nick205
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 12:20 PM |
|
|
Child Benefit
Heard the news...?
Anyone on the higher rate tax band will lose child benefit payments!
It works like this...
1 parent working and earning just over the limit and 1 parent not working (£44k income = NO child benefit
Both parents working and both earning just under the limit (£88k income) = FULL child benefit
That's us kicked in the nuts BIG time AGAIN.
We have 3 kids, the 2nd and 3rd being twins so not what we'd planned. That means we're set to lose £2,400 a year household income
 
Listening to Ian Duncan-Smith on Radio 4 laying it on thick as you like about how hard it is to make these decisions and how the government were left
with the Labour legacy. I just wonder what state we'd be in now if the Cons had been in power for the last decade - I'd bet a testicle or
two it would be no better than it is now
ETA:
Listening further, they're now saying, IF they do it, it may not come into effect until after the next election.
That begs several questions...
1. How do they know they'll still be in power?
2. Do they think that level of cut will still be necessary in 4-5 years time?
3. Are they saying the economy will not have recovered sufficiently over that period?
4. If it's scaremongering, what REAL and immediate cuts are they planning and not telling us about?
[Edited on 4/10/10 by nick205]
|
|
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 12:41 PM |
|
|
Seems weird that the 88k income gets full child benefit. IMO they shouldn't get child benefit, nor should 44k earners. 44k is a
LOT of money
Edited to add bold for emphasis
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Benzine]
The mental gymnastics a landlord will employ to justify immoral actions is clinically fascinating. Just because something is legal doesn't make
it moral.
|
|
|
YQUSTA
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
I agree that the way it is worked out is very unfair.
What I don't understand is why there is a child benefit in the first place. Apart from those on the dole???
"If in doubt flat out"
Colin McRae
|
|
|
thunderace
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 12:43 PM |
|
|
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 12:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
Seems weird that the 88k income gets full child benefit. IMO they shouldn't get child benefit, nor should 44k earners. 44k is a
LOT of money
Too right!
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
Madinventions
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 12:48 PM |
|
|
I agree... kids cost money - no real suprise there. If you can't afford them, then you don't have to have them! It's not
compulsory. If you do decide to breed, then why should the taxpayer reward you for it?!
It's about time that the culture of expecting payouts for everything was discouraged as vigorously as possible - probably starting with
'personal injury specialists'.
Mojo build diary: http://www.madinventions.co.uk
Solo music project: Syrrenfor http://www.reverbnation.com/syrrenfor
View my band website:
http://www.shadowlight.org.uk
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk/
|
|
|
Alfa145
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 12:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
Agreed
44k is alot of money and surely people aren't stupid enough to budget for kids on the basis of what benefits they get?
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
 yeah Thanks guys. I needed a bit of extra cash so decided to have kids. Keep the hand outs coming*
*yes, tongue is very firmly in cheek. Do you actually think that people have kids to get money? OK, lets say the MAJORITY of people. You have to
exclude the state spongers who get handouts for everything. But really the child benefits are not much. But it does help. And then to have it reduced
or taken away is like us being taxed again. Surely thats even more unfair?
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
Guinness
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Madinventions
I agree... kids cost money - no real suprise there. If you can't afford them, then you don't have to have them! It's not
compulsory. If you do decide to breed, then why should the taxpayer reward you for it?!
It's about time that the culture of expecting payouts for everything was discouraged as vigorously as possible - probably starting with
'personal injury specialists'.
Interesting debate.
But what happens if you take a sensible and detailled look at your income, your partners income (and what happens when they go on maternity leave / go
back to work) and you include the tax breaks and benefits that the govt provide at the time (Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit). Taking all that
into account you decide to have a child.
Then the govt moves the goal posts. Can I hand the child back? Obviously not, but child benefit can make a massive difference (see Nick's
example).
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:08 PM |
|
|
First up, I don't "expect" anyone to "pay" for my kids. You could however argue that taxpayers money spent on children
and in particular their education (should) provide a universal benefit to the country and and it's economy. The ageing demographic, of which
we're all a part, will need supporting by the following generations - let's hope we equip and enable them to do so!
