Bulletguy Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Its been announced on the news today that Child Benefit payments to higher income earners will come to an end. It is expected to make a saving of around £1 billion a year. The 'cut off' figure given is £44k pa or more. Whilst I think something like this has been a long time coming it is not without it's faults. A couple where say the husband works earning £44k pa and his wife earns £10 or £15k will lose ALL their Child Benefit. But a couple where both husband and wife earn £43k pa EACH (£86k gross) get to keep their Benefit. Somehow that doesn't make sense. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/child-benefit-scrapped-high-earners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 It does make a nice change that the lowest earners are not for once being asked to pay an increasingly larger and disproportionate slice of their incomes in taxation to subsidise the higher paid. It is also good that some of those with kids will at last contribute more to their kids education and health costs. Maybe we will hear more protests from them because the higher paid seem to have loudest voices in this country? Smacks of socialism to me where the better off subsidise the less well off for the greater good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 LBC radio was alive this morning with angry tory Mums! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 It's a big step in the right direction. Why should the taxes of relatively low-paid people be handed over to high-earners? On the issue of married couples' combined incomes, isn't there a way now for the non-working (or lower-paid) partner to transfer their unused tax allowance to the other one? Or did I just dream that? If that can be done, then the anomaly Bulletguy mentions disappears. Never thought I'd hear TORIES bringing in something that penalises the better-off like this. Long live the Coalition! The other big announcement is of a "cap" on the total benefits any one family can get, roughly at average earnings (unless they've got significant disability). As always, the devil is in the detail, and there will certainly be some problems, but on the whole the idea seems right. Even accepting that there aren't jobs available everywhere, it's crazy that people should turn down work with perfectly normal wages, because they get more on benefit. I don't for one moment blame the individuals for doing that, but the system needs adjusting so it doesn't arise. It's important that this will only come in in 2013, giving people plenty of notice to get themselves sorted out (eg by moving into cheaper accommodation etc). Those with jobs have to live where they can afford, the same should apply to those who need to draw benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 4, 2010 Author Share Posted October 4, 2010 Tony Jones - 2010-10-04 2:14 PM It's a big step in the right direction. Why should the taxes of relatively low-paid people be handed over to high-earners? On the issue of married couples' combined incomes, isn't there a way now for the non-working (or lower-paid) partner to transfer their unused tax allowance to the other one? Or did I just dream that? If that can be done, then the anomaly Bulletguy mentions disappears. Never thought I'd hear TORIES bringing in something that penalises the better-off like this. Long live the Coalition! Even accepting that there aren't jobs available everywhere, it's crazy that people should turn down work with perfectly normal wages, because they get more on benefit. I don't for one moment blame the individuals for doing that, but the system needs adjusting so it doesn't arise. Afraid it's not a matter of shifting tax allowance Tony. It's based on the gross income of each partner, hence earners grossing £43k each will still qualify for the benefit, despite totalling £86k, whilst those on £44k lose out. That really needs sorting better but as you say it makes a refreshing change for the Tories or ConDems to be penalising the better off. Yes its a step in the right direction which really should have been done years ago as Child Benefit was brought in to encourage people to populate, so is way outdated now! As for 'perfectly normal wages' that takes us off on another tangent as to just what is considered 'normal'? The national average income is supposedly £23,450 pa. but in my locality IF you are lucky enough to find a job, 99.9% are on the minimum wage. So if a job is any further than a walk or cycle ride away it is not economically viable to go to work. The minimum wage should have been set at a far higher rate to give a better incentive for those who will work. Despite the thread concerning employing staff etc, there are many who WILL and do work. Unfortunately they are working for employers who expect rigid 'contact time', closely monitored breaks of the legal minimum, timed 'toilet breaks', maximum production......but pay them peanuts and crumbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 That's certainly where the big problem is BG. Anyone doing a full-time job, however unskilled, ought IMHO to be paid a wage which covers the cost of living, reasonably carefully, for a modest-sized family. However, globalisation has meant that employers who treat their workers well are undercut not only by local sweatshops, but also by foreign competition, from places where "living reasonably carefully" is defined very differently (ie starvation wages). Don't know the answer, but that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 The problem is that our tax system is based upon the individual. This means that we have all sorts of problems when distributing benefits. Hate to say it that one aspect of the French tax system is far superior to ours (not a lot of it is overall - but this one point has distinct advantages for overall administration, and that is that in France it is the Household that is taxed, not the individual. So at the end of the year a tax return is completed for all in the house and either a top up bill or a rebate is then issued. Simples! It isn't of course because like all tax systems it gets cocked up and is behind and people abuse the system. But when you hear of the nightmare situation of which partner is to be eligible for child benefit by way of joint earnings or individual earnings - I just think - it would be best if we did not start doing this from where we are right now 8-) *-) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 If I had my way there would be no such thing as Child Benefit. If you want children they are the parents responsibility not the States. Suspect if there was no Child Benefit we wouldn't see so many young unmarried mothers. