View Full Version : Child benefit to be scrapped for higher taxpayers
Admiral Huddy
04-10-2010, 10:42
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
This is a ******* joke tbh.
Yet again the higher rate earner gets hit again and again and again.
I know what you are all going to deal the "need and greed" card but most higher rate earners aren't exactly on the rich list.
The combination this and other losses aren't exactly a nominal loss.
How much do you actually get for child benefits, out of interest? Not trolling, just interested to see what you get.
Dymetrie
04-10-2010, 11:43
At the moment, parents are paid £20.30 a week for the eldest child and £13.40 for subsequent children, with payments continuing until the age of 19 for those in full-time education.
It's actually in the article.
The problem with this isn't the people wedged firmly in the 40% tax bracket, it's more those who are right on the cusp. As usual, however, it's based on gross pay, rather than net pay (including costs other than tax), so for people like me it ignores pension, student loan and my travelcard loan.
Then again, the savings for the Government will be quite substantial and mean that they can avoid cuts in other places, which is good for other parts of society.
Swings and roundabouts, really...
Swings and roundabouts, really...
Pretty much what I'm thinking. The alternative of course isn't to make the cuts at all. We'll never know what the consequences of that would have been (had Labour remained in power), but given how much we're already paying to service debt...
I do think it was crazy that the PM qualified for child benefit, but that doesn't make it right to stuff those on the cusp. I suppose it is the simple (i.e. cheap) option though.
There's a huge flaw in this regarding the income/combined income imo. Should be based on combined household income, not single earnings, surely?
And from what I understand of the tax situation around employment, it doesn't touch the millions of self-employed/contractors who are well into the higher earnings bracket but who pay themselves minimum wage & dividends, does it?
And from what I understand of the tax situation around employment, it doesn't touch the millions of self-employed/contractors who are well into the higher earnings bracket but who pay themselves minimum wage & dividends, does it?
No, but they have always been able to fiddle the system, not just over this.
Matblack
04-10-2010, 16:26
Not overly bothered to be honest, I'd rather it went to someone who really needed it then to us. My only issue is that women how are high earners on maternity leave should get it whilst they are on SMP, remove it when they go back.
MB
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
This is a ******* joke tbh.
Yet again the higher rate earner gets hit again and again and again.
No offense Huddy, but this is certainly not my experience when the torys were last in, or with new labour for that matter.
My family have always been hard working with jobs that are average income, and I have seen my peers with better off familys enjoying the delights of full Education Maintanance Allowance, which is based on parental income. Kid's parents who are SO well off that they didnt work full time, or took early retirement, were getting £30 a week. My parents worked 9-5 5 days a week and beyond and I got nothing because their combined income was just on the threshold.
Its a discussion that everyone thinks they know best and everyone feels hard one by. Its all swings and roundabouts, but I know the addage "the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer". This started with Maggie and the Torys, and I feared initially that the Tory government may go back to crapping on the small people.
Fortunatly, at the moment from what I've heard, it seems as though the current government have some good ideas that will help those that are less fortunate....
Time shall tell.
And you can add to this a total (almost) benefit cap of £26k. Though by the time all the other cuts have kicked in, that'll just be mopping up those who somehow escaped.
Knipples
04-10-2010, 20:39
Sorry but I completely agree with this. Someone earning £40k a year isn't going to miss £20 a week.
No, but they have always been able to fiddle the system, not just over this.
I'm not saying it is 'just over this' but the point is that assets should be taken into account to some extent.
I can't say I disagree with it in principle anyway, but I've learned to keep my opinions to myself on this one as they aren't popular and I can't be jiggered arguing over it yet again!
My family have always been hard working with jobs that are average income, and I have seen my peers with better off familys enjoying the delights of full Education Maintanance Allowance, which is based on parental income. Kid's parents who are SO well off that they didnt work full time, or took early retirement, were getting £30 a week. My parents worked 9-5 5 days a week and beyond and I got nothing because their combined income was just on the threshold.
