Thank goodness tax rise scrapped

[Jems557]

So we’re a blended large family, so after maintenance and all the outgoings for our large combined family we don’t have very much left at all, as obviously we need a big house so our mortgage and council tax is a lot, we need a bigger than average (although several year old) car etc. However we don’t claim any benefits, my DH works hard to provide for his and our children but so much is taken in tax anmd maintenance already, there is no tax allowance for raising children. This would of hit us hard

This would of [sic] hit us hard

This would only have hit you hard if you earn well into the 40% bracket?

Please see my answer above. We didn’t want to live our life based on perverse tax and benefit incentives to stay single , we were not asking for money from anyone, in fact saving the state a fortune by choosing to blend. I knew I’d be thousands a year worse off and much would no longer be able to afford when we blended. Yes it’s always felt massively unfair but we’ve worked hard to try and give our children a decent life, my DH already pays thousands and thousands in tax, why should we be made even worse off than we’ve already been made ?

That's what Child Benefit is for.

Just a fairer tax system, one that acknowledges how many children you are supporting. Once all our children have grown up we obviously wouldn’t be so bothered if we were on our current income as our essential expenditure would be much less

Yes it gets taken off you if you earn over 60k (previously 50k) so not are you only paying 40% tax, NI SLC and maintenance, you are also charged CBHIC, this marginal rate of tax doesn’t leave you with much of the extra earnings at all

So on behalf of your high earning husband, you’d like people who earn well to have their children essentially accommodated for by the state, in the form of tax considerations?

On my own behalf, as both a high earner and a parent - no.

You may lose on child benefit, but you gain on earning over £60k. Nobody has sympathy for people who have to pay maintenance, because that’s just paying for children that you chose to have.

I think that’s what a lot of people don’t understand on this thread, my DH is not going to go out and work lots of extra hours, taking on lots of extra responsibility and stress to be left with 20p in every extra £1 hrs earning, who would?? Would they genuinely do that over being able to join us on a family walk? However people will get to the stage of being so frustrated that even if they go and earn an extra £200 a month they are not left with enough to pay the £60 for their children’s swimming lessons as they are only left with £40 that they emigrate or riot
If my DH did take on the extra work it would help his employers business grow and extra tax raised that way. People on this thread have criticised us for being a blended family despite it saving the state 30k a year plus so I don’t think their logic stretches to the lost productivity caused by our current crazy tax system

The Daily Mail is now reporting that she might instead lower the 40% tax threshold to £46000 and the higher rate to £100K so looks like you will possibly still have to pay more income tax OP. She then wouldn't be breaking their manifesto commitment of not raising taxes and would be protecting working people who they have defined as earning below 45K. I suspect this is now what is going to happen.

We’re not asking for anyone to pay for our children? Just to be allowed to be not taxed to death on the money we’re trying to earn to support them. The ideology of people like you is why the country’s economy is down the pan

I can’t speak for OP but we don’t have a huge amount of equity and barely pay anything off each month. If we moved into rented, updated all our second-hand furniture, paid off our cars and went on a few nice holidays, we’d soon be under 16k savings.

I ran the figures through entitled.to and we’d get £4615 a month, including wages from aforementioned 16hrs at Tesco, assuming rent is the same as our mortgage (which it is in our area). But with free prescriptions, negligible child maintenance paid, no childcare costs due to barely working, all school meals from next year, no car payments, more benefits when the cap is lifted next year.

We currently take home, after childcare and maintenance, £4850. For working 40hrs (him) and 32hrs (me) in stressful roles, with the youngest in childcare 34hrs a week. Is it worth it for £235 a month?

You said you’d like there to be tax relief relative to how many children you’re raising. That tax relief would come out of the public purse and cost the economy.

I’m a high rate tax payer, why on earth would the government fund children that I chose to have when I can evidently afford to do so myself, by virtue of having an income that means my deductions are higher?

I’m sure it’s difficult that your husband has a high paying job that takes him away from family life etc. But that’s the trade off for having a high paid job.

If you want more money, could you also get a higher paid job? Two high incomes are quite obviously better than one. Might also make you less reliant on your husband’s income (which you said you were).

It also gives you more credibility complaining about HRT when you’re the one paying it.

I’m not the problem. I pay in, a fairly large sum, and don’t complain about the implications of that. I don’t complain about it because my take home pay is obviously higher than average, or I wouldn’t pay so much in tax, and frankly I wouldn’t have the audacity to complain about being better off.

That’s a stretched definition of not raising income tax, and if I was an MP sent out to talk to any journalists I’d be embarrassed trying to spin it that way.

(I’m not talking about whether the policy is good or not, just the ridiculousness if they tried to sell it as “not raising income tax”)

Bread and circuses.

We have been led down a path of woe and fear - only for them to have a last minute reprieve - which will still sting and hurt but not quite as much as what was threatened.

This really needed to be done for the good of the economy even though middle to high earners (like me!) would have been hit. If they're not doing it now it means they've chosen politics over the good of the country which is disappointing (and exactly what i thought they wouldn't do when they were elected.) And we'll no doubt be hit by stealth anyway.

Totally agree, and lowering the threshold to £46k is ridiculous.

That’s not a high income, certainly not in the current climate. Not high enough to justify a threshold change.

Agree. That won’t wash. It’ll be that police / teacher thing.

I would be pissed off if they lowered the HR threshold, not because of the impact but merely because it would be plain they were just playing games and twisting words rather than actually having the conviction to do what they actually, logically think is right.

I suppose, in justifying the policy, they’d say that it’s still a higher threshold and a lower rate than in Scotland. But it wouldn’t matter how they tried to sell the policy if they’re trying to pretend it’s not raising income tax. People wouldn’t listen to any justification if they’re still talking absolute shite about the semantics of “have we or haven’t we raised taxes”.

All that would happen is the people caught up paying higher taxes would be listed - police/ teachers / NHS whatever

They can try to hide stuff but it’ll backfire

Sadly, I agree that's probably what is going to happen, but it will just make the crazy cliff edges worse and discourage people from working more hours, taking extra shifts, taking promotions etc., as the "marginal" tax rates on incomes slightly above the thresholds will be stupidly high. They're bad enough as it is. If she's insane enough to make these changes, she needs to change the cliff edge and tapering rules for the child benefit and the £100k withdrawal of personal allowance and free child care.

This is exactly the sort of thing she will do. No doubt she will stand up and say “look, I’m honouring our commitment not to raise income tax”, and hope that no one notices that she’s effectively increased income tax in an underhand way.

£800/year is a lot to find for many people.

I think she’s a disgrace. The whole party are incompetent, and liars.

I guess that this is an old fashioned morality tale for the opposition isn’t it. Never promise what you may not be able to deliver. They clearly need to put up taxes , but they can’t because they promised all sorts when it was easier to just say anything ( such as promising the ‘waspi women’ some kind of recompense and now discovering that’s harder to do / too much money)

Benefits arent that good

Well The Guardian is now reporting that the Treasury has said it won't cut income tax thresholds so maybe its just the DM scaremongering