So I read this [url= http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24027545-david-cameron-signals-change-to-cliff-edge-child-benefit-plans.do ]article[/url] about how there are to be changes to the child benefit system.
I don't have kids but this seems really unfair to me; a family with two parents earning £42k each qualify for benefit, but a family with one parent earning £43k don't qualify (even if the other parent doesn't earn anything) - are you suddenly rich if you earn £43k a year?
I'm sure this proposal will affect many people on STW - what are your thoughts? Are you going to make bigger pension contributions to bring yourselves under the £43k limit? Work less? Just "MTFU"?
If it was both parents as higher rate taxpayers it would be reasonable to disqualify them.
Just the one being higher rate is a bit unfair.
no this again..!?
it does seen unfair.. they should apply it all..
most people I know that are in receipt of child benefit are unlikely to make 43k in five years
Anyone above the age of about 9 years old who uses the phrase "that's not fair" is in need of a reality check. They may well be correct, but life's not fair so deal with it.
Tory welfare cuts are unravelling. The defeat in the Lords the other night, now this.
Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said the government is looking at ways to make controversial plans to cut child benefit "fairer"
David Cameron also hinted moves to scrap the benefit for families where one parent earns more than about £44,000 a year could be amended.
But Treasury sources said there had been no change in policy.
They should have a chat and work out what they want to do.
In every tax/benefit system you get these 'steps'...
[i]most people I know that are in receipt of child benefit are unlikely to make 43k in five years [/i]
Eh, don't think so - unless you're still living in the 20th Century.
are you suddenly rich if you earn £43k a year?
no.
you're rich long before then.
this was originally rushed out when there was a bit of a 'look the tories are just attacking benefits for the poor' thing goign on during the party conference season so they said 'look, we're going to hurt the relatively well off as well'.
Only, as above, they hadn't really thought it through.
My household income has been pretty much static for the past 5 years, we seem to have less money available each month due to rising food and fuel costs etc.
We are 'well off' in terms of the tax bracket thing but, clearly, losing £120/month is a 1/4 of our amnnual food bill we have to find from elsewhere so it's going to have an effect.
I'm in two minds really, yes I could probably afford to not have it (but then so could people earning under 44k who own their own home, for example) but it's also a good way for the state to 'reward' those who produce children that will be paying for the future retirement and health benefits the current 'crop' of workign age people will require.
Proposed-plans-for-Government-to-reduce-hand-outs-causes-some-people-to-be-worse-off shocker
(but I agree that is doesn't seem that well considered)
Eh, don't think so - unless you're still living in the 20th Century.
LOL.. oh dear.. a miscalculation on my part..
I'm not far off at all though
About time the rich English started to pay their way.
Just glad that in Scotland we are not introducing this 😉
40 000+ a year puts you in the very well off indeed category - don't whinge.
Higher rate tax payer in recipt of CB here. To be honest, I was a bit surprised to recieve it when we did (never had any cause to understand the benefits system) and it seemed odd to be giving money to people that already had enough. Seems a little unfair that many of our friends with similar or greater household incomes will continue to get it but I suppose the alternative is increased administration overhead and associated expense.
Ultimately, benefits should be based on need, we dont eed so im comfortable with loosing out, I do wonder how much it will actually save tho.
I don't get it. We don't/aren't entitled to a penny. Even when mrshora wasn't earning anything for a year and I was working alot less to help out.
On the flipside we know a couple who get £400 a week in tax credits, both work but have two babies. She also works part time now like mrshora.
Anyone above the age of about 9 years old who uses the phrase "that's not fair" is in need of a reality check. They may well be correct, but life's not fair so deal with it.
This is about the actions of a govt and their policies making something deliberately unfair rather than fair. It is reasonable to say to a person or agency that it is not fair when they are being unfair when they could be fair it may be different if we say this to nature [its not fair steve peat is a better MTB than me for example]....everyone realises life is unfair on many levels but that does not mean we cannot protest when the govt does something unfair
I dont have a problem with the principle of stopping child benefit for the wealthy [ and 40k is wealthy] but the implementation is rubbish.
hora you dont get tax credits because you earn too much [ and they base them on last years earnings when mrs hora was working] and non one but no one with two kids is getting £20 k per annum tax credits...did you mean 400 per month
No point arguing about how well off earning £40k makes you. The point is that a minor payrise at the wrong salary level results in people with kids being worse off so that's bad. The idea was that it's simple (cheap) to implement.
Recent studies have shown that people with kids are losing out most in recent changes to save money so I suppose this might have something to do with it.
