Child Benefit Scrapped For Higher Rate Tax Payers From 2013

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I presume you understand the meaning of the term "comparative."

Wow, Flyboy, champion of the middle classes. I guess that means you're from the Blairite wing of the party, then. A disciple of David rather than an acolyte of Ed?

Originally Posted by alferret

About time, but why wait till 2013? 2011 sounds better to me.

this would because it will most likely be based on previous years earnings (can't see any other way of doing it ,same as the tax credit system)since we are nearly half way through the 2010-11 year it will effectively be a immediate implementation

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Wow, Flyboy, champion of the middle classes. I guess that means you're from the Blairite wing of the party, then. A disciple of David rather than an acolyte of Ed?

Again, with the partisanism. Why must you bring party politics into it? Surely you must see how unfair this method of reducing the deficit is. Yet again, it is the richer in society who win.

In my opinion it is wrong to continue CB payments for houshold incomes of more than 44k,after all just about any benefit i can think of is based on household income not individuals income

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Because the purpose of the exercise is to cut the structural deficit, not usher in a new age of wealth redistribution.

The moment you go beyond a basic check on whether there's a higher-rate taxpayer in the household, you're in to means-testing territory. Means testing processes do not save money, they cost money.

so why not build CB into the child tax credit system ?the structure (for better or worse)is already there ,at least that way those who need it will get it

[colin25]

scrap all...if you can't afford a child..don't have them

lifestyle choice

Originally Posted by colin25

scrap all...if you can't afford a child..don't have them

lifestyle choice

seriously, you aren't serious are you ?

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by chris9991

It could mean a lot of paperwork to keep tabs on the changes

So no change then. when I was signing on, after 6 months I had to go through the whole signing on process again, all 40+ pages plus all the other paperwork they insisted on, even though nothing had changed in some of them.

[colin25]

I am serious. I have never had anything, unless i could afford it, if i couldn't, I do without.

I take precautions, and i would not bring a child into the world, unless i knew i could support that child.

Too much whining about being supported by the state, you have the right to have a child, not a right to have the money.

Originally Posted by colin25

I am serious. I have never had anything, unless i could afford it, if i couldn't, I do without.

I take precautions, and i would not bring a child into the world, unless i knew i could support that child.

Too much whining about being supported by the state, you have the right to have a child, not a right to have the money.

What about accidentaly concieving through a failed contraceptive? abortion? i understand that nobody accidentaly has six kids but you have to allow exceptions

[danielf]

Originally Posted by colin25

I am serious. I have never had anything, unless i could afford it, if i couldn't, I do without.

I take precautions, and i would not bring a child into the world, unless i knew i could support that child.

Too much whining about being supported by the state, you have the right to have a child, not a right to have the money.

The reality is that many people on low income wouldn't be able to afford having children without CB. This is not only tragic for these people but would also be a burden on society in the long run, as society needs people to procreate, so their offspring can pay their taxes to pay their parents' pensions. So it actually makes sense to help people out in having and raising kids. Just not for the very wealthy and for those who want 10 imo.

[punky]

Pleased about this. Now we just have to wait and hope they'll scrap child benefit for everyone else as well.

When I can't afford to have a child of my own, I don't see why I should have to subsidise everyone else's.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------

Originally Posted by colin25

I am serious. I have never had anything, unless i could afford it, if i couldn't, I do without.

I take precautions, and i would not bring a child into the world, unless i knew i could support that child.

Too much whining about being supported by the state, you have the right to have a child, not a right to have the money.

Well said.

[colin25]

The problem with that logic, is that some have kids as a lifestyle choice, helps them get house, benefit,..there are families who only outlook is benefits, and kids who know no other way.

I'm not convinced that is the only, or best way. Far better to reward those who are willing to work..who recognise that to get somewhere you need to work hard.

But, I don't know the ideal solution..perhaps we give benefits for those who have worked for a period of time (put effort in, get it back), and we only support them while they work. And means test it, similar to what is suggested, income over a set amount doesn't qualify .

Not thought it through, but just know that presently it is a perverse incentive to some, and perverse benefit to others.

Not sure I'm invested in the subject to solve it, but I can certainly see the flaws of the present system. At present, universal benefits are unaffordable.

Ok..start the shooting

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by danielf

... society needs people to procreate, so their offspring can pay their taxes to pay their parents' pensions. ...

True.

Basically, we have three choices:

a. Encourage citizens to have children.
b. Encourage people to immigrate, and have children.
c. Do neither, and end up with a pensions bill and healthcare system that are unsustainable.

[colin25]

Four choices

D. Invent the elixer of life, stop having kids

Guess which i choose

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

Pleased about this. Now we just have to wait and hope they'll scrap child benefit for everyone else as well.

When I can't afford to have a child of my own, I don't see why I should have to subsidise everyone else's.

Isn't it a bit ironic that you want to scrap a benefit that is designed to make it easier for people like yourself to have kids?

If anything, you could see it as a way to spread the cost of having kids. You pay some tax for it now, and get the benefit when you have kids. Once the kids grow up you keep paying for the money you received through your taxes.