OT but the sooner they scrap EMA the better!
An on topic, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing. You can either afford to have children or you can't. I can't afford to so am not (amongst other reasons.) The sooner this is realised, the better.
Matblack
05-10-2010, 14:26
OT but the sooner they scrap EMA the better!
An on topic, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing. You can either afford to have children or you can't. I can't afford to so am not (amongst other reasons.) The sooner this is realised, the better.
There is a certain logic to your statement but I think you are going to stay disapointed and unless the govenment starts castrating the poor it isn't going to happen.
MB
I didn't realise it was so low. I can't see how £20 per week will make much of a dent. It'll certainly put food in a child's mouth but in the grand scale of things it won't be a deal breaker on whether you can afford kids or not. Me and her bring in what most would consider quite a lot of money on paper but in real life it doesn't go very far, and we only lead very simple lifestyles. An extra £1K wouldn't allow us to be able to afford to have children, considering we'd have to drop part or all of one income.
Matblack
05-10-2010, 16:50
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding as to what Child Benefit is for, despite origianally being designed to increase child birth after WWII it is now supposed to ease the burden but not cover all costs of having a child. To be honest you are right it isn't going to make the difference between being able to afford a child or not but £20 tax free to a stay at home mum is a nice buffer.
Mums who are working and earning over £44k don't need it but Aitch is getting it at the moment and whilst she isn't working it's handy. I have a feeling however that come 2013 she wouldn't get it even if she was on maternity leave which I think is a bit off, its likely the award will be based on the previous years income which would mean she had been above the threshold.
I think the one person earning over £44k and you're out, but two earning £43k and you're in is a total fudge and it means some people who would benefit will not get it whilst some who don't need it will still get it. £44k isn't a massive income in London for example.
I am also interested in what will happen when someone on £43 is offered a £1k payrise. Effectively with two children on CB this is a £700 paycut and actually even more because CB isn't taxed. So there will be a bubble created between £43,999 and ~£46k because parents won't want to take a paycut by having a payrise :D
MB
Knipples
05-10-2010, 18:18
When we were growing up, once my brother had started school, My Mum decided to go back to university to train to become a nurse. This meant that sometimes she wasn't home in time to get us from school. So she used our child benefit money (back then it was like £13 a week for me, and then £9 each for my brother and sister) to pay a sixth former from the local comp to walk us home every day and stay with us in the house til either she or my Dad got home. I know it really helped her. The family had been living on Dads wages whilst she was a stay at home Mum, and the child benefit then paid for the odd trip out. The 6th former stayed on and ended up just walking my brother home when my sister and me started at secondary school and got ourselves home.
By the time I went to college, she gave me the money every week, (by then it had gone up to £15) and I gave £5 of that a week to the girl who drove me to college as petrol money, and then I had £10 to do with what I wanted. I ended up getting a part time job as it wasn't enough to fund college expenses.
Stan_Lite
05-10-2010, 22:18
First things first. I thought long and hard about posting - mostly because I've had a fair bit to drink and may well offend some people by being blunt - but, what the he'll, let's go.
I find it incredible that people who earn nearly twice the national average wage (which, in itself, is an inflated figure and in no way represents the earnings of the majority of the population) have the temerity to complain about the removal of such a paltry sum of money. Let's be realistic, a family with a single earner making £18k needs CB, a family with a single earner making £50k doesn't need CB - it may come in handy but it shouldn't be necessary. If you earn £50k and you are in a position where you depend on a benefit of £20 a week, let's face it, you've overstretched and have no-one else to blame but yourself.
The whole point of benefits is to help those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a difficult position financially. They are not intended to subsidise the frivolities of the middle classes.
When I had my kids I was a low earner and the CB was most welcome. In the unlikely event I was to start producing offspring again, personal guilt would make me donate my CB to the NSPCC, now that I'm earning a good wage.
