ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
So child benefit to go for higher rate taxpayers(1017 Posts)
So says George osbourne on breakfast telly. Missed the details but sounds like it comes in from 2013!
Silently seething here too
We need some sort of parents union and we need to hit the streets ASAP.
We all agree that there should be cuts but even my 3 yr old can see how unfair and ill thought out this is.
I'm utterly confused. My DH and I have a joint income of £80,000 pa - we have a huge mortgage (for a small house!) and will be paying my mum £400 a month to look after our baby - I consider ourselves fortunate to be able to have a few luxuries (eg one holiday a year, cable tv) but certainly not rich.
I cant seem to understand if I lose CB or retain it? I dont see how someone on £40k should be treated the same as someone on £100k - eg if both 40% tax payers then both lose it? But for the £40k person it doesnt mean they dont NEED or notice the CB?
Yes, purplehippo, but if you earn just over the HRT threshold (and your husband doesn't), then you will be significantly worse off under these arrangements than if you earned just under the HRT threshold. And we are told that that is "fair". Also (as has already been pointed out repeatedly on this thread and other coverage) a family with a family income of £86K may still be able to get child benefit when a family with a family income of £45K won't. Again, we are told that this is "fair".
DH earns over the HRT threshold; I don't. I don't actually have a problem with our losing child benefit (well, I'd prefer not to, but if some people have to give it up entirely in the current economic climate then I accept that we are good candidates) provided that I don't get an NI penalty as well. But the way in which the families to lose child benefit have been selected is not "fair", or anything like it.
Sounds as though, purplehippopotamus, if you are both working, have no children and one of you is earning over the threshhold, you have far more disposable income than the average parent.
Once you have to choose between living on one income or paying nursery fees (barely covered by the money you earn) you might see the situation differently, and be quite happy to take a tax reduction of £1K-£2K for a few years.
Try signing http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39531.html
Thanks lottiegal. I am officially RAF "Rubbish at Facebook" (its official because my 13 year old dughter told me so) How do we set up a page?
SpanishLady -- it depends on how your income is split. If your DH earns £43K and you earn £37K then you will get full child benefit. If he earns £45K and you earn £35K then you will not get a penny.
(or vice versa, obviously, with you earning the higher amount)
Having already emailed all three relevant party candidates re the unfair cb proposals I believe we should have mass action. As a sahm I am totally underwhelmed and undervalued by this coalition govt. Why are we penalized as a single income household that pays 40% tax and dual income households are left to claim? Upshot is any house that has a single earner is left high and dry and sahm or fathers are given a great big f u. Thanks GO and
I hollow laugh when people talk about not expecting the state to support their child and being able to afford it, blah, blah. State, whether you like ot or not, supports everyone.....we all do. There's a difference between recognisable benefits and universal 'gifts' from the government, like free TV licenses to anyone over pension age(including Mrs Patel who arrived yesterday/Mr Urbanowski last week). There's free bus passes for Lady Doris of Richland, there's £70 billion worth of bankers bonuses......
Anyone earning £43,878 or less pays tax at the basic rate.
Earnings above £43,878 are taxed at the higher rate of 40 per cent.
Thanks for the letter template, rantyknickers. First baby on the so no CB is going to be nasty shock.
Jenten, as you agree that "everyone in society needs to make their contribution to ensure that the economy recovers" can you explain how that translates into a system where "a couple earning £80K, split £43K/£37K, needs to make their contribution to ensure that the economy recovers, but a couple earning £80K, split £45K/£35K, doesn't need to bother"?
i agree with this. yes its painful but its the only way the budget deficit is going to be reduced. whilst i feel a little sorry for one earning households who are just over the threshold the non-worker could actually get a job if they are really financially strapped
Will the number of unemployed suddenly rise in 2013 when SAHP's sign onto job seekers.
As they will now be looking to help replace the lost family income.
Where are all these jobs suddenly going to appear from that they all talk about.
I still can not work out how GO instists it less complicated to mess with tax allowances to deduct child allowance from the HRT earning, then just limiting it to X number of children until they are 16yrs.
And what about our NI contributions?
What are the implications for our State Pensions?
dreamingofsun It really isn't very eay to get a job that covers childcare or fits around the main earners work hours!
I think they could have simply stopped CB after two children and cut it off for anyone earning over £100k as a household.
Again, on Radio 2 a TOry spokesman seemed to dismiss the scenario where two earners might earn more jointly than £44,000 whilst still being lower rate tax payers, as a very rare scenario - and therefore one tat can be dismissed out of hand.
This is what grates, the disingenuousness(?) of their replies not the basic principal of the removal of CB from 'higher earners', where sole or joint.
dreamingofsun. Life isn't that simple is it? I am on maternity leave with my second child, if I go back to work after paying a childminder I will earn £3 per month. Still I suppose it is worth doing as I guess £3 will buy me a latte in Starbucks and thats all people like me spend their CB on isn't it?
A job that pays more than childcare costs? Really? All of those non-workers? Wow, I had no idea that there were so many highly-paid jobs just floating around.
Bear in mind that a SAH parent is not a "non-worker". They are working for no wage doing a job (childcare) that they would have to pay someone else a large sum of money to do if they were otherwise occupied with paid work.
And some single-income households that will lose CB are lone parent households, where the lone parent will already be paying out a large sum of money for childcare. How are they supposed to bring in extra cash?
gong maybe not where you live but there are weekend jobs in shops, bar work, cleaning, childminding, looking after old people jobs going round here.
My view is more along the lines of most posters here believing that child benefit is some sort of god-given-right. Did you not all decide to have children? Did you not realise they would cost money? Did you not think about who would look after them if you continue to work? Did you expect no loss of income if you become a SAHM? It makes me laugh quite honestly that so many of you are completely blatent about grabbing handouts from the government which you believe you deserve more than other people with other entitlements. And let's not forget that before 2013 they'll have changed their minds what to do about half a dozen times.
Can someone tell me if this is a good plan.
I earn around the HRT threshhold. If I take 7 days unpaid leave I loose the same amount in gross terms as the amount I get in CB. This means I stay below the 44K limit. Also I save the £400 I would have paid to a holiday nanny.
Is this to good to be true?
what about working when your husbands are home? Or become a childminder? I know its not convenient or attractive, but then working hardly ever is.
Though I'm obvously no good at juggling work and home as i find this much harder work then i ever found my maternity leave - which were like a long holiday in comparison - despite looking after 3 under school age children
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.