40 000+ a year puts you in the very well off indeed category - don't whinge.
Depends where you live, and if both of you (assuming a married couple + kids) are working. In London you're hardly "very well off".
Still, to the original argument: seems fair to me. Massively annoying if you're just above the cut off point, of course, but in that sense no different to any tax band. Is there any real reason they can't simply apply a percentage based sliding reduction on the benefit, rather than a binary cut-off?
40 000+ a year puts you in the very well off indeed category - don't whinge.
We all live to our means, even if those means may seem "well off" to others. If your income is then reduced why on earth would you just take it on the chin? Don't expect sympathy maybe, but put-up-and-shut-up is not the answer in a democratic society.
you would take it on the chin because you can afford it...what happens now? they have to buy less Olives and capers and can only have one foreign holiday a year ...they dont suddenly plummet into poverty as a result of this
Oh yes you are mogrim - no matter where you live that level of income puts you into the wealthy elite. get real.
What makes me laugh about this whinging is its the situation that has existed for years for the poor - high marginal tax rates where earning a bit more takes you over a threshold and you lose benefits.
This is why we have universal benefits and long tapers to prevent this situation.
[i]40 000+ a year puts you in the very well off indeed category - don't whinge. [/i]
Yer, right - you've not kids have you TJ?
And it can't make you [i]very well off[/i] as you are still entitled to benefits 🙂
Here's the thing though. If you're a higher tak payer, you've seen the removal of personal allowances, an increase in tax rate, the removal of the cap on NI (and an increase in it), and now the removal of child benefits.
Labour always used to be thought of as the stealth tax party, but the Conservatives have learned well from them.
Raising a kid is so expensive these days that £100/month (or whatever it is) child benefit doesn't have much impact really, supposed to ensure decent food and clothing I suppose. The better off will sort this out anyway and the poorer might not be able to without it - though apparently some parents use chunks of it for themselves
Oh yes you are mogrim - no matter where you live that level of income puts you into the wealthy elite. get real.
Rubbish. Elite is a small %age in my definition, £40k puts you in about the top 10% nationally. In parts of the SE it's a lot lower than that.
I think this is the reason it is a problem worth "whinging" about:
a family with two parents earning £42k each qualify for benefit, but a family with one parent earning £43k don't qualify (even if the other parent doesn't earn anything)
Or, to rephrase it, a family with £84k income can qualify but a family with £43k income might not. That's what makes it sound unfair to some. On the flip side, if it was done on joint income then there will be a lot of families with modest individual incomes who would lose out too. Like I said above, there are always losers when the government want to claw back some money. It's just maths and if the maths didn't add up this way there would be no point in the government doing it.
I still don't think it means people should just put up and shut up tho'
Ignore TJ - he's essentially right actually but he clearly gets enjoyment in seeing anything that makes people a bit less happy (regardless of whether that's justified).
And it can't make you very well off as you are still entitled to benefits
its a universal benefit so having a child makes everyone entitled, billionaires even.
are we now actually arguing that being in the top 10% does not make you well off or wealthy 😯 ....can anyone do statistics here and care to say how many SD above the norm that is 🙄
Depends where you live, and if both of you (assuming a married couple + kids) are working. In London you're hardly "very well off".
Yes you are. £40k is double the median salary in one of the richest countries in the world.
Oh yes you are mogrim - no matter where you live that level of income puts you into the wealthy elite. get real.
You're wrong (hint: "wealthy" and "elite" are comparative, subjective definitions), but as I know there's no way of convincing you, I'm not going to bother.
Universal benefits are great really as the better off pay so much tax that the benefit is small in comparison but they still think they're benefiting from paying all that extra tax.
Hora - In your case its personal. They're trying to stop you breeding any further. For this they have the eternal gratitude of the nation.
Stop moaning!
I don't have kids but this seems really unfair to me; a family with two parents earning £42k each qualify for benefit, but a family with one parent earning £43k don't qualify (even if the other parent doesn't earn anything)
The simple solution here is for the person earning enough to pay 40% to take get a worse paying job and for their non-working partner to go out to work. Problem solved!
The tax system is already 'unfair'. If both halves of a couple earn £25k each, they're better off than a couple with one person earning £50k and the other not working.
Between the two of us, we don't earn as much as one person in the 40% bracket. We have two kids and while we'd notice the removal of Child benefit, we'd manage.
Yes you are. £40k is double the median salary in one of the richest countries in the world.
