Petition to put a halt to the planned child benefit/tax credits cut and introduce an "upper earnings limit" instead(72 Posts)
I have started a petition that I intend on sending to 10 Downing Street (if enough signatures are collected) to try to put a stop to the Government cutting out child benefit and child tax credits and instead introduce an "upper earnings limit" to stop overpaid celebrities, PMs and even the MP himself from taking all of the Country's money and leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces through cuts.
If you agree with me, the petition can be found here: http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/36972.html
Thanks in advance to all those who are in agreement and sign.
Exactly how will limiting what a relatively tiny number of celebrities are paid by primarily the private sector put any more money into the Government pot? If anything it will cost the Government money as they will get less tax and make cuts elsewhere, such as child related benefits, slightly more likely.
The only "benefit" would be a slightly nasty thrill for people who think that they're hurting some "overpaid" celebrity.
Not a good or well thought out idea.
What would you deem to be an acceptable upper limit salary for somebody who has built up a 20 year career in their specialised subject and is qualified and widely respected in their field - as many people are in at a certain stage in their lives.
IIRC they are only stopping these benefits for people that earn over 50K??
if you earn over 50k you really shouldn't be allowed to get these benefits anyway.
The petition suggest £80k which us quite ridiculous. British companies would be unable to pay enough to get the staff they need. They would either collapse beaten by better foreign competition or would themselves move over seas to get around this ridiculous legislation. Either way the county us hurt and less tax us collected.
This has really not been thought through at any level beyond a gut reaction of perceived unfairness and trying to hurt others.
I think the Labour government's grand plan to make the majority of voters feel dependent on them worked a treat. People have forgotten what "benefits" are actually for, and it is not to supplement the incomes of people earning over £50k!
What are you talking about? How will this work?
How much benefits does someone earning over £50k receive and what are they?
"All of the country's money". Exactly where do you think the country's money comes from? If you create an upper earnings limit you effectively create a ceiling on the amount of tax revenue you can take. No more NHS, no more tax credits, no more pretty much anything.
I can't decide whether the poor sod who has to reply to your petition will be PHSL or banging his/her head against the wall when they read it.
there was an interesting guy on the radio the other week talking about how all benefits should be universal, absolutely all of them, which would make it a doddle to administrate, but that taxation should be made more sensitive to a person's earning. i thought this was interesting, once you start thinking that way you realise that a lot of council jobs are just about making work for people. which is good, of course, buuuut...
(I don't earn over 50k) Isn't it child benefit and child tax credit??
What was the purpose of the child trust fund? Enlighten me??
I do get frustrated at the level of resentment levied at high earners in this country - like earning a high salary is some sort of crime.
Where do they think the majority of taxation comes from that contributes towards benefits? Anyway, probably not the correct thread.
I tell you what, the amount of money lavished on "families" (meaning couples with children ONLY) used to piss me off big time when we were struggling to conceive and subsidising those who could procreate at will.
And are you seriously proposing that the Prime Minister should not earn more than £80K?!
All you are doing with this petition is perpetuating the myths that are flying around about what this Government is or isn't going to do. For a start, no one is talking about cutting Working Tax Credit, which is the tax credit that contributes to childcare costs (if you're lucky).
Child benefit is £81.20 (or something) for a 1st child per month, child tax credit is not much more. I earn 30k, 81.20 a month off this won't make a huge difference (sorry to be crass and mention my earnings but needs must)
There's a link for the Daily Mail in the petition, I have one thing to say about this, it is
I could go on and on but will be departing this forum shortly!
As of January with bonus my household earnings will go to 50K.
However thanks to the state of british manufacturing and some bastard going bankrupt on us for 40K - and resultinh in us having ti wind up our company a lot goes toward debt ran up to pay business ceditors even though we were a limted co. We refused to shit on others as we were shat on. The person who basically helped ruin us set up another company in his wifes name a month later. That £81 a month really makes a difference to me as we pay a ridiculous mount of tax and a bonus is not always guarentteed but we will have to declare it as possible and so would lose out. I always though that child benefit was for the individual child itself and a postitive thing about this society. Pathetic it may be but we pay a lot in tax have never claimed anykind of benefit and worked hard to try and get our lives back on house and the roof over our heads. I like the fact the my children can a tiny proportion of the money I have earned back to help them directly. Yes that makes me selfish, but I have had enough of watching money I have worked hard for be taken away and wasted.