As a slight aside to the OP; I'm actually enjoying the first few months of this coalition government. I'm not sure if it's the influence of the Liberals or through necessity but the austerity measures seem to be affecting many of the Tory voters who, presumably, vote Tory as they assume they are the party who will look after them and coddle their aspirations.
Don't worry,I'm not deluded enough to think the leopards have changed their spots - I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they find some way to shaft the working classes on the QT ;)
Agreed, to a point. I think the problem here is not that CB has been withdrawn from higher earners. It's the way it has been done and that it obviously hasn't been thought out.
Why should a couple jointly earning £85k be entitled to CB while a couple with Dad on £45k and Mum staying at home to look after the children have their CB taken away?
If they're going to take it away from the latter, then they should take it away from the former.
Same goes for the self-employed who pay themselves minimum wage and a massive dividend to avoid income tax.
PS - I'd whinge a fair bit if they took away my free bus pass, but nonetheless I accept that I don't need it. That said, I've been getting out much more since I have had it, so it helps get me out, and it helps the bus companies because they've gained another passenger.
Admiral Huddy
06-10-2010, 08:26
It's not the point. Loosing the child benefit is of real no loss to me but it's the principle that is in question here. It's always an easy option for the government to hit the higher tax rate earner without the actually thinking the whole thing through. This is just a bit of Spin imo..
I would like to know why the benefit isn't being cut for those on standard rate of tax? They are earning, they don't "Need" it...? and let's face it, the word NEED is key here? My feelings are because they know its a majority of the electorate when the time comes round.
I earn a modest salary for which I pay a 40% tax on. Tax is relative.. the more you earn the more you pay. That's the fairness and its simple. I don't have a problem with that and I'm not even too worried about the CB being cut but the system has to fair throughout the social spectrum.
I would like to know why the people who NEED the benefit can still afford cigarettes, alcohol, and a full sky TV package. I'm not living with my head in the clouds here. Half of my wifes family are on benefits and what they get away with would make you cry.
I want to see reform right across the system. Encourage entrepreneurial individuals, reward hard workers... clamp down on layabout benefit scum that use the NEED to play the system!
Same goes for the self-employed who pay themselves minimum wage and a massive dividend to avoid income tax.
Not as easy as it once was.. and strictly speaking, this wasn't to avoid Tax, it was to avoid an individual paying both sides of the NI.
Not as easy as it once was.. and strictly speaking, this wasn't to avoid Tax, it was to avoid an individual paying both sides of the NI.
It's incredibly easy, and maybe that was the case once upon a time but it certainly isn't now as far as I can see. So many accountants advertise their services with describing ways to avoid paying the 'correct' amount of tax and I don't know a single contractor in this place, earning less than £400 a day, yet paying more than minimum wage tax. It's standard practice among self-employed people (who I think should get tax incentives albeit above board ones rather than those that are legal, yet morally questionable) and contractors.
Admiral Huddy
06-10-2010, 13:44
The small PAYE + large dividend payment was not to avoid paying tax. It was to avoid paying both Employer and Employee NI which since the contractor and company are effectively the same things, because of auditing laws, the individual ended up paying both where as a normal employee would only pay one half..
As for the tax, the company paid the Tax Credit of 10% and you as in individual paid the shortfall on the personal tax. But again, since this is effectively from the same individual source, the correct amount of tax is applied. You paid your taxes in one way or another but not through PAYE.
What the IR felt was unfair, was the expenses which were offset.. IR35 stopped a lot of loop holes that did exist..
To be honest, so what...?? If the people on low income and benefits can cheat the system, then why can't people the other end of the scale.
My wife was telling me only last night, that an old school friend she know weighs over 28 stones and has been classed as disabled and receives incapacity benefit among other things. Her husband has given up work to be her full time carer and receives similar care benefits. .. yet they have 4 kids (one only 3 so obviously not that incapacitated) and 4 dogs!!' They play the system well.. and do it legally.. All paid for by the state..