So a single earner in a household with one dependent partner and two kids would be "wealthy elite", then?
top 10% by income = small wealthy elite
The distorted values of some on here is laughable. Yes you are rich if you earn £40 000+.
So a single earner in a household with one dependent partner and two kids would be "wealthy elite", then?
Yes. top 10%
Originally child benefit was a fixed amount per child per week and was paid to the mother. It was originally seen as a means of getting money to the mother to ensure that children were fed as the father spent his on beer!
Changes in society have forced changes into child benefit, different rates for first and subsequent children, more women work and people in relationships are individually taxed. Based on this, some of the original concepts about child benefit no longer apply.
Hence the Government now want to make it based on income. The idea of using higher rate taxpayers as the key is that this is quite easy to determine. However it does lead to the anomalies as shown.
I suspect that what will happen is that child benefit will be merged into the tax credits system. The number of children you have will change the income levels for the tax credit assessment. This should get rid of some of the anomalies, but those that lose it will complain.
In my personal case, we are just about lose child benefit as the youngest is 18 and it will cease when he finishes his A2's this summer. Still expensive to run, the amount of food and 18 year old lad can eat is scary!
My salary has crept me into the higher tax band but I rely on CB to stop me going in to the red each month. Mortgage + nursey fees + the unexpected are killing me. Why only yesterday our toilet threatened to cause a water feature in the kitchen below but I had to fix it myself coz there wasn't enough to cover a plumbers call out fee.
I still don't understand how I'm borderline struggling on the money I'm on but at least I'm now an expert on siphons,plumb pliers and flapper seals 🙂
it wont, if he stays in education as it stops when he turns 19
Inequities already exist in the tax system and I don't see this as being any different just becuase it involves the benfit system. To use the same sort of argument that is being use to demonstrate the "unfairness" of the removal of this benefit, is it fair that a family income of £44k with one parent working will pay more income tax than a family income of of £44k with two parents working?
I say again, life's not fair so deal with it.
So a single earner in a household with one dependent partner and two kids would be "wealthy elite", then?
You can use whatever description you like. I'll stick to the facts - namely that £40k is double the median salary in the world's 7th richest country.
the mean income for London is £29k, not £20k, though.
Yes you are rich if you earn £40 000+.
Funny how most of these rich can't afford to buy the average property in the UK (24Ok?)
god help me, but i've got to agree with TJ.
if you earn £40k then you're loaded, if you're having money problems then you're doing it wrong.
it's your money, spend it how you like, but it's still loads.
£43k a year is what, ~£2350/month take home if you pay 10% into a pension? I suppose £43k might be ok if you're a gigantic manbaby who lives like a student or in your mum's basement, but after paying housing costs, vehicle costs, food, utilities etc there can't be much left over for a lot of people.
So a single earner in a household with one dependent partner and two kids would be "wealthy elite", then?
Yes. top 10%
Gak, sucked in to the TJ black hole of arguing.
Median income: 20,000.
Two people + 2 kids, single income @40,000 --> effective income: 20,000. Certainly not poor, but hardly "wealthy elite".
the mean income for London is £29k, not £20k, though.
Mean average is distorted by a few very high earners, which is why I gave the median figure. In any case, £29k is rather less than £40k.
Is there any real reason they can't simply apply a percentage based sliding reduction on the benefit, rather than a binary cut-off?
Yes. It would cost a lot more to implement. The fundamental reason it's being done the way it is.
Are you really arguing that a family where one person earns enough to pay 40% tax is going to be on the breadline and going begging for food if their child benefit is stopped? Our household income is little more than that, and we're certainly not.
Average house price where I live for a 3 bed semi is £329,187.
I can't see anyone on £40k feeling wealthy and a part of the elite when their house cost them more than 8 times their gross household income.
Mean average is distorted by a few very high earners, which is why I gave the median figure. In any case, £29k is rather less than £40k.
But most households probably have two earners... Now, if [b]both[/b] are earning 40K they're pretty well off - not elite (in London), but certainly comfortable middle-class.
Lo, he hath spoken, and the word was made FACT!
[i]its a universal benefit so having a child makes everyone entitled, billionaires even.[/i]
I wasn't referring to child benefit, but tax credits.
Are you really arguing that a family where one person earns enough to pay 40% tax is going to be on the breadline and going begging for food if their child benefit is stopped? Our household income is little more than that, and we're certainly not.