Crikey awful typing sorry am crap doing this with one hand - sorry
honeydragon - bad news about your company. Totally get your thoughts on CB though, we are in a similar position. When I have looked at the tax DH pays some months it makes me speechless.
I've never heard anything so daft in my life. You've no grasp of economics, clearly. Celebrities, footballers and captains of industry are not taking 'the country's money'. The PM, hospital managers, policemen and other public servants do.
Place an upper earnings limit outside the public sector and all that will happen is that successful people will choose not to live here.... thus removing them from contributing to the public coffers through income tax.... in turn making a bigger hole in the amount available for the government to spend.
Sorry, it's a silly petition.
And how much would this take to administer?!?!?!? How much do you expect to save
Jealousy is a terrible thing OP!
So let's think about that. Let's pretend I'm James Dysan or Richard Branson or any of our other successful, job creating entrepreneurs. I have the choice of setting up my new company in the UK where I can only earn £80k or I can set up in France, no doubt welcomed with open arms by the French government and earn billions!
Which would you do?
Who gets the tax revenues? Who gets the jobs? The French.
Nice idea but not really practical.
We would ALL be happier if the earnings gap was dramatically reduced.
There is an oversupply of highly skilled labour in the UK. If all these 'superrich' people left there would be plently of others willing and just as capable of doing a good job who would happily take £80k.
People should be able to earn some reward for innovation but this shouldn't be as out of proportion to the majority's earnings as it is at present.
Just because someone has 'worked hard' to get into a high paid position doesnt mean that those who earn a pittance dont work just as hard (if not harder).
I do think there has to some some kind of penalty on the British people who move abroad to avoid UK tax, eg Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Richard Branson. James Caan, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Ringo Starr- why cant we do what the Americans do and revoke citizenship for tax exiles?
Assuming you ignore the fact that driving wealthier people abroad would lead to job loses in the UK
And assuming you ignore the fact that wealthier people contribute 50 - 65% of their earnings to the government (depending how you calculate the super tax, N.I etc)
And assuming that you ignore the fact that this would drive everybody's salary down (if the Head of Marks and Spencers can only earn £80k, his underlings will have to have salary cuts so that they all still earn much less than him. Why would anyone take the risk and stress of a CEO job if others in the company earns nearly as much?
If you ignore all that - it still wouldn't be desirable or practical because only 10% of people earn over £45k. Of those a teeny weeny percentage earn over £100k so all that paperwork and time would go to chasing a handful of people for extra money. It would cost more to do than it would raise.
I couldn't edit my original post but changed the petition wording very shortly after it went live, but obviously Go Petition did not update this until several hours after.
After a rethink, I realised that the upper earnings limit suggestion would have very little impact on the situation but instead highlighted a report of how much of tax payer's money was used to fund celebrities appearing in Government campaigns etc. It is this kind of thing that should have a cap.
The original plan was to cut child tax credits to households earning £50k + which I aagree was a sensible level, but it is now being suggested that the level is lowered to £26k and anyone who is still entitled to tax credits will receive a lower figure than they currently do.
Whilst £1055 p/a in child benefit may not have an impact on some families, it does on others and for some, it is the difference between being able to afford the every day bills and not. Child tax credits are in place to help working families with the cost of childcare - by cutting back on these, all that will be encouraged is new mothers not to return to work.
i suggest we leave the intricacie of who earns what ,to those who know what they are doing.....i.e the new government.
give them a bloody chance to correct it first before you start bandying 'petitions' around!!
foreverastudent "Just because someone has 'worked hard' to get into a high paid position doesnt mean that those who earn a pittance dont work just as hard (if not harder).