Now tell me ..
How that is ******* fair on people how have worked hard most of their lives to get the qualifications and experience to get where they are. Most of these people have made huge sacrifices and gambles along the way.. Those that employ and bring work to others... only for some upstart to say " they earn more than us.. they should pay"!!!!
Stan_Lite
06-10-2010, 13:46
I would like to know why the people who NEED the benefit can still afford cigarettes, alcohol, and a full sky TV package. I'm not living with my head in the clouds here. Half of my wifes family are on benefits and what they get away with would make you cry.
I want to see reform right across the system. Encourage entrepreneurial individuals, reward hard workers... clamp down on layabout benefit scum that use the NEED to play the system!
I'm actually in agreement with most of the above to be honest (we'll never agree on the first bit so there's no point thrashing away at that argument again). I agree with what they've proposed so far but they haven't taken it far enough in my opinion.
As obtrusive and demeaning as it is, I feel most benefits should be means tested. There are far too many people on benefits who have better lifestyles than many people who work hard. I read an article in the Times on these proposals and another part of it was that benefits would be capped at £26k for a single household - apparently this will affect 50,000 households in the country. I find it absolutely shocking that so many people can get that amount of money from the welfare system without having to do any work at all. Only about 5% of the people I know earn more than that working full time.
The benefits system needs a damn good overhaul.
Admiral Huddy
06-10-2010, 14:00
The benefits system needs a damn good overhaul.
This is all I'm saying Stan :)
If cuts are to be made then it has to be felt throughout. I'm quite happy to loss the benefit but it has to be fair on both ends of the spectrum. I don't like seeing my (or anyones for that matter) tax money being spent on peope who don't need it and this extends to standard rate payers too. As far as i'm concerned once it's gone they can't take it away again.
ha Years ago when I was contracting, when writing my cheques out the IR (apprantly we never paid tax :rolleyes:) I used to joke to my wife... "here you go.. might as well pay that straight to your family" but the ironic thing it wasn't far from the truth..
I read an article in the Times on these proposals and another part of it was that benefits would be capped at £26k for a single household - apparently this will affect 50,000 households in the country.
That number is what's left after the cuts to CB, Housing Benefit, et. al. have all been applied. Do that same calculation today and the figure is several times larger. If you were shocked before, I dread to think what you are now.
And unfortunately Huddy, your 'disabled' school friend can carry on playing. SDA claimants are exempt from the £26k cap.
Most peoples complaints about this have very little to do with the actual money side of things but far more about the perceived fairness. Those that pay in to the system are starting to get very pee'd off with those that just take. Keep things relatively fair and those paying in don't mind supporting those that can't but when the tables turn too far you'll start to hear complaints. It's not about greed and money, it's about the system being fair.
You don't need to explain the tax situation to me, I do understand it already and it's largely redundant anyway - as I said it my have BEEN the way it was, however it ISN't now.
To be honest, so what...?? If the people on low income and benefits can cheat the system, then why can't people the other end of the scale.
and that quote there in my opinion sums up a large part of the problem. And you could have just said that instead of justifying the tax 'perks', because that's the real reason, isn't it?
"They do, so I will"
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it's fair on me that I pay a large proportion of tax as do you but as I have no children, I get NOTHING back from the state whatsoever. You avoided that in the last thread (or more likely didn't have an answer that was fair in any way) and still haven't answered it now. You're still far better off than me as you at least get *SOMETHING* back from your 'investment' but I don't.
However, you don't see me complaining unless the 'please don't stop my free money' brigade start up. Agreed with Desmo completely, when it's fair and I can have some extra cash for my 'life choices' that I don't actually need but is nice to have, then I'll be happier.
Oh wait, that's not what welfare is about, is it?
Matblack
07-10-2010, 11:51
as I have no children, I get NOTHING back from the state whatsoever. You avoided that in the last thread (or more likely didn't have an answer that was fair in any way) and still haven't answered it now. You're still far better off than me as you at least get *SOMETHING* back from your 'investment' but I don't.