Do you qualify for any tax credits or other benefits?
only universal ones Random so no
I say again, life's not fair so deal with it.
no what you are saying it is is it ok for agencies to follow policies that are dleiberately unfair and we should just ignore them as life is unfair. can we charge you more for you shopping than anyone else and just repeat your mantra to you?
We are not asking the govt to rightall wrongs and remove all iniquities just to apply a tax policy fairly so that it targets family income rather than individual income.
By your mantra we coulds do whatever we like take your car, sell your children, break your legs, lobotomise you, sterilise you and still just repeat the line that life is unfair deal with it...we know this but it cannot be used to defend things that are unfair when a human agency actually opts to do this when they have other choices available.
We know life is unfair but that is no reason to not try and apply things fairly
If you had two kids would you favour one over the other and tell the other life is not fair deal with it
Funny how most of these rich can't afford to buy the average property in the UK (24Ok?)
No, it's £160k.
http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/about-us/press-listing/2011/november-house-prices
There can be no arguing. the richest 10% of the country's earners earn over £40 000 pa. That makes them the rich elite. Just because you deem an expensive lifestyle "essential" does not make you poor.
some of you need a reality lesson
Yes. It would cost a lot more to implement. The fundamental reason it's being done the way it is
Cost more, or simply less savings? Can't imagine that it would be that much more complicated to implement.
Are you really arguing that a family where one person earns enough to pay 40% tax is going to be on the breadline and going begging for food if their child benefit is stopped? Our household income is little more than that, and we're certainly not.
No, of course not. I'm just saying they're hardly a "wealthy elite".
Is this based on reference salary or taxable salary? If it's reference and you're just over and have a salary sacrifice scheme at work why dont just pay a little more into your pension?
I need to go back and reread some of the anti-teacher threads earlier this year based on some recent threads/comments on here. I'm sure that the same people arguing that teachers were overpaid are the same ones in the higher tax bracket.
£43k a year is what, ~£2350/month take home if you pay 10% into a pension? I suppose £43k might be ok if you're a gigantic manbaby who lives like a student or in your mum's basement, but after paying housing costs, vehicle costs, food, utilities etc there can't be much left over for a lot of people.
We manage a house, car, food, utilities and two dogs on less. In fact, when we would have qualified for tax credits we didn't claim because we didn't need to.
But most households probably have two earners... Now, if both are earning 40K they're pretty well off - not elite (in London), but certainly comfortable middle-class.
I earn less than £40k, with a dependent partner and child. I consider myself to be rich, but then that's because I don't compare myself solely to people richer than me.
+1 what mogrim is implying
Slightly narked by what TJ is saying. Here's why, the receptionist here is on waaaay less than me and yet because she claims an element of tax credit she now lives in a rather nice council house (no really, it's nice) she has a council man to come and fix everything in her house and huuughely discounted rates, her rent is next to flip all, she qualifies for cool stuff like leisure keys, has free cavity wall insulation and solar panels, and her kid is on a short list for a bursary for a school that I could never afford and my kids won't qualify for.
She's not playing the system in any way but has far more disposable income than me'n'wife who both work full time.
I know over time it'll probably all come out in the wash but for now it seems mental that she's better off than me.
jealous? me??
No, it's £160k.
Hmm this says different:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/houses.stm
But even on the £160k someone on £40k would need a hefty deposit to buy an average property in the UK. So certainly not rich but better off than most for sure.
"Here's the thing though. If you're a higher tak payer, you've seen the removal of personal allowances, an increase in tax rate, the removal of the cap on NI (and an increase in it), and now the removal of child benefits." + no longer being able to claim tax efficient childcare vouchers.
No it doesn't make high earners poor, but why should high earners just accept it when others do not just accept it?
Slightly narked by what TJ is saying. Here's why, the receptionist here is on waaaay less than me and yet because she claims an element of tax credit she now lives in a rather nice council house (no really, it's nice) she has a council man to come and fix everything in her house and huuughely discounted rates, her rent is next to flip all, she qualifies for cool stuff like leisure keys, has free cavity wall insulation and solar panels, and her kid is on a short list for a bursary for a school that I could never afford and my kids won't qualify for.
Have you considered getting a worse-paying job?
I can't see anyone on £40k where I live.. 😐
our complete family income is around half that (including child benefit) and we consider ourselves pretty comfortable..
😳
By your mantra we coulds do whatever we like take your car, sell your children, break your legs, lobotomise you, sterilise you and still just repeat the line that life is unfair deal with it...we know this but it cannot be used to defend things that are unfair when a human agency actually opts to do this when they have other choices available.
