Child Benefit Scrapped For Higher Rate Tax Payers From 2013

[Taf]

I wonder if they will finally see sense (and financial sense) and scrap the Road Fund Licence ?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by roger skillin

Personally i think if someone is earning more than 44k a year then they don't need to claim benefits as they're already earning enough, those of us that still work our ass off for just 18k need them because we're only on 18k, so anyone moaning that they wont get benefits and they on 45k, do you want to swap jobs with me?

It's not that black and white, wealth obviously is a combination of both income and outgoings, and the opinion here has universally been that it's a good idea.

I would swap jobs with you sadly 18k before tax wouldn't pay the rent on my 2 bedroom, living room barely large enough for the sofas and kitchen, no dining room, maisonette.

If you've a problem with the amount of money you make maybe your time would be better spent doing something to increase this rather than complaining about those with higher incomes, many of whom would have come from low paid homes and worked their way to where they are now.

Just a friendly suggestion from someone who at one point was doing 17-18 hour days door to door to get to this apparently super-wealthy 44k mark.

You're obviously not that impoverished and in need of welfare from the state on your 18k/year if you can afford 50Mbit, 2 V+ boxes, etc, so you get my point about it being about more than incomes.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

I wonder if they will finally see sense (and financial sense) and scrap the Road Fund Licence ?

I am lost as to what that would do to bring down the fiscal deficit, could you explain?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Wayfair

So couples who earn just under the 40% are exempt even though they could have a joint income of £70,000?

In fact it is a joint income of nearly ninety-thousand pounds.

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

I have a project manager who is due a raise. It will take him just over the high rate tax bracket. He and his wife have four children, one is at infant school, the second eldest is at nursery and the twins, who were born in April, are quite obviously at home being cared for by their mother. The raise he will have will bring him to about forty-five thousand pounds a year including the BIK values. It represents a raise of about three thousand pounds a year. A welcome addition to his income, now that he has a bigger than expected family. Now, he will lose over three thousand pounds a year in child benefit. He will be better off not having a raise at all. On the other hand, I have another PM who earns a little bit less; about forty thousand pounds and he is married to deputy headteacher who works in a junior school, she earns approximately thirty three thousand pounds and they three children, giving them a joint income of seventy-three thousand pounds a year. They get to keep their child benefit although, together, they earn more money than the first PM and his wife. Where is the fairness in that?

[danielf]

It does seem strange that joint income is not taken into consideration, as does the fact that there's no tapering. I'm guessing that the reason is that administration is a lot easier and therefore cheaper this way.

On balance, I think this is a good move though.

[Wayfair]

[QUOTE=Flyboy;35103118]In fact it is a joint income of nearly ninety-thousand pounds.[COLOR="Silver"]

£37,401 * 2 is not 90,000, or wasn't when I went to school.

Linky.. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Wayfair

In fact it is a joint income of nearly ninety-thousand pounds.[COLOR="Silver"]

£37,401 * 2 is not 90,000, or wasn't when I went to school.

The cutoff is £44k, not £37k.

Originally Posted by BBC

Any couples where one parent earns about £44,000 - roughly the 40% tax level - and above will be affected.

[Wayfair]

So is it 44k or 40% as it anit roughly anything.

I think the point of this is to try to be fair to 99% of the population - there will always be exceptions.

If we don't do anything because of outliers/exceptions, we'll never do anything (and I am not being specific to Child Benefit)

[Flyboy]

It would also very much depend on tax allowances. £37,401 + £6,475 = £43,876

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think the point of this is to try to be fair to 99% of the population - there will always be exceptions.

Seeing as well over one million families will be affected by this, it is a lot more than just one per cent of the population.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

It would also very much depend on tax allowances. £37,401 + £6,475 = £43,876

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 ----------



Seeing as well over one million families will be affected by this, it is a lot more than just one per cent of the population.

Affected, or affected negatively?

OK, then 4-5%.......

[Wayfair]

I, the same as Ignit have worked my sweaty little fingers to the bone, doing 12-16hr shifts on top of the education / quals I needed to grab a fair share of the pie, and I don't see as a one earner that I should be out of pocket while my slightly less paid work mate and his misses who jointly earn loads more are not..

[Horace]

The only reason this wasn't done earlier was political with parties not wishing to lose votes from mainly middle-class areas, often marginal for both Labour and Conservative. I always thought the argument that it guaranteed an income for mothers verses abusive/negligent husbands was hogwash - this move confirms it.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Affected, or affected negatively?

OK, then 4-5%.......

I think you'll find it is closer to twenty per cent of families.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I think you'll find it is closer to twenty per cent of families.

What's your definition of a family? I think there's a few more than 5 million families in the UK.

Edit: According to the Beeb it'll affect 1.2 out of the 7.7 million families currently receiving child benefit which is ~15%.

[Flyboy]

Well that is hardly the five per cent mentioned by Wayfair and fifteen is most certainly closer to twenty than five is.