Define 'work harder'. In which way? My DH has often worked 12-14 days on the trot doing 12hr shifts in all kinds of weather then comes home to be a husband and father and deal with all of the things other people in every other family deal with. He has worked himself into the ground at times to get into the position he is in now and he deserves every penny he earns.
I am not saying that people who earn less don't work hard but I earn less than DH and I don't have the stress of the responsibility that he does - with an increase in salary comes an increase in responsibility. In his role if someone dies through a health and safety accident he will be the one up in court. Can you give me an example of where someone may work harder than him who earns far less money doing a similar role? It has to be like for like, surely?
donnaw25 - I had only heard tax credits being cut for those on over £50k. I haven't heard anything about lower earners being effected so I am not sure where that comes from.
Something very controversial to consider though in these times is should women be actively encouraged to return to work after having babies? - from an economic point of view I mean (it would be awful to limit choice for women, ruin long term careers, force women who want to work into the isoclation of being at home etc etc) ....
but purely from a money point of view and not a social or equality point of view:
should you return to a job that pays you so little that the only way you can afford to do it is if the Government steps in and tops up your salary (ie pays towards your childcare)? Is that not just a good excuse for salaries always to be kept too low and for government spending to be kept too high?
This is unthinkable to many women but not so long ago tax credits didn't exist. Only 10 years ago I didn't go back to work because London childcare for a baby was over £50 a day and I simply didn't earn enough after tax to pay childcare. Most of my friends had to wait 2 years or so before returning and many hated it but at the same time can governments afford to do the alternative which is pay women for the priviledge of taking a job that doesn't cover their childcare costs?
<<Dons hard hat even though I am honestly just musing the costs of it all not actually suggesting it should or would be changed>>
OP - get your facts right. CTC has nothing to do with childcare costs. The childcare element of WTC does that, and cuts to that have never been mentioned - unless you know something I don't?
In fact why not pay everyone a flat rate salary on the basis that "everyone works hard"? That way, none of us would have to work hard at school, bother to go to university and work hard for a degree or bother to go the extra mile in our careers. We could all sit back safe in the knowledge that none of this would make any difference, because as long as we're prepared to turn up for work when we're an adult we'll be looked after just fine.
Fruity - that is true. I only know one person who is a true high earner (ie way over £100k a year) and I wouldn't fancy doing what they have to do to earn that amount.
Their job isn't a job it is their whole life. They can be telephoned on Sunday afternoon and be told to catch a flight for a meeting that evening. They work 6am - 9pm pretty everyday, never take their full holiday entitlement, spend their social life taking out clients and entertaining people they barely know. They spent the morning of their wedding day at work and had no honeymoon. They go on fabulous holidays abroad but are often summoned back after only 2 or 3 days away. They see their children about once a fortnight. They constantly live looking over their shoulder because they are responsible for the work of so many people and they can be dismissed pretty much in an instant if they screw up (its an industry where if you complain or heaven forbid go to tribunal you would never work again and would be shunned).
"Mr Cameron makes specific suggestions for savings from welfare-to-work or from restricting child tax credits to families on less than £26,000 a year."
There are numerous other articles indicating the same thing. My husband and I earn just below this threshold between us so would ultimately not be affected but a cut in the amount we receive would hinder us financially.
I somewhat agree with your comments on taking on a job that cannot cover the cost of childcare but I do think that families should be able to juggle being a parent and still having a career. I myself only work part-time but it is nice to be able to still have my foot in the door of employment and at least try to pay my way in life. I also believe it does my son good to be around other children of various ages as it is building his social skills. I am not on a poor hourly rate but must admit that I do rely on the tax credits we receive along with the child benefit to cover our every day outgoings and we certainly do not have luxuries, so every penny is essential.
"After a rethink, I realised that the upper earnings limit suggestion would have very little impact on the situation but instead highlighted a report of how much of tax payer's money was used to fund celebrities appearing in Government campaigns etc. It is this kind of thing that should have a cap."
