To think that people who complain about not getting child benefit because they earn above the threshold can fuck right off?

[CosetteFauchlavent]

Firstly I should say that I am applying this to people who are coupled up - it's very different for single parents.

I have an acquaintance, friend of a friend, who I'm not particularly keen on but my friend insists on inviting to group outings etc. She describes herself as "the girl who has everything" and has said several times that she's going back to work after maternity leave even though her DH earns enough for her to be a SAHM.

Anyway, the other day she came out with "It's so unfair that people on benefits get child benefit for doing nothing, we earn too much to qualify WAAAH." The "WAAH" is not my addition, she actually said it.

AIBU to think SBU?

Eh? If my husband was a millionaire I'd still work, I love my job and independence. You sound judgmental tbh yabu

Marginal rate of tax between 100k and 120k is 60% according to a quick google.

I think some people are paying a disproportionately high amount of tax - 40% over 32,000 is hardly insignificant.

Big business should be made to pay their due taxes. I think the squeezed middle are paying enough!

And all the people that get paid in cash don't pay a penny in tax...

I bet if you added up all the windowcleaners, cleaners etc that get paid in cash the tax avoidance would be more than the high earners

Also there comes a point where if you tax people too much, to the point where they are worse off than people who do significantly lower paid jobs, they lose incentive to push themselves into jobs which require very long hours/extra study/sacrificing of family time. If that happens, who is going to pay thevtax needed to keep the country afloat.

The bitter people who resent hrt payers and feel they should pay even more are biting the hand that feeds.

I agree with those pointing out that it's based on one person earning over the threshold. The household can earn well over the threshold with both parents earning just under the threshold and still get child benefit which doesn't seem fair. It should be based on household income.

It's very misleading to say that the higher tax rate threshold is £32K, as you've not mentioned that you don't pay any tax on the first approx. £10.5K. So you only pay 40% tax if you earn well over £40K, and only on the top tranche of your income.
I would strongly support people paying more tax the more they earn, to a far greater degree than they do now. Eg pay 45% of income between £75K and £100K, and pay 50% of income between £100K and £150K, and 55% thereafter.

Faux - people in the higher rate tax bands can't end up with less money than people who have lower earnings. Because the higher rate tax is only paid on the top tranche of their earnings.

I really don't agree with people paying a higher percentage of tax the more they earn. I think it's very unfair. They will be putting a lot more into the pot anyway.

Personal tax allowance was withdrawn at higher levels.

There is an additional rate of tax that is payable over £150k it was brought in in 2010 at a rate of 50% but in 2013 it was reduced to 45%.

The bitter people who resent hrt payers and feel they should pay even more are biting the hand that feeds at least a couple of the people saying increase tax rates are hrt.

A family with a higher earner and sahp can end up with less take home pay than a family with 2 earners not in hrt bracket when you factor in cb and tax allowances.

You can also end up with a hrt payer who may earn more but not such a significant smount more to justify to themselves the effort involved in doing their particular job when an easier and lower paid one would jet them a similar take home pay once you include state top ups.

CB was always the one benefit that was exempt from means testing (and why shouldn't it be, after all, it is for the child - who has the same opportunity regardless of his parents' income etc). My husband earns over the threshold (usually) after commission etc for his job that he works incredibly long hours and very hard for). I earn buttons for very long hours and incredibly hard work. I still 'get' child benefit because as his income is flexible it has to be paid back through tax coding and this means that, when our tax code letters arrived this year, he has a minus tax code (ie. Zero tax free pay and actually owes the tax man before he even starts!). It does seem unfair that there are tax breaks for middle income working parents but once you cross an imaginary line in the sand suddenly there's nothing.

It's not misleading vicar £32k is the threshold at which 40% tax becomes applicable

CocoaBear you're taking my words out of context - there was a "She said" in front of that. I don't care either way whether she's going back to work but what I meant was that she has literally said (more than once) "I'm going back to work even though DH earns over £100k". Bitter? Nope. Just not a fan of stealth boasts.

But as I said in my earlier post perhaps I should've titled this thread differently!

We don't get it. DP earns above the threshold, not hugely above. I earn no-where near it! It really pisses me off. We are the squeezed middle!

We live in a society where the government is at least in theory tasked to do what it takes to make things work for everyone. In my view it is to the advantage of all, rich and poor, to live in a more equal society. That leads to people in general being happier with their lives, less crime, a better infrastructure, the right people getting the right jobs (not just those who can afford the unpaid internships, etc). I would rather live in Norway than in Russia, or even the US. We are becoming a society where it is seen as "fair" for a minority of people to be extremely poor and receive very little help, and another minority to be extremely rich, with no idea of what to do with the vast amount of money they have. Meanwhile everything goes downhill - the NHS, schools, infrastructure. Because to do anything about those things would mean asking the rich to pay some of that money they don't know what to do with.

FAux - it's misleading, because plenty of people who don't pay higher rate tax won't realise that you don't pay it on earnings above £32K, but on earnings above approx. £43K.

"Because to do anything about those things would mean asking the rich to pay some of that money they don't know what to do with."

I don't mind cb being means tested as long as it's done fairly, as in based on a household income and not just one income. Also if cb is going to be means tested how about making all universal benefits means tested because my dad certainly doesn't need the winter fuel allowance!

Forgot to mention that it's not just via direct taxation that hrt payers lose out. It's in things you don't immediately consider, like when your child goes to university, the amount of money they can borrow is limited by the parent's income. The parent is expected to pay the difference. The child of someone earning below a certain amount can borrow more from the state. If both your kids go at the same time you can find yourself paying a lot while also paying more tax to pay for the university of those kids whose parents get top ups.

It fuels resentment. When everyone gets a little something back, that resentment doesn't exist and we are all more willing to be supportive of those who have less and to pay for services we might not use ourselves because a decent society accepts the need to finance them for those who do.

But it all hinges on feeling invested, which the state is eroding.

Oh dear OP, have you thought carefully about how CB works?!!!

I think that child benefit is a mess. Frankly it would have been better if child benefit had been scrapped entirely and replaced with more child tax credits. I would like the money saved to be ploughed into extending free school meals for all children. That way we would ensure that all children get decent meal at school.

We keep our child benefit by employing an accountant who helps us manage our tax affairs. It is perfectly legal to increase your pension contributions to keep your taxable income down. We don't do anything illegal, but good financial management loses the treasury money. The child benefit fiasco also means that every higher rate tax payer with kids has to do self assessment. The cost of self assessment to government cost more than the child benefit cut saves.

People who earn 50 to 60k are the powerhouses of the UK. The way that the child benefit is implemented discourages hard work. For example a single mother who earns more 50 to 60k might chose to work 4 days a week. The reduction in chikdcare costs and a day off could be attractive.

We need higher earners to do vital jobs in our society. If someone loses 69% of a bonus over 50k then they will see little point in working extra hard.

I agree ReallyTired that there are now ridiculous disincentives at certain income points to work extra / take a promotion. And any change that ends in paying accountancy fees is a wrong move imo.

Have taxpayers actually saved any money from this change to CB?