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syd Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 The devil really is in the detail but the anouncements today are really just the rough basics of the idea and will have some considerable refining before they become law. On the whole I am personally supportive of the package, seems to hit the right thread, you know, the thread that we all know are heading in the right direction regardless of our political persuasions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 pelmetman - 2010-10-04 7:36 PM If I had my way there would be no such thing as Child Benefit. If you want children they are the parents responsibility not the States. Suspect if there was no Child Benefit we wouldn't see so many young unmarried mothers. Sue Take that to the extreme though, Sue, and we'd all end up choosing to be childless, since we know they're expensive little ****s. So then who pays for our pensions and health care as we decline into a grumpy old age? No, whatever the "voluntarily child-free" camp may say, it's important for the WHOLE nation that enough people have children, so subsidising those who need it is quite reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Tony Jones - 2010-10-04 8:52 PM pelmetman - 2010-10-04 7:36 PM If I had my way there would be no such thing as Child Benefit. If you want children they are the parents responsibility not the States. Suspect if there was no Child Benefit we wouldn't see so many young unmarried mothers. Sue Take that to the extreme though, Sue, and we'd all end up choosing to be childless, since we know they're expensive little ****s. So then who pays for our pensions and health care as we decline into a grumpy old age? No, whatever the "voluntarily child-free" camp may say, it's important for the WHOLE nation that enough people have children, so subsidising those who need it is quite reasonable. My opinion is not necessarily that of the management (lol) Most of our friends are child free (birds of a feather flock together springs to mind (lol) ) and it is frequent moan that we often earn less than the parents we are supporting with our taxes :D I seem to recall child benefit was introduced after the war to increase the population (?) As the country is now so OVER populated, perhaps the childfree should recieve a bonus for not breeding (lol) Perhaps as Sue said if there was no benefit, the breeding for benefits/housing culture by some sections of society would end, and only children that were really wanted would be born :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 4, 2010 Author Share Posted October 4, 2010 Tony Jones - 2010-10-04 8:52 PM No, whatever the "voluntarily child-free" camp may say, it's important for the WHOLE nation that enough people have children, so subsidising those who need it is quite reasonable. Except Child Benefit was first introduced in 1946 when the population decimated after two world wars, was just below 40 million. According to Gov. websites the projected population is set to exceed 65 million in seven years time. I think there has been enough breeding done for now Tony! (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody. Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I saw a little of the allan tichmarsh show today , and his guests [ dont know who they were ] were talking about these benefit cuts etc , and they also said that the winter fuel allowance is going to be changed from 60 years old to 70 , and i havent heard anything else about this , anyone know anything ? :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Tracker - 2010-10-04 12:39 PM It does make a nice change that the lowest earners are not for once being asked to pay an increasingly larger and disproportionate slice of their incomes in taxation to subsidise the higher paid. It is also good that some of those with kids will at last contribute more to their kids education and health costs. Maybe we will hear more protests from them because the higher paid seem to have loudest voices in this country? Smacks of socialism to me where the better off subsidise the less well off for the greater good?Read the O/P again before you go spouting off Richard. Maybe if you have any comprehension of what is fair, you will see that the way this is being planned is obviously unfair. I don't have a problem with stopping the benefit, but it hits single parents and not couples who are earning £43k each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
602 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Hi, We are both retired, get state and occupational pensions. Household income is a bit over £22,000, and we are very comfortable, thankyou, never had so much DISPOSABLE income. We do not need help with Winter fuel payments, nor anything else ...... but would be reluctant to lose them. On the other hand, if the country is in a mess, we would be prepared to tighten our belts if the Fat Cats tightened theirs, or had them tightened for them. It is amazing how much it costs you to go to work. Not just the travel expenses, but dressing yourself in a suitable manner, and eating away from home, standing your round of drinks or cakes, etc, (which you didn't really want). Add onto that, paying a child minder ....... And then you look at those on subsidised housing that you are supporting. Central heating running full blast all year round - if it gets too hot, open the windows. Taxi to and from the supermarket, cos they are unable to struggle with buses and children. Personally I feel that ALL benefits should be included in the PAYE system. That way 40% tax payers would still get Child Benefit, but not as much as those with no income. 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Agreed 602. But I still feel our taxation of individuals is the main cause of why certain benefits cannot be properly targeted. If we could look at the household or family home members rather than the individuals then the ability of focus a benefit like Child or Winter Fuel would be far easier to manage and get it to those that need it. The different computations as to which families will benefit if one parent earns more/less/same as the other is frankly depressing and is to me a clear indication that once again the politicians have not thought this through - however good I might think the idea is that high income families should not receive child benefit. I can see the "policing" of this means testing costing more than the savings made 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Many years ago, I think it was Ted Heath (after he left office) who put forward an idea for joining up the tax and benefit systems completely. A minimum level would be set which a family of and given size needed to live - respectably but not extravagantly. If you were out of work, but genuinely seeking it (strictly monitored by Jobcentre) or genuinely disabled (ditto by regular medicals), or retired (confirmed by birth certificate!) you'd be paid that level as a benefit or pension. If you were in work, but earning less