I'm not sure that you don't get anything back from the state whatsoever (I'm sure we all access the results of taxation in many diffferent ways and in some ways tax is a gamble, insuring you against your need to use faciliites at a later date) but I do understand what you mean.
In my view welfare handouts should be limited to those in need, as I stated earlier universal CB is a legacy benefit from WWII which is no longer relevent in our society, it's impact is scalable on parental income BUT joint parental income. If we judge just on one income this makes a sensible change into a mockery. Take it away and make it a benefit which needs to be applied for, the systems are in place for means testing and making this change alone will stop many from applying for it.
To be honest, so what...?? If the people on low income and benefits can cheat the system, then why can't people the other end of the scale.
The benefits system in this country is open to abuse as is the tax system however to justify tax avoidence through benefits abuse is absurd. No one should be abusing the system but fidling taxes removes money from the system the shortfall of which is made up by the middle of society, whilst the systems remain in place for benefits abuse some rich bugger is cutting off my nose to spite some benefits abusers face and taking no pain themselves.
I believe in a system of benefits for the poor in part because you never know what is around the corner, there but for the grace of the redundancy axe it could be us signing on in a year and will cuts coming in the public sector it could well be me, I'd like to know that I have something to fall back on. That aside if you don't help the poor then their children suffer and they become the next generation of benefits abusers, better that they aspire and are given the tools to be tax payers.
So take it away and spend it on bettering the economy and later on improving the lot of children in areas of deprevation, create a child support benefit which is means tested and only available to those on low or no wages and reform the benefits system so that it can't be easily abused. But they won't because it will cost too much money to implement and when they are so penny pinching they won't come up with a solution which doesn't penalise a family earning £80k but will penalise a family earning £45k, because it is the cheapest way to implement it, don't hold your breath.
MB
Stan_Lite
07-10-2010, 12:36
In my view welfare handouts should be limited to those in need, as I stated earlier universal CB is a legacy benefit from WWII which is no longer relevent in our society, it's impact is scalable on parental income BUT joint parental income. If we judge just on one income this makes a sensible change into a mockery. Take it away and make it a benefit which needs to be applied for, the systems are in place for means testing and making this change alone will stop many from applying for it.
The benefits system in this country is open to abuse as is the tax system however to justify tax avoidence through benefits abuse is absurd. No one should be abusing the system but fidling taxes removes money from the system the shortfall of which is made up by the middle of society, whilst the systems remain in place for benefits abuse some rich bugger is cutting off my nose to spite some benefits abusers face and taking no pain themselves.
I believe in a system of benefits for the poor in part because you never know what is around the corner, there but for the grace of the redundancy axe it could be us signing on in a year and will cuts coming in the public sector it could well be me, I'd like to know that I have something to fall back on. That aside if you don't help the poor then their children suffer and they become the next generation of benefits abusers, better that they aspire and are given the tools to be tax payers.
So take it away and spend it on bettering the economy and later on improving the lot of children in areas of deprevation, create a child support benefit which is means tested and only available to those on low or no wages and reform the benefits system so that it can't be easily abused. But they won't because it will cost too much money to implement and when they are so penny pinching they won't come up with a solution which doesn't penalise a family earning £80k but will penalise a family earning £45k, because it is the cheapest way to implement it, don't hold your breath.
MB
This is what I wanted but failed miserably to say. In my defence, I was too intoxicated in my first post to articulate my thoughts properly and in a bit of a rush when making my second post. I would make a fresh attempt at it but it's easier just to quote MB's post. Since our politics are pretty much the same, I rarely disagree with anything he posts on the subject and the above quote pretty much sums up my position.
Thanks Matt :)
Yep. Matt, agree with pretty much everything you said there.
