So child benefit to go for higher rate taxpayers

[foxinsocks]

So says George osbourne on breakfast telly. Missed the details but sounds like it comes in from 2013!

Riven - yes it is a luxury saving it but we do without in other areas so we can put a bit past for them.

Maybe DP could go self employed and be contracted like some people I know who then revel in telling you about all the tax dodges they can get away with, putting spouse's in their "company" pay roll etc.

I suspect there is a reason why we can't find good figures on family income. ie whether it's mean or median, whether it allows for childcare costs or not, etc. You can bet the information is there, though.

"if you read the thread it has been explained that the benefit would still be paid to the mother, and the tax then taken back off the higher earner.
So it isn't going to be women 'cowtowing' and the NI contribution aspect is also going to be protected."

That point is worth repeating once again before too many people get their knickers in a knot. It changes a very unpalatable proposal into quite a sensible one, although of course the devil's in the detail.

"yes it is a luxury"

Then you don't need it. It should be based on need, nothing else.

The figures are on the ONS website, or at least they used to be

Totally agree with MollysChambers. Why are so many people acting so surprised / outraged when they (as a nation) voted the Tories in?! Statistically some of the people complaining on this thread MUST have voted for them.

I guess it will mean more couples live apart so they dont lose there CB.

The tories lovers are quick to accuse Labour polices which supposedly forces couples to live apart so they could claim more on benefits wreaks of hypocrisy.

@ gaelicsheep Hmm. Thinking about it, the proposal of loosing £1752/year is still not very palatable.

No point in my DH getting promoted then. :( If we lose all out CTC and our CB then we will be worse off than we are now. Surely there must be some kind of tapering, rather than once you're over the limit you lose everything? Otherwise it's like being taxed at 200%. Although I suppose that would be more expensive to administer if it was tapered.

In the SE with a mortgage, and with 4 mouths to feed, we use that money for normal life. It's not pin money to us.

the one income paying 40% tax is such such bollocks and will affect some households much worse than others

removing a universal benefit like this is such a retrograde thing to do

george osborne and his mates=wankers

"Why are so many people acting so surprised / outraged when they (as a nation) voted the Tories in?!"

Because they didn't vote them in?

scaryteacher, no your dh will pay an extra £1042 in tax

"That point is worth repeating once again before too many people get their knickers in a knot. It changes a very unpalatable proposal into quite a sensible one, although of course the devil's in the detail."

It's also worth repeating that at the moment a lot of HRT don't have to fill in SA forms, this will produce an extra administrative burden that has to be paid for...

I don't really see how they are going to work it all out especially if it is paid to one person and another has to be taxed on it

I reckon this is just the opener and we'll see all the OAP freebies removed too

The main problem with George's plan is that is is unfair.
1)The money comes out of woman's pocket, not a man's. It could be seen as an attack on women.

2)Any loss of benefit which could mean that a family with one worker earning £44,000 could lose the benefit when a family with two below-threshold workers earning a total of £86,000 won't is inequitable. It means an extra 5% tax on a single worker family earning just over the threshold.

I would rather eat my own intestines than vote for any fucking shitting piece of scum tory.

'If they say they will tax it, does that then mean for example that as I receive £1042.60 (one child), dh will then pay 40% on that, which is £417.04, leaving me £625.56 up, or that they will ensure that dh pays the full £1042.60?' Would this be your understanding then Gaelicsheep that the former would be the case, and it won't be lost altogether for HRT families?

Lucky, I am saving mine towards uni costs for ds, which I think we will have to pay in full. I may seem to be gaining from CB, but will lose when it comes to paying for Uni.

Scottie04 - Have never supported Scottish independance in my life but how the hell are we being governed by a party which has been completely annihilated in Scotland? Even that greasy muppet Salmond would be preferable. Lets hope they remember the poll tax marchs....

But merrymouse, surely you see that cuts have to be made? Would you prefer cuts to disability benefits perhaps, or being forced to pay to see a doctor? Cutting benefits paid to higher earners who can cope by cutting their cloth to fit seems fair to me.

Logically, he can't pay an extra £1024 in tax though, unless this is going to be taxed at 100% instead of 40%, which will require a legislation change rather than a SI I would think.

It is retrograde in that it takes away the principle of independent taxation.

I have read the whole thread - honestly - and still cant get my head round it.

Is he saying that for a 2 parent family to lose CB, they would BOTH have to be HRT? If that's the case then fair enough.

What about professionals who are lone parents? If they alone are HRT, do they lose out? That's not fair, surely the limit should be higher for them.

Could someone clarify please (apologies, if I'm being a bit dim).

What do cuts like these really mean to a high earning family? Skipping a holiday perhaps, running one less car, or really not being able to eat?

This won't affect us but I agree with SAF that it should have been implemented so CB stopped after 2 children for everyone.

Seems to me that would have tied in with IDS plans better.

It's a shambles atm, always knew he would be a terrible chancellor