathe in a bath of fivers, can't afford the water meter anymore.

HA

A good overview of UK earnings here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

You've got to be careful with stats, especially when pensioners make up such a large proportion of households. And also the impact of the number of people who are now self-employed and consequently 'manage' their income to ensure HMR&C gets as little as is possible.

I don't know and I'm too tired and frightened now. 🙁

D'you like me new bird?

[img] [/img]

I met a black ex-miner in Cardiff

Can't read all that through but it seems quite a few people have missed the point (as usual). The issue is not about whether people on £ 45k need benefits (they probably shouldn't have them), it's about treating people equally and consistently, not attacking one small group (higher rate tax payers) because the general population will be happy with that.

"However, no one chose to call Gordon Brown "James" after he chose to use a different name. I wonder why...."

That would just have been confusing, I would have sat through the news for an interview with James Brown, and then been flummoxed by the appearance of a fat,slightly goz eyed Scot as opposed to the Godfather of Soul.

I'm assuming it's been done on the 40% tax rate to avoid the usual Labour way of setting up some useless call centre/computer system that actually costs three times as much as the savings it makes?

I expect the usual reaction in all the papers tomorrow - there'll be one person on £44000 and 37p complaining bitterly about the loss of 2 grands worth of benefit. And no doubt somebody else complaining that they now can't afford Jemimas school fees.

Though I do agree with the idea of stopping benefit after kid number 2 regardless.

The real kickback might only happen in 15 years time - if anything like us the child benefit is going into the little un's pot for university fees or house deposit. There might be some young adults with less in their student account in a few more years, certainly with the child savings thing being scrapped too.