I believe in a system of benefits for the poor in part because you never know what is around the corner, there but for the grace of the redundancy axe it could be us signing on in a year and will cuts coming in the public sector it could well be me, I'd like to know that I have something to fall back on.
The sad thing is that by the time you were actually entitled to any kind of benefit.. once any savings/redundancy pay/assets are taken into account you'd have got your self a new job anyhow.
Housing benefit erks me along the same lines too... because you worked hard and put a deposit on a house and have a mortgage your only entitled to get the interest on your interest paid.. yet if you rent you get pretty much all of that paid. Even though rent can often be far more than a mortgage.
Try being self employed. You sweet FA ;D
Try being self employed. You sweet FA ;D
indeed been there and done that... but we all know your one of the minimum wagesters who take 2.5 million a year in dividends :p
Seriously though.... how did you get a mortgage!
Pretty easily when the banks were almost giving them away. Probably not nearly so easy now though - and even harder if the FSA gets their way.
Also agree with Matt - I used £85k instead of £80k as an example but the result is the same.
Seriously though.... how did you get a mortgage!
Bull**** on a self cert ;D
Admiral Huddy
20-10-2010, 11:33
2% tax on BRT.. effects everyone relative to what you earn..
Everyone, including the government is trying to establish "groups" of people and what they earn. It's been tried before and you just can't do it.
What you going to have next , people in the SE of England with higher taxes because statistically they earn more.. com'n.
Admiral Huddy
20-10-2010, 11:39
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it's fair on me that I pay a large proportion of tax as do you but as I have no children, I get NOTHING back from the state whatsoever. You avoided that in the last thread (or more likely didn't have an answer that was fair in any way) and still haven't answered it now. You're still far better off than me as you at least get *SOMETHING* back from your 'investment' but I don't.
I've already said that loosing the benefit is of no bother to me.. I does my wife as she is effected by everything I earn... As far as I'm concerned once it's gone it's gone.. they can't take it away again. My point in all this, is that the benefit has to go completely, like they did MIRAS, MPA etc.. If the pinch is to hurt.. then it must hurt everyone... not just a target group...
Investment??.. what you going on about???
Well you seem to be complaining about it enough and saying it must be fair for everyone. I don't see how it's fair to me at all that anyone who chooses to have children will have that support to the tune of a couple of thousand a year for 19 years....yet I won't benefit from getting my pension a few years earlier because I haven't had that handout or any other such offset. (For clarification, I understand the system and don't expect that, but I'm asking purely to understand how you think it's a less fair system for you than it is for us). Oh and in this scenario, your wife is part of the equation because she and you are a couple, and presumably share wages/bills/benefits, so it is applicable, even if it doesn't go into your pocket directly.
So, as you're all about the fairness, I'm interested in how you think that the current system is fair to higher-tax rate paying people with no children. That's my main point.
And the investment part was due to you going on about how much you 'pay in' to the system. You talk about it like it's an investment, you want something back for it, and seems you are only angry that it'll be taken away because you pay a higher rate - so that's why I used the terminology, really for want of a better description. It's also why i used quotations to show that it's not actually an 'investment'.
Dymetrie
20-10-2010, 18:30
Well you seem to be complaining about it enough and saying it must be fair for everyone. I don't see how it's fair to me at all that anyone who chooses to have children will have that support to the tune of a couple of thousand a year for 19 years....yet I won't benefit from getting my pension a few years earlier because I haven't had that handout or any other such offset. (For clarification, I understand the system and don't expect that, but I'm asking purely to understand how you think it's a less fair system for you than it is for us). Oh and in this scenario, your wife is part of the equation because she and you are a couple, and presumably share wages/bills/benefits, so it is applicable, even if it doesn't go into your pocket directly.
So, as you're all about the fairness, I'm interested in how you think that the current system is fair to higher-tax rate paying people with no children. That's my main point.
