Child Benefit Scrapped For Higher Rate Tax Payers From 2013

[Flyboy]

So, how do you know that, many families where one of the partner earns over £44k will be on dual incomes as well?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

No I don't, but it makes more sense than, many families where one of the partner earns over £44k will be on dual incomes as well. Besides, such information it is not so much statistical, as it is practical.

It makes more sense to you because you are ideologically opposed to the Party that forms the majority of the coalition government. In the absence of facts to back up your assertions, you simply see things the way you want to see them.

It's a pity you weren't such a vocal cheerleader for redistributive reform all those years ago when Gordon Brown was busy hooking the middle classes on tax credits.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, how do you know that, many families where one of the partner earns over £44k will be on dual incomes as well?

I don't. Just as you don't know how many people fall into your fictional example. The moment one of the families in your example gets a pay rise of £5k they fall into my example. Whether the number is high or not, we both have the same problem.

As I have said many times now, the measure is a tad crude, which is unfortunate. The basic principle though is sound in my opinion, and I fail to see how anyone that considers himself left of centre can oppose it.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by danielf

I don't. Just as you don't know how many people fall into your fictional example. The moment one of the families in your example gets a pay rise of £5k they fall into my example. Whether the number is high or not, we both have the same problem.

As I have said many times now, the measure is a tad crude, which is unfortunate. The basic principle though is sound in my opinion, and I fail to see how anyone that considers himself left of centre can oppose it.

What "fictional example?"

This has nothing whatsoever to do with left/centre/right. You and others are the ones making those comparisons. This is about what is fair and right. How can it be fair that the rich are given preferential treatment over those who earn less.

I can guarantee you that there are more families earning an average of twenty-one thousand pounds a year each, than there are earning forty-four thousand pounds as a single income.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

What "fictional example?"

This has nothing whatsoever to do with left/centre/right. You and others are the ones making those comparisons. This is about what is fair and right. How can it be fair that the rich are given preferential treatment over those who earn less.

But this is not about giving the rich preferential treatment. It's about taking money away from the rich. Surely that's a good thing?

I can guarantee you that there are more families earning twenty-one thousand pounds a year each, than there are earning forty-four thousand pounds as a single income.

Quite. And I can guarantee you that the earnings potential of the single income 44k family is higher. Chances are that they are fairly well educated, with a well educated spouse.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by danielf

But this is not about giving the rich preferential treatment. It's about taking money away from the rich. Surely that's a good thing?



Quite. And I can guarantee you that the earnings potential of the single income 44k family is higher. Chances are that they are fairly well educated, with a well educated spouse.

But, yet again, the more rich are having less taken off of them, how is that a good thing?

Because the aim of the exercise is to save maximum cash with minimum outlay.

[Flyboy]

So, the rich get off and the poorer still has to pay more.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But, yet again, the more rich are having less taken off of them, how is that a good thing?

Unfortunately, some rich people will be better off than some less rich people. These less rich people are still well off by general measures earning nearly twice the median salary without taking a potential second income into consideration. Not ideal, but generally a good thing as generally the wealthy will be losing a subsidy at minimal administrative cost. It seems you're the only one that opposes it, and I'm surprised by it given your general left wing leanings.

Frankly, I suspect that Chris has hit the nail squarely on the head regarding your motivations for your opposition.

[joglynne]

As HM Revenue and Customs is responsible for the payment of Child Benefit and controlling our Taxes it should be relatively cheap and simple to implement this proposal as it stands.

Obtaining the information to enable combining partners income however would be a completely different matter and would launch a raft of problems. For the extra number of individuals it would effect I predict it would not be a cost effective option at the moment.

I see no problem with this at all my brother who earns well over £44,000 has said for years it was stupid for him to recieve this benefit and he has never spent it i believe it has gone into a bank account for the kids when they grow up. We have to cut something, somewhere and if all some are going to do is oppose every cut purely because they don't like the party that HAS to make them i can only wonder how the hell they think we would have survived another five years of labour.

[Flyboy]

I have not mentioned any political party, others have done that, whilst trying to defend this plan. This is less to do with party politics than it does with knee-jerk, ill-considered badly planned and unfair policies

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I have not mentioned any political party, others have done that, whilst trying to defend this plan. This is less to do with party politics than it does with knee-jerk, ill-considered badly planned and unfair policies

It is odd the standards you seem to be applying here. I don't recall these standards being applied to the nearly 180 tax rises in the previous 13 years. Must just be me being inattentive

Regardless this isn't knee-jerk, it's obviously been considered, it's not ill-considered either. As many have said this policy is to be as fair as possible while reducing deficit. From that angle it is perfectly well considered. To make further effort to make it fairer would have made it pointless as the means testing would have been expensive.

It's politically unpopular, no-one likes having money taken from them, but it's necessary. With that in mind I at it and get on with things. Your prerogative to try and pick holes in it, however there are many things that you could have picked holes in but have chosen not to - any wonder party politics is raised as an issue?

[Pierre]

They should now go further.

If they announced that child benefit would now be stopped after the second child they'd have me whooping and cheering.

Then we'd see and end of some of these feckless families with 13 kids that we pay for. The state should pay for the first two, after that if you want any more pay for them yourself.

[Ignitionnet]

26k/year per household benefit cap will probably take care of that one.