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!

Ali. We will be better off because dh will move in with his parents so he will have minimal costs and the benefits that I will receive will be more than we are left with each month after paying mortgage and travel costs and I will only have 3 mouths to feed instead of 4.

We won't do it to defraud the system we will actually end our relationship so will be entitled to the benefits.

Well I have just worked out that whilst we will lose THREE THOUSAND a year, a family that takes home (ie AFTER TAX) THIRTY THOUSAND more than we do will still get it.

Fair - I don't think so.

I also have a bee in my bonnet about universal benefits to old people such as winter fuel allowance and even the old aged pension to an extent.

These are people who have spent their lives with free university education, universal child benefit, low house prices and now expect universal benefits in their old age too.

All of this is being denied to our generation and our children.

It sucks.

LeninGrad - see further down the thread. It seems Home Responsibilites Protection will be protected by continuing to pay CB but clawing it back from the HRT.

i think they should only pay it for up to 2 children.

and not for 50% tax earners.

"This should be household income"

so long as they raise the threshold, yes.

Alibaba - yes it does feel all ideologically wrong.

CB should be an integral part of a Universal Benefit System. There should be an element of a Universal Benefit paid to each child - not just to its parent.

That payment should not depend on some cack handed measure of parental income. It should not be means tested - that after all the true definition of Universal Benefit in that everyone gets it.

Another thing. I thought we had moved away from viewing women as appendages of their DH/DP in the tax system? This proposal seems to take us back to that but without the advantage of Married Man's Allowance yet making the woman more financially dependent on her man. This is ideologically all over the place.

...and allow the non earner to transfer their tax allowance to the earner as well Fanjo.

dollshouse that seems very drastic. How can money be more important than a family staying together?

"So merrymouse, you wouldn't mind if GO was proposing to increase the higher rate to say 60%? Or only if the threshold was above your/your DH's earnings?"

I think 60% would be a bit extreme. However, I think income tax could be increased (although I would raise the higher rate threshold), capital gains tax could be increased (or the annual allowance could be lowered), or the inheritance tax threshold could be freezed for a couple of years. My DH earns quite a lot above the higher rate threshold, and were I to work full time, I would too.

Cutting child benefit is far more indiscriminate than increasing income tax. It doesn't matter if your partner earns £44K and you are staying at home to support a child with special needs, or your partner earns £200K a year and you spend your CB on tennis lessons - you still loose the same amount of money.

I'd already pointed that out Beenbeta re independent taxation, but I was ignored. Glad someone else has picked up on it.

We can't take this on the chin.

We must do something about it. Anyone up for a repeat of the poll tax riots?

I agree much more with the idea of CB only for the first two children; easier to administer, too. The threshold for HR tax isn't exactly the skyhigh sum people seem to think it is in the SE - it's ridiculous to imagine people spending CB on foreign holidays when it's probably all going on the mortgage and the gas bill.

"Meg - not at the moment. It was scrapped about 4/5 years ago for HRT payers that had straightforward situations - ie. one job, no self-employment etc. "

So what about interest on savings accounts? Do these high rate tax payers get to pay this at basic rate? How do they claim back for charitable giving?

It is an attack on families who made the decision for one partner to work and the other to raise the children. And fwiw I know quite a number of families where the father stays at home, so it's not just an attack on women.

Also the loopholes are numerous. Someone has already mentioned the self-employed. I bet the accountants out there are rubbing their hands.

And for those who say they can't be bothered to get divorced for the CB, well, I don't suppose I could, but when you consider that if university fees rise to £10-12K a year and you'd get the fees free if you no longer had that irritating money-earning husband hanging around, then it's a definite consideration...

Suddenly Labour's 1p rise in NI doesn't seem that bad.

DC ranted on and on about Labour's Job Tax and putting an end to it but there's no jobs out there anymore, there's pay freezes galore, no recruiting in public service roles, job cuts, disability/housing benefits reduced etc, education cuts.

This is a long overdue redress of something that was patently unfair. The old example was that Cherie Blair could claim CB for her brood, even though she was on hundreds of thousands as a QC. And the hands would go up that this was so unfair. So it's going .. and a lot of us will be worse off short-term and try to justify our annoyance by making out that £44,000 doesn't go as far as it used to etc. etc.

That potential anomaly about two people on £30k getting CB whereas 1 person on £50k doesn't needs to be sorted out pronto because that is no fairer than the old system. But we can't complain at the principle that the well-off are expected to pay and the poor get help.

higher rate taxpayer

I'm sure HRP will remain as they will still pay out the CB but just claim it back in tax from the Higher Rate Taxpayer.

Gaelic sheep - we have one v cheap hol a year (in the uk) we run one car (but I do not drive), we have high fixed costs, no private schools or skiing trips here though.

I think the target is wrong, cutting income for families at a time of econmomic uncertainty will have a detrimental affect on discretionary spending surely this will not be good for the economy?

But maybe it will help bring about the revolution - Middle Class Revolt - you have nothing to lose but your artisan bread and rather nice chablis... etc.

It is mainly a choice for a mum to stay at home and live on a partners income, if he won't share, then that is a relationship/lifestyle issue.

We need to find out exactly how the changes will be brought it. Hopefully they will protect the pension credits still.

Ali. Money isn't more important but not having enough money to pay for the basics is intolerable.