[Closed] Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefits

So [s]everybody[/s] some who can't afford all that should get child benefit (in order that they can [s]get a bit closer to that consumerist ideal[/s] afford food, clothes and heating)?

FTFY

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?

I sincerely doubt that 90% of the population have the same outgoings as the missus and I.

TJ - could you leave the bit about being a 40% tax payer making you "rich" or "elite"? It's simply providing the whingers a strawman to knock down.

This was about whether people earning that much need to get CB - a completely different issue to whether they're rich.

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?

A lot of those on less than £40k get a lot of benefits to help them - paid for by the middle classes who seem to be expected to be happy about being sneered at for being far too rich.

Debate without the capacity to effect change is ❓

I'm just going to take issue with the definition of the word "elite". To be honest, top 10% doesn't really sound elite. Top 1% sounds more elite. Like championship compared to premier league, or world's best armies or something.

Also, how do you measure richness? Is it disposable income or income earned? If you took on a big mortgage to ensure your wife and kids had a permanent roof over their heads, and that took up a large share of your [sole] income, would that make you rich? Even if you couldn't afford to go on holidays, or drive anything but a beat up fourth hand car that you had to fix yourself?

I'm willing to bet you would not feel rich in that situation. Level maybe. Struggling possibly. Not rich.

So tube drivers are part of the rich elite now? And to think I was all in favour of their demand for massive pay rises...

As for the child benefit issue - if you want kids then make sure you can support them without a free government hand-out, I have enough problems buying all the expensive bike stuff I want without funding other people's kids...

It's also much more complicated to try and work out the combined income of a household vs just knowing if there's a higher rate earner in the household so although not strictly fair it does save the government pissing away millions on a new system to track it.

Even people on £40k who consider themselves rich would notice the effect.

The effect wouldn't be half as big as the effect that some of the cuts that are coming in are having on those considerably poorer.

I can see why people might be a little annoyed, but in the grand scheme of things there's really very little to get annoyed about.

There does appear to be some great assumption that if you qualify for 40% tax you suddenly leap from being an average wealth person to being a super rich person. In reality as Mr Tax man is now taking a nice substantial chunk of your money the increase isn't that great.

TandemJeremy - Member

Nice distorted stats there.

Only the highest 10% of earners earn over £40 000 per year. wealthy elite.

So LU drivers = wealthy elite 🙂 Got it.

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.

If you've got the data, applying a percentage instead of a flag isn't that much more complicated.

BTW I live in Spain - no child benefit here, and we have joint income declarations. But I have a fair idea of what London life costs as I've been vaguely looking into returning at some point.

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)?

That's completely distorting what I've been saying - I've got no argument about means-tested benefits, I think it's completely fair. I don't think a hard cutoff is fair, but that's a separate matter. I'm defining what I consider to be "rich". And (in western Europe) it means a bit more than a house, working car and a holiday once a year.

have enough problems buying all the expensive bike stuff I want without funding other people's [s]kids[/s] free money bling fund...

FTFY 😉

A lot of those on less than £40k get a lot of benefits to help them - paid for by the middle classes who seem to be expected to be happy about being sneered at for being far too rich.

I would love to live in the world some people on here live in.

willard - its doesn't matter if you feel rich or not - few people do. If you are amongst the countries top earners you are rich.

I would love to see a breakdown of the family budgets for those struggling on £40 000 plus. then imagine living on £10 000.

I sincerely doubt that 90% of the population have the same outgoings as the missus and I.

You mean they don't have a big mortgage on a nice house, a car loan to pay off (for the new Audi), a new bike to buy because the mags say your current one is out of date? Poor you.

[i]Only the highest 10% of earners earn over £40 000 per year. wealthy elite.[/i]

You are still confusing 'earners' and 'households'.

Anyway TJ, once you've got kids you are entitled to debate this issue - as, as per usual, you are spouting off knowing bu99er-all on the subject!

+1 FunkyDunc

Getting back to the OP.

Can we not just sterilise the poor people? Then return their rightful benefits to the Daily Mail reading classes? That'd sort it out, surely?

Only the Daily Mail and (evidently) TJ use the word "Elite" in such circumstances to describe someone who may just claw their way into the higher tax bracket. It's clearly a loaded term simply used to whip into a frenzy those with a particularly large chip on their shoulder. You can wheel out dictionary definitions of the word all you like (just heading that one off at the pass), but it's nothing other than reverse snobbery and childish, jealous ****ery.

TJ - and I would love the benefits and tax credits of someone living on £10k.

That's completely distorting what I've been saying

Sorry. Maybe you should try and be a bit clearer about what exactly it is you're whinging about.

pedalhead, +1

You can wheel out dictionary definitions of the word all you like (just heading that one off at the pass)

😆

That's made my day, and on that, I'm off...

