Child Benefit Scrapped For Higher Rate Tax Payers From 2013 - Page 6

**Hugh** · 04-10-2010, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

I think a very substantial portion of the populace would not regard someone earning Â£44k as "poorer" (imho).

From the Guardian

Quote:

Around 1.2 million families - those with one parent earning more than Â£43,875 a year - will be affected. This will cut around Â£1bn from the annual Â£12bn cost of child benefit. But another 6.6m families will not lose out. The average household income for a household containing a higher-rate taxpayer is Â£75,000. But households with two earners each earning less than the higher-rate threshold will continue to get child benefit, even if their combined income is more than Â£43,875.

There are around 900,000 families in this category. Osborne accepts that this is an anomaly, but he believes that any alternative would have been too complicated

Flyboy · 04-10-2010, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think a very substantial portion of the populace would not regard someone earning Â£44k as "poorer" (imho).

They are certainly poorer than those earning eighty-seven thousand pounds.

**Hugh** · 04-10-2010, 18:29

And I don't earn as much as my friend who is a partner at E&Y, but I am not poor - you are playing with words, methinks, conflating "not as well off as" with "poorer".

btw, the Oxford Dictionary definition of poor is "lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society" - do you honestly believe someone earning Â£44k per year is poor?

danielf · 04-10-2010, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

From the Guardian

Quote:

Around 1.2 million families - those with one parent earning more than Â£43,875 a year - will be affected. This will cut around Â£1bn from the annual Â£12bn cost of child benefit. But another 6.6m families will not lose out. The average household income for a household containing a higher-rate taxpayer is Â£75,000. But households with two earners each earning less than the higher-rate threshold will continue to get child benefit, even if their combined income is more than Â£43,875.

There are around 900,000 families in this category. Osborne accepts that this is an anomaly, but he believes that any alternative would have been too complicated

I do have to say that an anomaly that misses > 40% of the target is quite an anomaly...

**Hugh** · 04-10-2010, 18:35

Agreed - but the anomaly is a positive one for the families involved.

As an aside, loved Brendan Barber's comment (TUC General Secretary)

Quote:

While the poorest will be hardest hit by austerity, today's announcement on child benefit shows no one is immune from the government's unwarranted rush to cut.

no one is immune - except the 6.6 million families who are still going to receive child benefit.....

Flyboy · 04-10-2010, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think a very substantial portion of the populace would not regard someone earning Â£44k as "poorer" (imho).

From the Guardian

Quote:

Around 1.2 million families - those with one parent earning more than Â£43,875 a year - will be affected. This will cut around Â£1bn from the annual Â£12bn cost of child benefit. But another 6.6m families will not lose out. The average household income for a household containing a higher-rate taxpayer is Â£75,000. But households with two earners each earning less than the higher-rate threshold will continue to get child benefit, even if their combined income is more than Â£43,875.

There are around 900,000 families in this category. Osborne accepts that this is an anomaly, but he believes that any alternative would have been too complicated

So, there are almost as many who will benefit as those who will lose out. But then these are government figures, so one can assume there are more than nine hundred thousand. It also goes some way to reinforcing my earlier point.

**Hugh** · 04-10-2010, 18:46

So, do you think someone earning 44k is poor?

Flyboy · 04-10-2010, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Agreed - but the anomaly is a positive one for the families involved.

As an aside, loved Brendan Barber's comment (TUC General Secretary) no one is immune - except the 6.6 million families who are still going to receive child benefit.....

And the nine hundred thousand who will escape the cuts, even though they earn considerably more than the cut-off.

**Hugh** · 04-10-2010, 18:48

Excellent - even more winners (but of course, not true, as they will be included in the 6.6 million).

Unless, of course, they feel "poorer" than their friends who earn more than them......

btw, you are making a unquantifiable case - I know quite a few people with only one parent working, who earns more individually than the joint income of many of our friends who both work and earn under Â£43k each.

Flyboy · 04-10-2010, 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, do you think someone earning 44k is poor?

I never wrote that they are. But they are poorer than those earning eighty-seven thousand pounds a year.

**Hugh** · 04-10-2010, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I never wrote that they are. But they are poorer than those earning eighty-seven thousand pounds a year.

Yes, just like someone weighing 18 stone is slimmer than someone weighing 24 stone, but they are not slim - you are employing emotive words (poorer) inappropriately, imho.

Flyboy · 04-10-2010, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

And I don't earn as much as my friend who is a partner at E&Y, but I am not poor - you are playing with words, methinks, conflating "not as well off as" with "poorer".

btw, the Oxford Dictionary definition of poor is "lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society" - do you honestly believe someone earning Â£44k per year is poor?

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

**Hugh** · 04-10-2010, 18:54

I presume you understand the meaning of the term "emotive" - do you really think it is accurate to state that because I earn Â£80k a year less than my friend, I am poorer? I may not be as well off, but "poorer"?

(4 bed house in a upmarket suburb, two cars, a couple of holidays a year, two kids at Uni - must be a new definition of "lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society" I hadn't come across before.....)

colin25 · 04-10-2010, 19:09

I am not "poor"..and I don't earn Â£80k less than my friends,..but if anyone earning that wants a friend, who they can say they earn more than..I am available for a reasonable fee, negotiable

04-10-2010, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

I have never read such an obnoxious post in my life ,not for the first time have you bragged about your lifestyle and money .You have been lucky others including myself have had to take cuts in wages to remain in work ,i suggest you get back on planet earth with the rest of us lowly under 30k proles .My earnings have been upto 47k untill 2 years ago now they are down to 26k at best ,my wife works on minimum wage wearas previously she didn't need to how would you suggest anybody just increases their income ,i already do 12-13 hours a day