Forum menu
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.
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:
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: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=
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...
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
That's complete bullshit.
if you earn £40k then you're loaded, if you're having money problems then you're doing it wrong.
More bollocks.
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?
Probably by comparing those earning £40k+ to the 90% of the population who earn less but live in the same country with the same expenses?
After consideration I'll happily use those in the 50% tax band as elite.
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.
So everybody who can't afford all that should get child benefit (in order that they can get a bit closer to that consumerist ideal)? 😯
spacemonkey - Member"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?
Because only the richest 10% earn that much
It all depends on your definition of "rich"
Precisely. Having a comfortable home, nice bikes, a functioning car, and an annual holiday makes me rich by any sensible measure.
If you really think that not having the latest ego-chariot on your drive means you're not rich, you need to get some perspective!
I really don't have an issue with losing child benefit but it's still a drop in nett household income of £1500 a year.
Even people on £40k who consider themselves rich would notice the effect.
miketually - no, but we have genuinely considered the missus giving up her career. We're hoping that once the nursery fees end in a few years then we'll be better off. You can bet yer ass though that interest rates in a few years will fly and the mortgage will then need the additional money saved.
There I go again, looking on the bright side 🙂
No it doesn't make high earners poor, but why should high earners just accept it when others do not just accept it?
Because, as high earners in the UK, we've always accepted that it's a reasonably redistributive system. Paying more tax (or seeing allowances withdrawn/child benefit removed) is annoying for me, but really doesn't affect my way of life. I've always held that it was stupid that my wife and I were entitled to child benefit, and that it would be better to give more to those who really needed it.