And the investment part was due to you going on about how much you 'pay in' to the system. You talk about it like it's an investment, you want something back for it, and seems you are only angry that it'll be taken away because you pay a higher rate - so that's why I used the terminology, really for want of a better description. It's also why i used quotations to show that it's not actually an 'investment'.
I'd actually see the investment side of things as child benefit being an investment. Give the parents some assistance so that they can raise children who can then start paying tax.
I'd hope that the vast majority of society actually pay far more into NI through tax than they cost it!
And, to be honest, Huddy is correct that his wife doesn't come into the equation, which is also why it's not fair. Why penalise someone who earns over 45k (regardless of what their spouse/partner earns), yet still pay benefit to a couple who earn 44k each?
For it to be fair then it not only has to be based on a household income, but should take into account external factors, because gross pay does not equal net pay.
Unfortunately that would mean that it had to be means tested, which would cost much more to administrate, and would rely on people being truthful. Unless everyone agrees for the state to have complete access to their finances!
And finally, it's a national insurance system.
I said at the very opening of this thread that I didn't agree with the way they were going to organise the way the benefit was given out and that there was a serious flaw in that.
I'm not arguing with the point you make re: future proofing either. I have no issue with paying into the system & not claiming child benefit from it and nowhere have I said that I do. In fact, I've gone to pains to explain this.
I also think that if you want the state to help you, then you need go be means tested & yes maybe that does mean allowing the state to view your finances. After all if you're asking for public money then why shouldn't you have to prove you need it? It's not a bottomless bucket for Christ's sake it has to come from somewhere and too many people think it's a system of entitlement, not a system of need.
My point was for Huddy to explain to me why people who earn more should get the benefit because they pay more into it. Because some get nothing (or nothing tangible, as MB pointed out) and if that's what makes it fair, then where's ours?
I think ultimately we agree in principle, but just disagree on some of the finer points.
Kitten, I'm a bit confused by what you're taking issue with. If you don't have children, then you don't get the benefit, but you also don't get the expense of bringing them up.
Quite possibly I've got the wrong end of the stick so just need to get it straight in my own mind.
Dymetrie
21-10-2010, 06:28
My point was for Huddy to explain to me why people who earn more should get the benefit because they pay more into it. Because some get nothing (or nothing tangible, as MB pointed out) and if that's what makes it fair, then where's ours?
Sorry, Kitten, but I don't think Huddy's saying that.
I could be wrong, but to me it seems as though Huddy is, quite rightly, perturbed at the ridiculous way in which this benefit is being cut.
Penalising people based on one wage is ridiculous because two people on slightly less can be taking home virtually twice as much yet still receive the benefit!
Mark, good point :)
Well referring to the other thread that started this conversation, that very much wasn't the issue and I haven't seen anything change. I've made the point clearly, several times now, and others understand it perfectly & have answered to demonstrate such. If you don't get it now, then I suspect you arent going to, no matter how many times I explain it.
Admiral Huddy
21-10-2010, 08:55
Sorry, Kitten, but I don't think Huddy's saying that.
I could be wrong, but to me it seems as though Huddy is, quite rightly, perturbed at the ridiculous way in which this benefit is being cut.
Penalising people based on one wage is ridiculous because two people on slightly less can be taking home virtually twice as much yet still receive the benefit!
Mark, good point :)
Precisely my point and we are certainly into this scenerio... and it's just not child benefit either.. it's a host things. Even my daughter is penalised because of what i earn.. which is only just above the HR threshold.
Hey Kitten.. I'm not actually disagreeing with you.. I'm merely pointing out that yes, we can afford the cut and can many other higher rate payers... but this procesure can't by means tested.. The allowance in this case should be go completely to anyone who is earning .. which compliments what you are saying about the fairness of being single or a couple without children.. As you say, it's their choice... same goes for those higher rate payers without kids.. that's their choice.. They are taxed in proporation to what they earn... If someone's paid twice as much s me, i know he';; be paying twice as much tax.. Why is that unfair..?? because in yor world, he should be taxed more???
