High Earners to Lose Child Benefit - thoughts

All In London Forum
Page 1 of 1
All In London
http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/news/index.php?news_id=11747


What do you make of this then? Is it fair?


Personally I think it seems crazy that those earning hundreds of thousands of pounds should be receiving benefits like this. The state should be there to support those who need it.

I suppose the difficult bit is getting the cut-off point right.

Osborne admitted that a household with two people earning £44,000 each could still receive the benefit, whereas a household where just one person was earning £50,000 would have it withdrawn.

He said this was because the government was trying to keep the administration of the system "as simple as possible".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/child-benefit-scrapped-high-earners




Not sure that sounds fair?


What do you think?


AIL Staff
Posted: 2010-10-11 15:21:59
AdrianWebb


Osborne admitted that a household with two people earning £44,000 each could still receive the benefit, whereas a household where just one person was earning £50,000 would have it withdrawn.

He said this was because the government was trying to keep the administration of the system "as simple as possible".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/child-benefit-scrapped-high-earners




Not sure that sounds fair?




A household with 2 people, each earning £37,500 is taxed at 20% whereas a household where just one person is earning £50,000 is taxed at 40%. If this is unfair then it does at least seem to be the inspiration behind the new child benefit rules.
Posted: 2010-10-11 19:17:09
SimboSmith
i think its funny that labour are now in the position of defending benefits for people earning over 45 grand. ed milliband was on tv today saying he wants universal benefits for all, even if it meant child benefit going to millionaires.
if they could reverse positions with the tories and get away with it, they would in a flash. but being a party of opposition they seem to think that they have to disagree with everything the government does -- even if it means doing the opposite of what your party stands for. crazy!
Posted: 2010-10-11 20:54:28
AdrianWebb
ORIGINAL: SimboSmith

i think its funny that labour are now in the position of defending benefits for people earning over 45 grand. ed milliband was on tv today saying he wants universal benefits for all, even if it meant child benefit going to millionaires.
if they could reverse positions with the tories and get away with it, they would in a flash. but being a party of opposition they seem to think that they have to disagree with everything the government does -- even if it means doing the opposite of what your party stands for. crazy!


Ed Milliband said he would not oppose every cut that the government proposed. While I accept politicians do not always do as they say, it's surely too early (not to say cynical) to assume his party will "disagree with everything the government does"
Posted: 2010-10-11 21:07:47
Sooz
yep I agree with AIL - those on massive incomes shouldn't get paid this or any other benefits as they simply don't need it. I do agree with the transferable personal tax allowance that's been talked about too though - this would make the loss of the benefits a bit more acceptable to the borderline cases.

To make it much less controversial (but I guess it wouldn't save enough money), they could introduce it at the £100k mark when the personal allowance begins to be withdrawn. Those people should be just as easy to identify and surely no-one would argue with them losing £1700ish a year in CB?
Posted: 2010-10-11 21:10:49
SimboSmith
look at it this way... if there were no child benefits at all and the government suggested today that they wanted to start giving 100 a week (or whatever it is) to people earning £45,000, then there wouldn't be a single person in the country who would agree with it. labour would jump on them in a flash, and rightly so.

but because we already pay it, people think that we can't remove it.
im not suggesting that these people don't need and use the money. i'm not one of these people that think people earning 45 grand are rich, because they're not. but when i see couples on the TV saying they "rely on that money" i just laugh. anyone earning 45 grand a year does not "rely" on 100 a month.
Posted: 2010-10-12 12:11:32
Sooz
ORIGINAL: SimboSmith

anyone earning 45 grand a year does not "rely" on 100 a month.


I don't know.. if there's only one earner and £45k works out at a take-home rate of say £32k then that's £2600 a month. Take off mortgage and bills and that's down to £1400ish which if you've got 3 children to support isn't loads and I think an extra £150 a month on that is quite a hefty difference. That's why I think those limits need to be looked at or the transferable personal allowance brought in to help these borderline cases a bit more.
Posted: 2010-10-13 12:20:01
jacqs
My worry with this is that it will create yet another tier in our country of those people who made life choices to have the old fashioned family, ie one parent at home one at work. That is the foundation that many of us over 35 were given.And it worked! Mothers at home were given child benefit payable to the mother to ensure that the childs needs were met along with having their national insurance contributions protected until the child left formal education or reached 18. The mother had a guaranteed amount each week/month to budget, it has been an entitlement for many yaers now and has been insturmental in ensuring that childrens needs are catered for. I would like to know who has the right to pick such a fundamentaly important benefit and change the course of lives in one strike of a pen. If you ask me this is yet another example of those in their ivory towers making decisions that look good on paper without considering the bigger picture or the finer details. The imbalance of the whole decision demonstrated that the powers that be do not spend time checking the detail. Laughable! rob the less well of to pay the rich.... sound familiar????

I am all for reducing the debt! but lets start with adults on benefits who can work but do not, and leave the children benefits alone. Lets take a look at the millions paid to G.P's for attending meetings in the evening that they are contracted to attend anyway??? Lets stop paying G.P's millions in bonuses for giving injections and looking after other groups of patients.. Thats what theya re paid very well indeed for....

Child benefit is an easy option of choice, who will cause a fuss, it wont be the babies and todlers will it.....

It makes me wild with anger !!!!

:banghead:
Posted: 2010-10-13 20:54:24
Sooz
Goodness - sorry Jacqs, looks like there's a raw nerve in there somewhere! I do think a lot of what you says makes sense, but I'm guessing with the size of the deficit it's not an 'either/or' question, but that all the areas you mention will need to be cut to get us back in the black.

I say abolish the child benefit for those on over £100k rather than just higher rate taxpayers :nod:
Posted: 2010-10-14 00:09:17
SimboSmith
maybe a better way of doing it would be to carry on paying child benefit to everyone... but only for their first two kids.

if people want any more kids after their first two then they really should be able to afford it, and not rely on the state to bail them out.

that would also solve the problem of layabout families with a million kids getting thousands off us ever month
Posted: 2010-10-14 11:48:41
jacqs
ORIGINAL: Sooz

Goodness - sorry Jacqs, looks like there's a raw nerve in there somewhere! I do think a lot of what you says makes sense, but I'm guessing with the size of the deficit it's not an 'either/or' question, but that all the areas you mention will need to be cut to get us back in the black.

I say abolish the child benefit for those on over £100k rather than just higher rate taxpayers :nod:



Hiya,
no not a raw nerve as such as it makes little difference to me as my children are older. I have worked with women whos problem has been a very controlling partner and the child benefit is has been the only income to go to them direct. Other women have problems with partners drinking and gambling their earnings and again it can leave the wives and children without. I just think we can save money in better ways. I just wish we thought more before we introduced ideas.
Posted: 2010-10-16 18:34:09
Page 1 of 1