than the set level, you'd have a "negative PAYE" to top it up in your pay packet. You'd only start to pay income tax when you earned more than the set level, and the rate would go up on a sliding scale (and of course be adjusted annually to provide the funds to finance the state). No other benefits to apply for. Of course there would be things to smooth out round the edges, but it still seems fairer, easier to understand, and cheaper to run. So of course it'll never happen :-D ! And surely the whole debate about "singles £44k+, couples £43k each" is a distraction - it's an imperfection, but only affects a very few, and doesn't alter the fact that the proposal would be a big improvement on the present set-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porky Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 There is no way that it is possible to frame taxation without any anomalies or apparant unfairness. Neither is it possible to close every potential loophole. For example if we had a family benefit through the tax system, like the old married couples allowance that would get over married couples combined incomes because they would be added together to get the benefit. BUT the result would probably be to discourage marriage!!! Also I think we should give this government a bit of breathing space. If we viewed this as the first step in resolving the problems as a result of the monumental financial irresponsilbilty of the last lot, then over time the unfairness can be ironed out. Personally I agree with all those in the "why should people get paid to have children camp" Having kids is not a right, it is a privilage and their costs should be the parents responsibilty. Tough yes but FAIR!!!!!!!!>:-)>:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The main uproar with this seems the unfairness, and that a couple on joint salary of £80000 + will still get the benefit. While stay at home mums, bastions of the Tory ideologue wont. The reasoning for this? Because it is too hard to implement...... Now I know they say you get the government you deserve*-) But if the benefit had to be applied for? Then those on joint salary over the 44k threshold would not be able to apply? Is this rocket science or what...Or simply too easy for a rocking horse chancellor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 woody. - 2010-10-04 10:18 PM I saw a little of the allan tichmarsh show today , and his guests [ dont know who they were ] were talking about these benefit cuts etc , and they also said that the winter fuel allowance is going to be changed from 60 years old to 70 , and i havent heard anything else about this , anyone know anything ? :-( This explains all; http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Pensionsandretirementplanning/Benefits/BenefitsInRetirement/DG_10018657 Until a few months ago I was set to receive the winter fuel allowance.....then they shifted the goal posts which means I now dont get it for another five years. Lost out by just TWO MONTHS being born in September. £250 would have meant a big saving to me as i'm taking early retirement at the end of this year. This constant chipping away and shifting of goal posts leads me to seriously consider leaving the UK altogether if i'm going to enjoy my retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Bulletguy - 2010-10-05 6:55 PM This constant chipping away and shifting of goal posts leads me to seriously consider leaving the UK altogether if i'm going to enjoy my retirement. One of the beauties of this great country of ours is that you have the freedom to do just that and still get paid your UK state old age pension! You would probably be warmer and drier by day but colder by night in the winter and where are you going to go where you will on balance be, wealthier, healthier and safer - unless you are a cunning linguist or have many years experience in your new home of choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 Tracker - 2010-10-05 7:23 PM Bulletguy - 2010-10-05 6:55 PM This constant chipping away and shifting of goal posts leads me to seriously consider leaving the UK altogether if i'm going to enjoy my retirement. You would probably be warmer and drier by day but colder by night in the winter and where are you going to go where you will on balance be, wealthier, healthier and safer - unless you are a cunning linguist or have many years experience in your new home of choice? O/T but Bulgaria. I'm in touch with a few ex-pat brits, some of whom have lived there a good few years. Property of course is mega cheap....£25-30k will buy you a house decent enough to move straight in though I have already been sent details of one completely renovated for just £17k. Living costs such as utilities, rates etc are much much cheaper than UK. I'm neither 'a cunning linguist' or have 'many years experience in my new home of choice' but don't let either put me off. I'm going over to look around for a couple of months early next year. Ten years ago I was on the verge of moving to Switzerland......but thats another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I wish you every success in your search and every happiness in your new found home BG - just watch out for Bulgarians carrying an umbrella - allegedly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 As we do not get child benifit you might think I would be all in favour of this, and I must admit that paying benifits to high earners seems mad, but consider this, prior to the election it was promised that child benifit would be 'preserved', so another tory/libdem broken promise. Also lets not forget that the higher the earner the more they pay tax, so a little 'rebate' of that tax, is it so bad? We still have to learn what further attacks the present government will make on pensioners on top of the 'hidden' ones they have already made, that should be 'good fun'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 When you consider the harm done and the lies told by the last government who can blame any other party for fighting fire with fire? It could be worse - although it must be said that five more years of Grasping Gordon would at least have seen us all nearly equal - we would all have bugger all - except the party fat cats? Always remember the first rule of socialism - all brothers are equal except for party members who art more equal than others! Having taken early retirement at my own expense in 1999 I've seen my cash spending power diminish over the years and my tax liabilities rise whilst those in often newly created and often needless governmet funded jobs and guaranteed pensions prosper at my expense so don't expect any sylpathy from me if some of em are now asked to give some back. If they had not had so much in the first place at the taxpayer's expense they might well not have to give it back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.