Which ever way you look at this, it is a direct taxation on one particular group of people... regardless if they can or can't afford it. Since the government claimed "no tax rises" that's exactly what they have done. Abolishment, for the government, would br political suicide and they know it.
I work hard, I pay my taxes just as much as anyone.. I have never will expected anything back from anything or anyone.. nor do I think it gives me any extra privileges like you are wronly assuming but I, like everyone, has a right to voice an opinion, which is all this is..
I'm not arguing with it Huddy, you were, as you're entitled to do. As I've said a bazillion times before, I said that in my initial post in this thread that the threshold decision is ridiculous and unfair - in fact I think I was one of the only people who voiced that early on when others were saying that it wouldn't be missed by higher rate tax payers.
If that's what your beef is, as you've said to Dym, then I don't understand what you were arguing about in the previous Budget thread, because this cut and the restrictions around it hadn't even been announced then and you were having the same argument then, saying it was unfair to cut the child benefit for higher rate tax payers (which I had said I thought was a good idea). In my opinion the decision is a good one, but the practicality of how to arrange it is dire.
As you say, it's their choice... same goes for those higher rate payers without kids.. that's their choice.. They are taxed in proporation to what they earn... If someone's paid twice as much s me, i know he';; be paying twice as much tax.. Why is that unfair..?? because in yor world, he should be taxed more???
I didn't say that was unfair at all, I'm not sure where you got that from (or is that what you're saying?). I actually do have a problem with those who work hard to achieve a better role being penalised quite so highly, because it just strips away the incentive to improve, I mean, why bother when you lose so much anyway?
You seemed (initially) to have a huge chip on your shoulder (rightly imo) about paying so much tax and not getting the child benefit when people who pay nothing get it too. I was pointing out that it's not a fair system, nor, depending on your life choices, will it ever be.I won't get to retire at 50 on a state pension because I didn't claim my 'allowance', because it just doesn't work like that, nor can it. I think you misunderstand me, because I do think you, as a hardworking tax payer should get benefits over people who clearly don't need them, who (and I'm making a statement about a certain group of people here, not generalising about everyone on benefits) piss them up the wall and spend it on going to bingo instead of getting a job and paying back into the system.
On a related subject, Now the EU is talking about extending maternity leave, which is great for those women who will go and have kids, but, it completely buggers up my chances of moving on because people don't want to employ a woman of child-bearing age in case she does a Kaplinksy, gets pregnant twice in quick succession and then leaves. Different situation, granted, but it's still not fair.
As I said, I think we agree on most levels. I'd never deny you your right to voice your opinion, nor would I fall out with you if we don't agree. But this is surely the purpose of a forum, to debate, to air different opinions and hopefully, understand things better from someone else's perspective.
Dymetrie
21-10-2010, 09:54
If that's what your beef is, as you've said to Dym, then I don't understand what you were arguing about in the previous Budget thread, because this cut and the restrictions around it hadn't even been announced then and you were having the same argument then, saying it was unfair to cut the child benefit for higher rate tax payers (which I had said I thought was a good idea). In my opinion the decision is a good one, but the practicality of how to arrange it is dire.
Sorry, Kitten. Didn't realise that was the thread you were talking about.
In complete agreement with you (and I think we're all actually in the same agreement) here, that removing the benefit is a good decision, but it's being done in a stupid way. :)
On a related subject, Now the EU is talking about extending maternity leave, which is great for those women who will go and have kids, but, it completely buggers up my chances of moving on because people don't want to employ a woman of child-bearing age in case she does a Kaplinksy, gets pregnant twice in quick succession and then leaves. Different situation, granted, but it's still not fair.
I definitely agree with this as well. Whilst extending maternity leave appears to be beneficial to women, it will actually be completely the reverse and will purely result in descrimination against all women under the age of 50!
And of course women over 50 already get discriminated against because they're too old. They're obviously going to retire tomorrow, right? :/
[/rant]
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.