TJ - and I would love the benefits and tax credits of someone living on £10k

I'm sure your employer would be perfectly happy to pay you less if you asked nicely.

(TJ: please shut up about 40% earners being "the elite"; they're not. Relatively wealthy, yes. The Elite, no.)

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.

I sincerely doubt that 90% of the population have the same outgoings as the missus and I.

It may be reasonable to argue not all scenarios are equal due to house prices etc but if you had less you would have a cheaper house etc so more money does mean you can buy better things than those with less..if you disagree just earn less and live better ..good luck

The big problem with this country is the way successive governments have allowed house prices to spiral to ludicrous levels, primarily fueled by the lenders offering ever greater multiples of income. Anyone entering the labour and accommodation markets today could take the exact same career path as their parents but never be anywhere near as well off. Whether £40k makes you rich depends a lot on your personal circumstances.

miketually - as it happens, the girl I spoke about earlier did exactly that as she would be better off under the threshold.

Sorry. Maybe you should try and be a bit clearer about what exactly it is you're whinging about.

I apologise that I didn't define my position clearly enough for you: I wasn't whinging. I was pointing out that "wealthy" and "rich" aren't directly applicable to a 40K income.

miketually - as it happens, the girl I spoke about earlier did exactly that as she would be better off under the threshold.

So I'm right. Excellent 🙂

It's the household bit that TJ doesn't seem to get. If you earn £43k and live on your own in a bedsit you are in the top 4%, if you earn the same amount but have to support a family (partner, 2 kids) then you are in the top 30% (just). In the latter case, I suggest that you are unlikely to be in a position to be supporting the mountain bike industry to any great extent, especially if you lose the CB.

some of you guys are so far from reality its funny.

You don't like you gross hypocrisy being pointed out to you

Whether £40k makes you rich depends a lot on your personal circumstances.

Nope - it makes you rich regardless of your circumstances. Yo might not FEEL rich - thats a different issue

Only the Daily Mail and (evidently) TJ use the word "Elite" in such circumstances to describe someone who may just claw their way into the higher tax bracket. It's clearly a loaded term simply used to whip into a frenzy those with a particularly large chip on their shoulder

They also fail to recognise just how much tax the upper-income people pay as a proportion of the total. Be thankful for high earners, without them you'd have a lot less state income.

"I would love to see a breakdown of the family budgets for those struggling on £40 000 plus. then imagine living on £10 000."

TJ get over it.

Why the envy of those who earn over £40k, its not as though they get it handed on a plate (ok maybe a minority few do) most work bloody hard for it.

Mrs FD currently is a 40% tax payer and in 4 years time will be a 50% tax payer. We do not currently consider ourselves rich. We now consider ourselves financially stable and fortunate. We dont have to worry about saving money to buy next weeks shopping etc etc, but we certainly are not rich.

...I was pointing out that "wealthy" and "rich" aren't directly applicable to a 40K income...

then you're doing it wrong.

I like to think of myself as part of the elite, but I wouldn't say I was wealthy, or indeed rich.

Still, it feels a little Tory to moan about losing child benefits if you're earning twice the national average.

You don't like you gross hypocrisy being pointed out to you

You mean they don't have a big mortgage on a nice house, a car loan to pay off (for the new Audi), a new bike to buy because the mags say your current one is out of date? Poor you.

I suggest you find a bigger hammer or you'll keep missing that nail.

Why the envy of those who earn over £40k, its not as though they get it handed on a plate (ok maybe a minority few do) most work bloody hard for it.

Do they work harder than those earning less?

The reverse happened to me when I got my first job after Uni. Got a pay rise to £14,100, which was exactly £101 higher than the threshold to start repaying my student loads. Awesome. For the sake of a few hundred more a year (gross), I was 90 quid a month (net) worse off.

Still, at least it got paid off sooner.

Maybe I could get my work to pay me the difference between the tax rates in free food or something and take the pay cut. That would help. tell m, is that evasion or avoidance?

[i]Do they work harder than those earning less? [/i]

Maybe just differently 😉

Nope - it makes you rich regardless of your circumstances.

You've spouted some crap in the past TJ, but you're not getting so far off the mark.

You don't like you gross hypocrisy being pointed out to you

Do higher rate tax payers get less net hypocrisy than those earning less?

Funkydunc - no envy at all from me - I am laughing at your gross hypocrisy and how divorced you are from reality. I have plenty of money for my chosen lifestyle.

so come on - you that are struggling on these large incomes lets just see your monthly budget so we can laugh

I've never participated in one of these 'the world vs TJ' debates before. I really don't understand why I'm doing it now.
[img] [/img]