Child Benefit Changes

[magoo]

Why is there a 'benefit' for simply having a child anyway? If you can't afford to raise a child without state hand outs, don't have a child! This isn't a third world country as much as the Pope insists it is. It's like the government are willing people to breed.

 

[Gazwag]

And If that property was fine art or a house why the hell should the government be able to effectively force the new owner to sell it to pay a tax bill one something that's already had the tax paid ?

The only reason inheritance tax still exists is that the dead can't vote and people see it as a hit on the rich. Morally it's wrong - I bet if the threshold was lowered to say £100k people would soon be calling for it to be scrapped. It's a tax of envy.

I agree it is unfair to force the sale of an asset to pay the tax on it, there should be some sort of deferment in these situations

 

[Gwylan]

£37,400 plus personal allowance £6,475 = £43,875

Ah... I thought that the £37,400 included the personal allowance.

 

[Beach Hut]

Why is there a 'benefit' for simply having a child anyway? If you can't afford to raise a child without state hand outs, don't have a child! This isn't a third world country as much as the Pope insists it is. It's like the government are willing people to breed.

Reasonable point I am sure if we had never had the benefit we would still have been ok.

 

[chimneys]

Appreciating cuts are required across the board, I dont have a great problem with the principle (will be affected and have 2 kids). But what is outrageous is how it is being decided upon.

I could earn £45k pa and lose it, yet my neighbours, both earning £43k each, therefore combined income of £86k pa, will keep it.

Absolutely disgusting!

 

[ROSM]

Appreciating cuts are required across the board, I dont have a great problem with the principle (will be affected and have 2 kids). But what is outrageous is how it is being decided upon.

I could earn £45k pa and lose it, yet my neighbours, both earning £43k each, therefore combined income of £86k pa, will keep it.

Absolutely disgusting!

yep, those who may have made a conscious decision to have a sole income or a sole career and supporting income will suffer. Well that'll serve them right for having ideas above their station. they should know their place!

 

[Blackadder]

Listened to 'Gormless George' this very morning on Radio 5, he said that if either earner was in the higher tax bracket then no benefit. However you could have two earners on 40k (total 80k) and still get child benefit. Apparently it is too difficult to means test ... however Gormless believes that this is FAIR ... dictionary for Gormless !!!!

That's what I was thinking DS. A chap could be on, say, £45K with his wife/partner not working. He will be hit! A couple on £40K each will be OK.

Seems fair!!!!!

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I think the rules are a joint income of 44k provided one party is a highrate tax payer. So if you earn 32k and your partner earns 13k then you'll be hit.
QUOTE]

WRONG

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Why is there a 'benefit' for simply having a child anyway? If you can't afford to raise a child without state hand outs, don't have a child! This isn't a third world country as much as the Pope insists it is. It's like the government are willing people to breed.

Fair point and one I agree with in an ideal world. What should happen about "mistakes" and people that DO have children they can't afford ? Should that child suffer as a consequence ?

 

[Beach Hut]

So if two joint earners are on £40K each the household still keeps it ?

That is not right at all

 

[Scampi]

I think one of the reasons it's not been touched before is because of the difficulty in coming up with a fair system thats not going to cost more to administer than it saves.

 

[BensGrandad]

Good move as the money in most cases is not used for the children but goes into the general budget for the family. I have always thought that the money should be used to provide free meals at school so that all children of school age would get at least 1 hot meal each day.

 

[ROSM]

I think the rules are a joint income of 44k provided one party is a highrate tax payer. So if you earn 32k and your partner earns 13k then you'll be hit.
QUOTE]

WRONG

sorry it's much worse than that it's the high rate and allowances which equate to just under 44k and so person two could early basically nothing (say 4k pa) and you'll get hit.

 

[Scampi]

Good move as the money in most cases is not used for the children but goes into the general budget for the family..

Really? You've done an extensive study on that have you?

 

[Gwylan]

Good move as the money in most cases is not used for the children but goes into the general budget for the family. I have always thought that the money should be used to provide free meals at school so that all children of school age would get at least 1 hot meal each day.

That was Green Party policy (although not tied with the axing of child benefit) but that would be quite a reasonable move. It's probably cheaper than child benefit - but not excessively so and would be a lot cheaper to administer. And it would certainly help the child (and avoid the stigma of free school meals)

 

[beorhthelm]

Really? You've done an extensive study on that have you?

others have and its well known. many middle class families save the money for George/Georgina to have for college/car/gap year.

and inheritance... most accumulated wealth would have been earnt and had income tax applied.

 

[honey boy zimba]

going for a job soon were 45 k is on the table I will now ask for 43k got 4 kids so I then wont loose out . Its fooking mad!

 

[ROSM]

others have and its well known. many middle class families save the money for George/Georgina to have for college/car/gap year.

and inheritance... most accumulated wealth would have been earnt and had income tax applied.

er wrong and wrong.

It is neither proven nor well known. there are a small number that may put later elements of child benefit to this. This situation is massively offset by those who are paying high mortgages and have younger children.

as for inheritance, a study by the IFS concluded in 2005 that 80% of the tax would be on unearned income, i.e. profits from investments and property.

I'm not saying that this alone is a reason to have inheritance tax but it is a factor that needs to be considered. I personally think the inheritance tax threshold is too low but that the amount charged is too low as well.

 

[herecomesaregular]

I can only assume you do not have 3 young kids !

don't have three if you can't afford it then

 

[Scampi]

others have and its well known. many middle class families save the money for George/Georgina to have for college/car/gap year.

and inheritance... most accumulated wealth would have been earnt and had income tax applied.

But he's not talking about middle class families, he's talking about most people, ignoring the fact that if it does go into the general budget then it pays for things like the mortgage and food and heating, you know essentials.

And you're wrong about inheritance tax. It isn't savings that are sitting in the building society, it's mostly property. And essentially the best time to tax someone is when they're dead.