Child benefit to be scrapped for higher taxpayers - Page 4

Desmo · 07-10-2010, 21:27

Try being self employed. You sweet FA

Lozza · 07-10-2010, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desmo

Try being self employed. You sweet FA

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

Seriously though.... how did you get a mortgage!

Mark · 07-10-2010, 23:10

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.

Desmo · 08-10-2010, 06:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lozza

Seriously though.... how did you get a mortgage!

Bull**** on a self cert

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitten

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???

Kitten · 20-10-2010, 17:05

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitten

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.

Kitten · 20-10-2010, 20:15

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.

Mark · 21-10-2010, 00:00

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.

07-10-2010, 21:27	#31
Desmo The Last Airbender Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Pigmopad Posts: 11,915	Try being self employed. You sweet FA __________________

20-10-2010, 11:33	#35
Admiral Huddy HOMO-Sapien Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chelmsford Posts: 6,692	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. __________________ I just got lost in thought.. It was very unfamiliar territory. Techie Talk \| My gaming Blog \| PC spec \| The Admirals log

20-10-2010, 17:05	#37
Kitten Spinky-Spank Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: 668. The Neighbour of the Beast Posts: 11,226	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'. __________________ "You only get one life. There's no God, no rules, except for those you accept or create for yourself. Then once it's over... it's over. Dreamless sleep for ever and ever. So why not be happy while you're here?" Nate Fisher Last edited by Kitten; 20-10-2010 at 17:11.

20-10-2010, 20:15	#39
Kitten Spinky-Spank Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: 668. The Neighbour of the Beast Posts: 11,226	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. __________________ "You only get one life. There's no God, no rules, except for those you accept or create for yourself. Then once it's over... it's over. Dreamless sleep for ever and ever. So why not be happy while you're here?" Nate Fisher

07-10-2010, 23:10	#33
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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.

21-10-2010, 00:00	#40
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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.