That "report", in fact a Daily Mail story which is probably more than a little biased, highlights that £325,000 was spent on celebrities for Government ad campaigns.
While that may well be too much when the Government is looking to make £6 billion worth of cuts it's an absolute drop in the ocean and a complete irrelevance.
Do you really believe that cutting the spending on celebrity adverts will make any kind of difference that would let cuts to tax credits or child benefit be cancelled?
And how much would be spent on maintaining and enforcing the cap?
How much would have to be spent on advertising anyway?
Minthumbug - that is exactly what I am talking about. Two years ago we were a few days into our family camping holiday in France and DH was called back to work and was told to be onsite for 8am the next morning.
Trying to organise to get him to a ferry port, back to the UK and car hired on the other side was a nightmare but it is his job and we just had to suck it up. We stayed on our own - I just have to accept it as part of his job.
As he has his own company now he works for clients. He often is not able to accompany us on family functions, works on more paperwork when he comes home and regularly gets no more than 4-5hrs sleep in any 24hr period. That is not to mention the administration of running his own company that comes with it.
Oh, a petition. That will have the Cleggathon trembling now, won't it?
Maybe the people whinging now ought to have thought a bit harder about this before putting their X in the boxes on 6th May.
You reap what you sow.
BadgersPaws, it was an example of the type of thing our money is being wasted on. I am not saying £325k is going to even touch the deficit, but I dare say there are many, many other examples of this time of expenditure and all these things add up.
Gaelicsheep, if the childcare element of WTC is not going to be affected then I apologise, I have got the wrong end of the stick. My heart is in the right place though and I am only looking at this from a mum of (soon to be) 2s point of view. I never intended to offend or pee anybody off in any way.
It just makes me laugh, do people really think that Steven Gerrrard who pays around £40k a week in tax really sat there after the birth of his children and said to Alex now here's that child benefit form for you to fill out so we can claim our £25 a week ?
OP needs a few basics in economics. And the removal of some very large blinkers.
Do you know what? Forget I ever posted this message and I'll delete the petition too. Let's all sit back and let the Government shove us all into yet more financial turmoil. Some of you need to learn a few basics in how not to be rude.
donnaw25 so basically my husband's taxes pay for your tax credits so that you can go back to work - but I don't get any help (we're just over the threshold) and as a result (because my salary was less than the cost of childcare for two kids) I have to stay home. You say "it is nice to be able to still have my foot in the door of employment and at least try to pay my way in life". Keep in mind that this is not available for families like mine and your desire to take away my child benefit because of our family income when our taxes help you have opportunities I don't get really frustrates me.
And for what it's worth - yes my DH does well for us but he's often away, on no notice, we have very little job security (he's self employed). We are very nervous about me not working because if something happens to his job, I'm not going to be as employable.
But I'm not upset at paying tax in general nor do I think the country can afford to give us childcare tax credits (it can't and that's the way it is). We chose to have our kids and we have to take care of ourselves because we're lucky enough to be able to. If the government really does need to take away our CB then we'll manage that too.
It would be nice though if people didn't resent families like ours and at the same time feel entitled to things that we don't get. Many of us could do with a dose of being thankful for what we have.
Try net mums Donna, it'll probably go down a treat there.
"Forget I ever posted this message and I'll delete the petition too. Let's all sit back and let the Government shove us all into yet more financial turmoil. Some of you need to learn a few basics in how not to be rude."
What did you expect?
The original petition proposed an idea, a salary cap, that was quite clearly impractical and ill conceived and then it was watered down to be little more than a complaint that child related benefits should not be taken away alongside an irrelevant pop at celebrity adverts.
If we are to stop the Government pushing us "all into yet more financial turmoil" then we need to start putting forward ideas that could work and being ruthless with those that while perhaps well intentioned just wouldn't work.
good post abnhiker, it really annoys me as well
There is no clear link between gross income and disposable income - I know for a fact that I have significantly lower disposable income and many 'lower' income families than ours because of the childcare bills and the fact that I don't qualify for tax credits - why should I lose the child benefit as well
"Do you know what? Forget I ever posted this message and I'll delete the petition too. Let's all sit back and let the Government shove us all into yet more financial turmoil. Some of you need to learn a few basics in how not to be rude."
