Child Benefit Changes

[Uncle Spielberg]

wrong wrong and wrong again. I criticised the Labour plans for reduction of tax breaks on childcare vouchers.

And with the current mortgage for young families who are buying family homes now running at c250k I would suggest that a couple with kids on 88k joint are not exactly flush with cash.

Oh and it's not 88k combined, it over 44k where one person is a higher rate tax payer so if a man or woman has worked full time whilst their partner works part time to help out with childcare they will be hit. That's hardly 'fair' by any stretch of anyones imagination!

£ 88k for a household is a lot. The average mortgage is £ 143000 by the way.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

Hopefully they will but there would need to be a safety net of some sort to prevent children growing up in poverty. Maybe Child Benefit should be paid in food and clothes vouchers - it would stop people spending it on Sky and fags.

that's the paradox, despite my earlier rant about "churning out kids" i'd never want to see any child grow up in poverty

 

[ROSM]

£ 88k for a household is a lot. The average mortgage is £ 143000 by the way.

read what I posted:

- the average mortgage for a family home. Not the average mortgage which as you know will include studio and 1 bedroom flats.

- it is not 88k. It may be much less than that as little as 44k is one person is a high rate tax payer.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

read my second post and you may get it a bit more. When we allow major corporations to avoid paying tax (vodafone) and we allow the mansioned people to not pay their rightful amount of inheritance tax then nobody can convince me that we are 'all in this together'. It isn't just about cuts it's about collecting what is owed and also if possible raing the income. But of course that would hit at the core Tory vote.

I agree to a point - it should be cuts AND increased income. Collecting the £6.5b from Vodaphone would be a good start.

Absolutely don't agree with inheritance tax - tax has already been paid on it so the government should have no right to tax it again just because you happened to die before spending it.

 

[surrey jim]

£ 88k for a household is a lot. The average mortgage is £ 143000 by the way.

Have you seen what £143k gets you in Brighton?!

 

[ROSM]

Have you seen what £143k gets you in Brighton?!

dont waste your breath. he's clearly not reading what people are writing today.

 

[Gwylan]

Where does this £44k come from? It's on people who pay a higher rate of tax. We have a household income of well under £44k but we'll lose it. You could have a household income of £32,000 and lose child benefit - it scarcely strikes me as measure hitting the well-off.

 

[Gazwag]

Absolutely don't agree with inheritance tax - tax has already been paid on it so the government should have no right to tax it again just because you happened to die before spending it.

You could argue that CGT is the same, assets are purchased with income that has already been taxed.

Going back to IT, if you spent the income before you died the government would get the tax indirectly from VAT and Income Tax depending on what you spent the money on so what is the difference between sepnding the money or not really.

 

[clippedgull]

Where does this £44k come from? It's on people who pay a higher rate of tax. We have a household income of well under £44k but we'll lose it. You could have a household income of £32,000 and lose child benefit - it scarcely strikes me as measure hitting the well-off.

40% tax payers are affected. I suspect you are not paying that rate ?

 

[adrian29uk]

Its only going to get worse I'm afraid. They had Ian Duncan Smith on Radio 5 yesterday talking about this and talking about benefits being lumped in to one payment and how people who are unemployed will be forced in to work. One caller phoned up and said

"I recently got made redundant. I was earning 17k a year, and now I cannot find any job that's anywhere near this. If I take a job with less money I cannot afford to live, so please tell me what I should do and how you are going to help me?"

Of course like all politicians he never answered the question.
A lot of people will fall in to this category above. The hard working people will be the ones the suffer AGAIN.

I hope all these f***ing scroungers with 20 kids on benefits who have never bothered to work for the last 10 years get every thing taken away from them.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You could argue that CGT is the same, assets are purchased with income that has already been taxed.

/QUOTE]

CGT is only charged on the extra value or profit made NOT the capital investment. In exactly that same way income from interest on money in the bank attracts income tax but not the actual money you put into the account.

The government would get VAT etc from the inheritance when those that get that money spend it.

 

[ryans father]

Good move from the government, imo. And I think the salary at whcih its cut is about right.

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

 

[ROSM]

Where does this £44k come from? It's on people who pay a higher rate of tax. We have a household income of well under £44k but we'll lose it. You could have a household income of £32,000 and lose child benefit - it scarcely strikes me as measure hitting the well-off.

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.

But keep repeating after me, we're all in this together. It was those nasty labour peoples' fault (and other lines all members of the coalition have been reminded by Andy Coulson to keep uttering).

 

[Gazwag]

Where does this £44k come from? It's on people who pay a higher rate of tax. We have a household income of well under £44k but we'll lose it. You could have a household income of £32,000 and lose child benefit - it scarcely strikes me as measure hitting the well-off.

Child benefit is to be axed for higher rate taxpayers from 2013, Chancellor George Osborne has announced.

Talking on BBC One's Breakfast ahead of his appearance at the Conservative party conference, he said the move would save about £1bn.

"It's a big decision for us, but we think it's absolutely necessary and fair given the financial situation we face," he said.

Parents earning over about £44,000 who pay 40% tax and above will be affected.

If your household income is below £44 why are you paying higher rate tax

 

[Gazwag]

The government would get VAT etc from the inheritance when those that get that money spend it.

But they might not actually get money they may get property or other assets which are then retained

CGT is only charged on the extra value or profit made NOT the capital investment. In exactly that same way income from interest on money in the bank attracts income tax but not the actual money you put into the account.

Much higher exempt amount for IHT rather than CGT £325k compared to £10k

 

[Gwylan]

If your household income is below £44 why are you paying higher rate tax

Tax and National Insurance rates 2010-2011 : Directgov - Newsroom
Higher rate: 40% Over £37,400

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But they might not actually get money they may get property or other assets which are then retained

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.

 

[Gazwag]

Tax and National Insurance rates 2010-2011 : Directgov - Newsroom
Higher rate: 40% Over £37,400

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

 

[Scampi]

I agree to a point - it should be cuts AND increased income. Collecting the £6.5b from Vodaphone would be a good start.

Absolutely don't agree with inheritance tax - tax has already been paid on it so the government should have no right to tax it again just because you happened to die before spending it.

Actually with inheritance tax, most of the wealth has never been taxed, In a typical example we're talking about the disposal of property.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

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.

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 !!!!