What do you actually use child benefit for ?

[beorhthelm]

What are you disputing that the cost to operate the system based on the joint earnings of a couple is too expensive to administer or the fact that HMRC have access to all financial data of every individual.

both, but mostly the latter. if they had access to all financial data you wouldnt need to do a self assessment, and there would be nearly no tax avoidance or fraud. its obvious that even the systems within the treasuary are not interconnected enough let alone between departments. knowledge is power and information is knowledge: departments and internal sub-deparments and groups protect their little horde of information, while thier is no legislation (im awarea of) to allow the HMRC to read bank account details at will (would need a warrant or such i imagine).

if they pulled their fingure out and thought of it, they could do it cheaply enough, but the fact they dont think they can proves most of the above.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

absurd question, if it cost £20 or less a week to bring up an 18 month old I might be able to answer, but as It doesn't even cover half a nursery shift so that my wife and I can go to work and pay taxes that certainly come to more than the £1000 a year the government so kindly give us for a) my lifestyle choice or b) not being able to keep my cock in my pants. Once a year we go to Spain? do we use it for that? or when we go to Centre Parcs? or even to get his name and number put on the back of a very expensive Albion shirt? But WTF take it away, My wife and I have only paid taxes and been in full time employment for a combined total of 49 years, I'd hate to be 'subsidised' by some teenager on here who's been paying two grand a year in tax for the last two years

 

[hitony]

Hookers and sniff

At long last...an honest answer...............

 

[Gwylan]

both, but mostly the latter. if they had access to all financial data you wouldnt need to do a self assessment, and there would be nearly no tax avoidance or fraud. its obvious that even the systems within the treasuary are not interconnected enough let alone between departments. knowledge is power and information is knowledge: departments and internal sub-deparments and groups protect their little horde of information, while thier is no legislation (im awarea of) to allow the HMRC to read bank account details at will (would need a warrant or such i imagine).

if they pulled their fingure out and thought of it, they could do it cheaply enough, but the fact they dont think they can proves most of the above.

I think that this is an interesting area for debate. You're right that they can't share that information easily but these silos of information are disappearing. We're reasonably happy for Google or Facebook to take all sorts of information about us and share it with other people so notions of privacy are changing all the time.

A beefed-up HMRC with power to search bank accounts, or a courts system that could search pay records to chase fines, or the CSA (or whatever its replacement) is called searching everywhere to find errant fathers could start raking in some real money and save a lot of costs.

I'd love to see a government get to grip with this - Facebook can do it so governments should be able to.

 

[fire&skill]

It helps pay for my son's season ticket at BHA. Therefore:

a] He watches professional football twice a month - sometimes more

b] He gets LOTS of fresh air

c] He strives to emulate the moves of the players throughout the week

d] He develops a healthy lifestyle

e] He plays for a local team at weekends

f] He learns to discipline himself for training and understands the importance of a team ethic

g] His healthy lifestyle goes some way to insuring he doesn't spend time in hospital for obesity related diseases

h] He eventually becomes a professional footballer and pays lots of taxes thereby paying it back

i] At away games he learns some new and interesting words

 

[Simster]

absurd question, if it cost £20 or less a week to bring up an 18 month old I might be able to answer, but as It doesn't even cover half a nursery shift so that my wife and I can go to work and pay taxes that certainly come to more than the £1000 a year the government so kindly give us for a) my lifestyle choice or b) not being able to keep my cock in my pants. Once a year we go to Spain? do we use it for that? or when we go to Centre Parcs? or even to get his name and number put on the back of a very expensive Albion shirt? But WTF take it away, My wife and I have only paid taxes and been in full time employment for a combined total of 49 years, I'd hate to be 'subsidised' by some teenager on here who's been paying two grand a year in tax for the last two years

Today, I am mostly agreeing with this.

 

[redneb]

I'd imagine there are quite a few Tory voters earning 40 - 50K with a wife at home bringing up the kids, especially in the South.

.

This is me exactly. I voted Tory because I agree with their principals even though I knew I would actually be worse off under them. I have 3 kids under 2 and I don't mind the fact that I will be losing my Childs Tax credits come April. I also dont particularly mind the idea of this CB cut.

However I'm bemused how if I earn over 44k, I go from £188 a month CB to nothing, meaning I'm better off financially earning 42.5k than 44k

I think they will amend the rules slightly before 2013 comes along.

 

[beorhthelm]

... I also dont particularly mind the idea of this CB cut.