I think the first rule of posting on public websites is to have a thick skin. If you're asking people to support your position and sign up to a petition you have to explain yourself a lot more clearly and convincingly than you've done. Otherwise it's a case of 'ask a stupid question.....'
If you don't want financial turmoil then keep thinking up ways to improve the situation. Just do your homework a bit better next time.
I've always wanted to be the guy on the radio that Aitch speaks of. That is the system I would like to see.
abdnhiker, complete wrong end of the stick. Where I have said I agree with child benefit being abolished is beyond me - this is something I was fighting to keep in place!
I have requested this thread is removed so you can all go back to discussing whatever it was you were discussing before all guns came ablazing in my direction. I'm done here.
wait - is child benefit actually going?
'There is an oversupply of highly skilled labour in the UK. If all these 'superrich' people left there would be plently of others willing and just as capable of doing a good job who would happily take £80k.'
Err, where is this oversupply?
If earnings were capped at £80k, and all the decent doctors fucked off to America to work for £200k a year, then what?
Nurses all get sent back to college for a year?
The basic laws of supply and demand mean that if there were hundreds and thousands of able and qualified people waiting in the wings, these jobs would not be offering £80k a year at the moment.
The truth is they need to offer high salaries to attract capable people. And the high salaries also need to be there as an incentive for people to do the relevant training throughout their career
just read the coalition plans (pub 7 June) and no mention of losing child benefit/ cappin it (thank goodness). Wish people would understand what they were moaning about.
sparechange- there is an oversupply of graduates, the vast majority of whom are doing jobs which were done by 16-18 year olds a generation ago.
There are 140000 doctors in the UK- do you seriously think America is going to give out 140000 green cards when they have plenty of their own doctors?
tbh, I wouldnt want a doctor who was doing their job out of financial motivation. When they apply to medical school they are all asked why they want to do medicine. I'd be a bit if they said 'for the money'. They mostly say 'to help people' which is exactly the kind of doctors we all deserve.
Most people are recruited (especially into highly paid positions) through networking (the old boys network). All the other able and qualified people never even hear of these opportunities let alone get a chance to apply. That is why the demand and supply of the labour market doesnt behave the way it should.
Especially in the public sector, candidates should be recruited because they want to do a good job, not just because they are being paid a fortune. Someone who can be 'bought' doesnt have the ethos siuted to public sector work.
"Someone who can be 'bought' doesnt have the ethos siuted to public sector work."
It's not a matter of being bought it's a matter of rewarding the investment of time and money in training and providing an incentive to keep on doing that investment.
How can it possibly be fair to pay a doctor with hardly any experience the same as one who has many many years?
"Cut the junior doctors pay" you might say.
But then they're earning the same as someone less skilled beneath them, so you have to cut their salary too, and where does that end?
And if some foreign country is willing to pay you several times what you are earning at present because they're not hindered by any silly wage cap then that's going to be a very hard pull to resist. Especially when you've made that huge investment in your skills and you'll still be helping people no matter where you are.
The NHS is full of foreign trained doctors and nurses for precisely that reason. We pay well compared to their home countries. If we stop that not only will our trained professionals do what those foreign professionals did and work overseas but we will loose those foriegners too.
The NHS is gutted, however some vague notion of social equality is apparently fulfilled, so that's alright then.
I hope mnhq don't delete this! You can't just have a thread deleted because you didn't get the response you wanted.
This petition is one of the most woeful things I've seen in a long time.
So let me get this straight. I spend hours and hours writing a book. I don't get paid a salary, so the risk is entirely mine.
It then gets published and sells a lot.
But I'm not allowed to keep my royalties?
Sooooo...who get's them? Seriously.
The people who need the benefits apparently!
there are literally only a handful of authors who earn £80k+ pa
maybe publishers would start paying authors salaries?