Sorry but that is just absurd. To try and create some kind of equivalence between the removal of a previously help benift from relatively wealthy people to state sponsored sterilization merely highlights the weakness of your argument.
There can be no arguing. the richest 10% of the country's earners earn over £40 000 pa. That makes them the rich elite. Just because you deem an expensive lifestyle "essential" does not make you poor.some of you need a reality lesson
Are the wealthy elite determined by household income or individual income tj? Is a double income household earning 2 x 21k part of this elite?
What i like about the child benefit, is regardless of income you are being recognised for bringing up the next generation.
Earning £44k may put you technically in the wealthy elite, but does it really stretch that far with 3 kids, living in the SE with a £200k mortgage?
Hmm this says different:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/houses.stm
But even on the £160k someone on £40k would need a hefty deposit to buy an average property in the UK. So certainly not rich but better off than most for sure.
The land registry say it's £160k, therefore it's £160k. Someone on £40k really ought to be able to save a deposit for a house at that price.
Anyway, why are you equating salary to ownership of property?
@mogrim, according to the [url= http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/ ]IFS calculator[/url], £40k with 2 kids and a dpendent partner means "With a household after tax income of £738 per week, you have a higher income than around 66% of the population - equivalent to about 40.0 million individuals."
Top half, but nowhere near a wealthy elite.
I agree that higher rate tax payers are wealthy but saying they are the elite is ridiculous.
Nice distorted stats there.
Only the highest 10% of earners earn over £40 000 per year. wealthy elite.
If you cannot have a very comfortable indeed life on £40 000 per year then you really need to learn how to manage money and to distinguish between want and need
Someone on £40k really ought to be able to save a deposit for a house at that price.
Eventually they probably can but elite?!
Maybe we need to agree what defines someone just into the level of 'rich elite' other than income.
What sort of house do they own? What car, holidays, food budget?
I do think that a couple with both earning over £40k are 'rich' though still wouldn't use the word 'elite'.
I earn less than £40k, with a dependent partner and child. I consider myself to be rich, but then that's because I don't compare myself solely to people richer than me.
You compare yourself to people poorer than you - which is a lot healthier!
It all depends on your definition of "rich" - to me it is having enough income for the sort of lifestyle that allows you a nice house in a nice area, a new Audi/BMW/Porsche, 2 holidays a year (skiing + beach), private school, etc. I very much doubt that you are in that category, and given London living costs I don't think TJ's baseline figure would allow that either.
www.selfrighteoustrackworld.com
Cost more, or simply less savings? Can't imagine that it would be that much more complicated to implement.
😆 - so instead of having a simple flag based on data already held by HMRC you'd have to have some complicated means tested system. No, you're right - it really wouldn't cost that much more to implement. That would explain why the tax credits system works so well.
No, of course not.
In which case stop whinging. You can afford to lose it. Are you also upset that those earning 10 times as much as you without being any cleverer or working any harder aren't taxed until the pips squeak? I'd think that ought to be more significant in your envy of others than you losing at most 4% of your income which others a small amount better off than you get to keep.
I think the top 10% counts as an elite.
40 000+ a year puts you in the very well off indeed category - don't whinge.
Eh? How do you work that out?
How about cost of living, childcare, and all the other expenses that are ripping us off in the country?
Only the highest 10% of earners earn over £40 000 per year. wealthy [s]elite[/s].
I (half) agree with TJ.
If you cannot have a very comfortable indeed life on £40 000 per year then you really need to learn how to manage money and to distinguish between want and need
So the elite still need to distinguish do they? I earn rather more than £40k and am happy to see myself as relatively rich but to call myself elite would be rather arrogant.
I think we're arguing about different things here...unsurprisingly. Whether it seems fair to me or TJ or mogrim or whoever, the fact is that ANY change in tax/benefit policy will adversely affect some people and they can either take it on the chin or they can make a song and dance about it. Quite right too.
I'd love to earn enough to be classed as a higher rate taxpayer. I'd be stupid enough to spend to those means and probably still have no more money left at the end of the month than I [s]do[/s] don't now. If a chunk of that income gets taken away I'd have to adjust my lifestyle. If soneone's mortgage is £2,000 a month and childcare costs are several hundred quid and so on and so on, you can see how the "rich elite" can be hit by any reduction in income. It's not that simple to just buy a smaller house or move closer to work or have one parent give up work to look after the kids. They're choices, but they're blinking tough choices. In this day and age your income is not the sole factor in how "rich" you are, as many have tried to point out regarding living in London.
I'm rambling...