Second, I/we did budget carefully and with surplus for kids - 2 kids to be precise - we ended up with 3. Again no one else's fault and hey life
could throw an awful lot worse at you (brother and sister in law lost a child )
Thirdly, I'm not saying it's "right" that those over the higher tax band should receive child benefit. The fact is the
benefit exists and is claimed - if you take it away people will notice and complain.
Finally, and the main point I was making, is the disparity in the way it will apply to households with substantially different incomes. IMO if the
benefit is to exist at all it should be based on household income and not that of the individual parents. If the net result was no child benefit for
our household then so be it - at least it would fall fairly on us!
|
|
|
speed8
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:17 PM |
|
|
I'm of the 'there shouldn't be child benefit' camp.
If there has to be child benefit it should be capped at one child and for the needy only.
I don't class the serial benefits scroungers as needy, the only thing they are needy of is a good kick up the ar5e.
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:21 PM |
|
|
Tax isn't fair.
I pay towards the NHS, do I complain that I'm not ill?
I pay my road tax. Yet my road has terrible pot-holes.
So therefore people without kids should help contribute to the upkeep of mine. And they are needy little buggers. They want a PS3 and a new slim Xbox
360, these things aint cheap. 
Seriously though, I often think the people in middle income, like myself, often have it tougher. People with a high salary should be able to afford
more. People on lower salary, or people on benefits are entitled to more hand outs. Yet me, earning just enough gets virtually bugger all help
financially. And we are often the ones hardest hit when the tax benefits are cut.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
Because those kids are going to be paying the taxes that pay for your social security when you've stopped working.
|
|
|
dan8400
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
I totally agree. If you CHOOSE to have kids you should be able to AFFORD to have kids.
And, as mentioned, 44k is ALOT of money.
Dan
Hey - That's Journey!!!
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:27 PM |
|
|
Lets look at the reason FOR having child benefits....
Most people in the UK have children.
Government wants to buy your votes.
ergo, give people with kids some 'help'.
When really, we are all inteligent enough to know that if child benefit (or any tax come to think of it) was increased by £x amount per year then the
government would add £x per year to another tax somewhere to pay for it.
The people without kids, don't get hung up on this and feel hard done by. You are not missing out on free hand outs. Its all just smoke and
mirrors stuff. And regardless of what party is in power, the 5h1t is still the same, its just the level that changes
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:28 PM |
|
|
In the words of Homer Simpson.... Nobody 'chooses' to have kids.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
Surrey Dave
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:29 PM |
|
|
44k!
I don't understand why anyone other than GENUINELY poor people ever got child benefit................
All this stuff encourages people to have little or no responsibility, " oh it's alright i'll just have and do what I like someone
will pickup the tab"
44K I'd thought I'd died and gone to heaven!
[Edited on 4/10/10 by Surrey Dave]
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:36 PM |
|
|
The level is immaterial. We all live upto and beyond our means.
I now earn about 3 times what I did when I started working. Am I minted? NO. Do I depend on my (very little) child benefit? NO. Does it help? YES.
Does it feel like a kick in the nads if its taken away, or reduced year on year? YES. Did I plan or budget having kids? NO. Does anyone?
OK, lets lower the limit from 44k to a more 'average working income' of say 21k. What have we actually done? Just infuriated more people
but the argument still stands. You can still afford kids if you earn 22K. or 19K, or 16K. You will still get the people on 15k moaning that they know
someone who earns 25K, why are they gettting benefits etc etc yawn yawn.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:45 PM |
|
|
I'm in the same position as Nick205 and agree it seems unfair. We have given up a lot of income by my wife deciding to stay at home and look
after the kids. There is no transferrable tax allowance so we miss out there and now we are penalised again
quote:
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
If you want opt out of society and agree to not take anything from the state when you can no longer work I'm sure my kids will be pleased as it
will be one less old person for their taxes to support!