"So let me get this straight. I spend hours and hours writing a book. I don't get paid a salary, so the risk is entirely mine.
It then gets published and sells a lot.
But I'm not allowed to keep my royalties?
Sooooo...who get's them? Seriously."
Well that's the beauty of it. If we cap the wages of all these gaudy over-paid footballers and movie stars then the parent companies simply get greater profit while the people with the actual talent receive less but we all feel better about it because celebrities will no longer be out of touch with reality.
Most footballers. well paid celebrities etc have very good financial advisors / tax planning accountants. There are a number of legal loopholes avai lable to allow them to avoid paying signigicant amounts of tax.
I think you are way off the mark. The real issues are far more complex
If you object to cuts in Child Benefit please join the Facebook page 'Parents Against Child Benefit Cuts'.
so how do you suggest they cut the deficit that the labour gov left? or would you prefer just to continue paying vast sums of interest and pass the debt onto our children? this is just the start of the cuts and they will all be painful for whoevers affected. you cannot go on living beyond your means forever as the labour gov had.
PARENTS FOR FAIR CHILD BENEFIT CHANGES (Facebook)
Hello, we have started a facebook page for those who agree that the way the changes in child benefit are being made is unjust.
Wether you think that child benefit should go or stay, who can justify a household on £88,000 keeping the benefit and a household on £44,000 losing the benefit?
We accept that changes are needed but want them to be fair
See Facebook page [U]PARENTS FOR FAIR CHILD BENEFIT CHANGES
Everyone should be interested as more chnges are coming, and you'll want them to be administered fairly, so speak up for yourself and others now.
there is a petition from facebook:
I have never entered a discussion online before but about this issue I am livid. I am astounded that this government think it is okay to treat their tax payers in such an unfair way. We have 2 young children, I earn 6k while my husband earns over the threshold. From his salary he pays a good slice to his ex for his 2 children (no probs with that) but it doesn't leave us with sh*tloads at the end of the month. Why should my children lose out and not the children of a family earning up to 86k?
The threshold that they are actually introducing is anyone who is a 40% tax payer which means this is anyone who earns over 40K. Why does everyone automatically assume that people who earn 40K are rich? When you live in the London commuter belt house prices and rentals are expensive, cost of living is generally higher and then you have to pay astronomical train fayres to get into London! Not to mention the cost of childcare which takes a vast amount of my salary! The £155 that I am entitled to in Child Benefit at present puts food on my table, if they took this away from me we would REALLY struggle! How it is fair to deduct over £1000 from my salary a month and then take a away the one small benefit that the government allows me when I work hard to provide for my family and others just sit at home living off the taxes that I pay?
"Why does everyone automatically assume that people who earn 40K are rich?"
They don't, but it's way above the national average. The fact that £40k doesn't go far in London is not an argument for increasing benefits, it's an argument for living somewhere cheaper.
Zombie thread warning!
Most of it is from 2010. But the mess that arose from the utterly incompetent CB proposals lingers on...
I think they should just introduce a cap at two children. Any more than that, you still get benefits for the first two, but not for the rest.
I actually agree capping child benefit for the first two children. There should however be something perhaps introduced for multiple births, as these things do happen. And a couple having a multiple birth shouldn't be penalised.
It's all very well stopping child benefit if one parent earns over 50k, but if both parents earn 49k each, they will still be able to claim. It doesn't make sense that a joint family income of 98k can still get child benefit, but a family income of 50k can't. Surely it should be based on joint income?
I can't see it happening, if its does its going to be a disaster.
the plan is that the child benefit is paid and then if one of the people in the household is in higher rate tax band its claimed back through their salary.
Easy where its a married couple, or co habiting couple who are both parents to the children.
what about the situation where there is a mother with say 2 or 3 children currently receiving child benefit, new partner moves in, child benefit continues to be paid to the mother. They keep their finances seperate. If new partner was a higher rate tax payer he would have to pay back the child benefit through his tax return that he has not even received!!
Join the discussion
Please login first.