However I'm bemused how if I earn over 44k, I go from £188 a month CB to nothing, meaning I'm better off financially earning 42.5k than 44k

I think they will amend the rules slightly before 2013 comes along.

i reckon most tory supporters will be in agreement in principle and it is only the fact that 2x40k earners still get it thats an issue, not the policy itself. i can see a change to the rules too, theres a long time till it comes in, starting with a increase of 1k per child over the limit. it will probably be tied in with the universal benfits scheme more, so by 2013 it wont resemble what was announced yesturday.

 

[Bozza]

Many aspects of our financial system have been, and remain, more beneficial to dual earners than single earners.

In a similar vein to the proposed change to child benefit, consider the current workings of Childcare Vouchers....

Two working parents can each make a salary sacrifice of £243 per month. If both are high rate tax payers, this will equate to a tax saving of £1196 - so nearly £2400 in total per year.

Compare that to a single parent. They can take £243 of vouchers per month, so could save £1196 if a higher rate tax payer, or £904 if lower rate tax payer.

Is it 'fair' that two high earners make a great saving than a single parent, possibly on the breadline in need of all the help they can get?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

i can see a change to the rules too,

I hope so, everything which is getting rolled out at the moment seems to have been dreamt up the previous night in the pub. The glaring flaw with child benefit, the 26k benfits cap being based on the average wage....with no allowance or weighting for the fact wages vary dramatically around the country..folk in Harlepool are probably saying 'bring it on' and those in London are crying and probably on their way to Hartlepool.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Is this not what happened when the previous government bought in the Childs Tax Credit (or whatever it was called)? Initially it was judged on the highest earner, so if you earned more than the threshold, you got nothing. They then changed the rules a year or two later to take into account the spousal income, which administratively is far more complicated and expensive.

Does the Childs Tax Credit still exist? If so, they should just include the Child Benefit with that as they already have the relevant information so that it can then be done on combined income. If it does not still exist, then I doubt the rules will change as they will not want to dramatically increase the cost of administering the benefit.

 

[empire]

when the kids were younger,used for nappies,milk,etc,now goes into their bank,which then gets used for clothes etc

 

[Pavilionaire]

1. The purpose of the payment now known as "Child Benefit" was partly to encourage couples in post-war 1946 Britain to HAVE CHILDREN. We're now awash with people, and no financial incentive is required.

2. The Coalition need to rethink the "Higher Rate" taxpayer criteria, otherwise loads of sole traders / partnerships will try and incorporate to a ltd company, then "employ" their spouse and make them a shareholder, splitting income as near 50/50 as they can get away with, thus avoiding the benefit 'cut'.

3. The tax avoided / evaded under Point 2. above will massively eat into the tax take AND create massive bureaucracy as many spurious business companies will need to be enquired into.

4. Loads of sole traders / partnerships will simply "lose" cash from their Sales to ensure they fall within Basic Rate, trousering the undeclared cash and making taxpayers who are presently legit do things that are against the law.

 

[Simster]

1. The purpose of the payment now known as "Child Benefit" was partly to encourage couples in post-war 1946 Britain to HAVE CHILDREN. We're now awash with people, and no financial incentive is required.

2. The Coalition need to rethink the "Higher Rate" taxpayer criteria, otherwise loads of sole traders / partnerships will try and incorporate to a ltd company, then "employ" their spouse and make them a shareholder, splitting income as near 50/50 as they can get away with, thus avoiding the benefit 'cut'.

3. The tax avoided / evaded under Point 2. above will massively eat into the tax take AND create massive bureaucracy as many spurious business companies will need to be enquired into.

4. Loads of sole traders / partnerships will simply "lose" cash from their Sales to ensure they fall within Basic Rate, trousering the undeclared cash and making taxpayers who are presently legit do things that are against the law.

You HAVE to be an accountant by trade. I'd put money on it.

 

[Bozza]

2. The Coalition need to rethink the "Higher Rate" taxpayer criteria, otherwise loads of sole traders / partnerships will try and incorporate to a ltd company, then "employ" their spouse and make them a shareholder, splitting income as near 50/50 as they can get away with, thus avoiding the benefit 'cut'.

I'm sure most will have done this well before now in order to benefit from splitting income tax. You'll pay far less income tax with two incomes of £40k, than you would with a single £80k salary.

4. Loads of sole traders / partnerships will simply "lose" cash from their Sales to ensure they fall within Basic Rate, trousering the undeclared cash and making taxpayers who are presently legit do things that are against the law.

Again - I'm sure plenty of this goes on already for reasons nothing to do with child benefit.