View Single Post
Old 06-10-2010, 15:54   #138
Hugh
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 68
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 43,798
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Re: Child Benefit Scrapped For Higher Rate Tax Payers From 2013

Interesting analysis on the BBC Politics blog Stephanomics

The bit that caught my attention was
Quote:
According to the IFS, single parents are now about 13-16% better off as a result of Labour's tax and benefit changes, depending on whether they work. Non-pensioner households without children, on average, are worse off than they would have been if the 1997 system had remained unchanged. (These averages exclude people earning more than £100,000 a year who have been hit by higher tax.)

Interestingly, given this week's debate, Labour's changes also turn out to have favoured families with "stay at home" mums.

Other things equal, the average one earner household with children was nearly 6% better off in 2010 than they would have been under the old system, whereas, households with children where both couples work were just over 1.2% worse off.

But note this last group still did a lot better than dual earner couples without any children in the house, who were about 4% worse off as a result of the changes Labour brought in.
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.

If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Hugh is online now   Reply With Quote