[Edited on 4/10/10 by whitestu]
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
Because those kids are going to be paying the taxes that pay for your social security when you've stopped working.
No they will be paying for the next 2 generations of benefit scroungers, I've 15 years to go to retire and cant see me getting a state
pension!!
As for child benefit, it should be means tested IMO, fair across the board.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 02:28 PM |
|
|
The rules surrounding who gets it and who doesn't is indeed grossly unfair, however... it shouldn't exist in the first place!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 02:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
we have no kids and hate the fact we pay for evryone who has kids,
why should we pay anything for your kids in tax to fund your kids if we choose not to have any.
(i would love to know why )
What a blinkered view. You do realise it will be "everyone's" kids who pay taxes to keep you when you get old and your savings have
run out? Oh, and I hate to break it to you but you pay a darn sight more to educate our kids than on child benefit! 
Yes, there are those who have kids through ignorance or to sponge off the state but they are a tiny minority. There is also the small matter of
keeping the population going, possibly the best answer to the old question, "what is the meaning of life?" By some simple arithmetic, each
person has to have on average at least one child to keep population static. This means that each "couple" has to have at least 2 kids and
then to take account of accidents, illness and infertility then some will need to have either more kids with the same mate or more than one mate.
As for child benefit, I currently have 3 kids aged 16, 14 and 11 and get CB for all three. I am (only just) a higher rate tax payer and my wife is a
primary school teacher. We get something like £2500pa at the moment although that would be coming down a bit by the time the CB cut comes into effect
due to our eldest being 19 years old. This still means that we will be set to lose £1750 or so per annum which is not insignificant. Even so, given
the state Labour has left our country in, I believe it is the correct decision but only if other parts of society get hit proportionally equally. I
believe this will happen and when it does, those people above or below the "middle classes" hit by this cut, will have no cause for
complaint.
Kids are expensive and a £1750pa cut is painful regardless of income level. My wife and I aren't rich. We have a 75% LTV mortgage, a 55 reg SEAT
Altea, an 08 reg Toyota Aygo, no savings and plenty of debt. We go to eurocamp for holidays and don't have a lavish lifestyle. Most of this is a
result of having kids at an early age but, you know, I wouldn't change a thing because having kids is well worth it!
Does anyone else think it is hypocritical the way that the majority of people expect cuts but then freak out when something of value to them is cut?
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 02:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
I wouldn't change a thing because having kids is well worth it!
THAT is the bottom line. Well said. Sod the tax arguments. Its worth it. Infact its almost worth having sex for
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 03:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by balidey
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
I wouldn't change a thing because having kids is well worth it!
THAT is the bottom line. Well said. Sod the tax arguments. Its worth it. Infact its almost worth having sex for
Well said!
One thing I didn't mention earlier is the fact that, if we bring kids into the world and educate them well in a stable family environment then
there is an excellent chance that they will grow up to be happy, healthy, law abiding citizens (aka Tax Payers) who will bring with them a net income
over their lifetime. This means that they themselves pay back any benefits they may have received as a child.
Does anyone know if there are any figures which track the average "income" per child born in the UK? It is probably just Per Capita Income
which is $36000 per annum for the UK.
[Edited on 4/10/2010 by craig1410]
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 4/10/10 at 03:12 PM |
|
|
Child benefit was introduced just after WW2 where upon it was deemed that bringing up of several children was to be encouraged to restore the birth
rate.
From what my parents have said, it wasn't ever intended to be a long/forever thing.
44k is a lot of money!!! Yes, on the face of it, it does seem unfair as to whether there is 1 or 2 parents earning the amount........but the only
alternative appears to be a long winded means test form.
It has amazed me for many years that it has been 'a given' to everyone regardless of their wealth or, indeed lack of it.
The limit is way overdue, but sadly is not a vote winner amongst some when an election is due.
All above IMHO of course!
Fozzie .......
Mum of 3 .... Step Mum of 1 ..... = 4
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
