Child benefit to be scrapped for higher taxpayers

[Dymetrie]

Originally Posted by Kitten

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

[Kitten]

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]

Originally Posted by Dymetrie

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..

[Kitten]

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]

Originally Posted by Kitten

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.

Originally Posted by Kitten

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!

[Mark]

And of course women over 50 already get discriminated against because they're too old. They're obviously going to retire tomorrow, right? :/

[/rant]