Child benefit cuts

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.

and thats where it seems flawed?
A household could jointly earn £86k and still get child support whereas one could earn £44k and not
It will push those families that have decided they could just about get by on a single wage, so as to bring their children up properly with mother interaction and discipline, back to work (incuring childcare costs – which are significantly higher in UK than elsewhere in Europe TJ) etc
I predict this will lead to a further increase in antisocial behaviour amongst the next generation, more ASBO’s, increased demand on prisons, which will further stretch resorces and cost more in the long run
eventually leading to Arnachy and global meltdown 😆

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.

It will push those families that have decided they could just about get by on a single wage, so as to bring their children up properly with mother interaction and discipline, back to work (incuring childcare costs – which are significantly higher in UK than elsewhere in Europe TJ) etc

Or more families will decide that both parents will work part-time?

Ive just told the wife that as I am just into the higher tax band, whereas the wife is just below, we will be better off if she goes back to work and I give up
Hooray for the Conservatives, now I can palm sprog off with the grandparents and spend every day out on the bike instead of sat behind a desk 😆
(although I will loose the cycle to work scheme)

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

Only if the dividends take your total gross income into the higher rate tax band, otherwise they are free of tax.

ie Gross salary £5k and gross dividends £30k = £0 tax and £0 NI paid

But of course corporation tax has to be paid, because dividends can only be paid from profits.

Or more families will decide that both parents will work part-time?

Unlikely. On the whole part time jobs are less well paid and often of lower status consequently it would be difficult to find 2 part time jobs to contribute as much as a single full time.

scottyjohn – Member

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.

i know a group of city IT contractors who do the same thing, most of them work at barclays

they formed their own company to do it but i think they are officially based in croatia

they are mates, i went to school with tme but their slaries are 100k+
– porsches, motorbikes,etc etc couple of flats in london, one of them just took 6 months off to go on holiday
they pay about the same tax as me

its all legal but it does piss me off, the funny thing is they were constantly whinging about how labour were fcking up the country and couldnt wait for the torries to get in so they could make even more money!?!
the thing is will they still qualify for child benefit as tehir taxable income is certainly under 45k?

Kimbers, that is quite upsetting (but not surprising).

The welfare state was created to support real need, now it has become a prop to support lifestyles rather than true need.

And before the tirade of negative comments are heaped upon me I know there is true poverty in this country and these cases should always be supported.

The desolation of our manufacturing capability is also a massive factor.

What we need is jobs and not a papering over of the cracks that has been happening for the last 25 years.

The sense of closing coal mines and steelworks and then importing as well as paying benefits to UK workers is crazy.

Get real with the crap about kids being required etc. to support us as pensioners – it’s totally irrelevant. The debate is not whether kids are necessary it’s whether child benefit is, are you saying you wouldn’t have had kids if the benefit didn’t exist (if so I feel sorry for your kids…).

The mash are on the case

Middle Class To Sell Their Children

😆

are you saying you wouldn’t have had kids if the benefit didn’t exist (if so I feel sorry for your kids…).

So aren’t we supposed to make this sort of decision based on our ability to afford?

So aren’t we supposed to make this sort of decision based on our ability to afford?

If you’re earning £44,000 a year (in the top 5% or so of earners in the UK), and the difference between being able to afford a kid or not is £1000 in child benefit, it says a lot about your poor financial abilities.

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 can’t see any obvious reason that we should subsidize childcare for the top 5% or so of wage earners.

Obviously it is a bit unfair with the 2 salaries thing, but they were pretty clear about why – this way it hardly costs anything to administer (just a slight addition to PAYE or a note on your tax return). Whereas doing tax credit style means testing would be very expensive, and they are aiming to simplify not add complication to the system (I understand there are some simplifications / removals of family tax credits in the pipeline also).

Joe

That’s a different point though FuzzyWuzzy wasn’t explicitly making his comment to higher rate tax payers. Anyway, not all higher rate tax payers feel rich I’m sure – lots of other outgoings to consider and their mortgage/rent might be an issue if they’re in the SE and want to live somewhere they consider to be OK.

All that has been done is another inequality, Would have been better setting a total household income rather than basing it on individual’s salaries. That would get round two earning just under the 40% threshold getting it and one earning over not.

I’m not sure household income is fairer. I think a family where one partner earns 48k is better off than one where both partners earn 24k.

Why do you think that? They’ll take home more as both using their lower income tax bands – some is tax free.

But it is certainly not fair that a household income of around 80k gets the benefit and one of 44k doesn’t.

I think a family where one partner earns 48k is better off than one where both partners earn 24k.

You think wrong.

Interesting perspectives on here. The lose of this benefit for my wife and I can be covered in a number of ways.

1) Fewer MTB trips a year to wales.
2) Only 1 pint after work on a Friday.
3) fewer canteen lunches at work.

etc..

When I think of it like that we definitely don’t need it and it won’t take anything away from our little girl but on top of;

1. Forthcoming VAT rise.
2. Increased Petrol.
3. Increasing mortgage repayments (Interest rates have only 1 way to go next year)
4. Increasing car insurance costs.

It’s not the best of news!

Any Joe mentioned, the gov admit that the definition of who qualifies isn’t perfect but is simple to administer.

I said better off, not have less take home pay.

But it is certainly not fair that a household income of around 80k gets the benefit and one of 44k doesn’t.

it does seem to be an outstandingly stupid way of doing things

I said better off, not have less take home pay

Sorry you’ve lost me. person 1 who gets paid less in real terms than couple 2 is better off than couple 2???

I’m not sure household income is fairer. I think a family where one partner earns 48k is better off than one where both partners earn 24k.

48k takes home approx £2885.87
2 x 24k takes home approx £3080.70

I said better off, not have less take home pay.

?

2) Only 1 pint after work on a Friday.

As opposed to 8?

For me this (and tax credits) are about taking money off me in tax, and then giving me it back – so don’t take it in the first place!

And
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?

Grrr, who voted these twunts in???

We made the decision that the misses stays at home and looks after the kids (4 of them), we believe that this is the best as it allows proper care of our kids by giving them the attention and time that they deserve to grow up into decent human beings.

I’m lucky enough to be in the higher band but not by much and fair enough cut it for high earners but surely the combined household income is a better measure.

It would be better to drop my days and send the misses out to work.

yes as one has a full time carer at home that the other does not
quality of life [better off] may not be just down to pounds and pence.
EDIT: Not saying I agree but I get the point.

it does seem to be an outstandingly stupid way of doing things

Suspect we should get used to that

Would you say that one person working 80hours a week was better off than someone working 40 for the same or nearly the same pay? It’s the same principle.

Also one couple is presumably paying childcare whilst the other isn’t. If you have one partner earning and the other at home you’ve always got the option of the non working partner to get a job if they need more income. That’s what I mean by better off.

I’m not saying the earn 80k as a couple and keeping child benefit isn’t ridiculous mind.

yes as one has a full time carer at home that the other does not
quality of life [better off] may not be just down to pounds and pence.

of course but why give more money to the one with the most take home pay?

yes as one has a full time carer at home that the other does not

thats quite a big assumption

Junkyard and uluru,

big assumptions that someone earning 44K + a year has a partner.