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!

Quite, Edmonds5.

And I want to add that I am not a bank for greedy pensioners, either.

The elderly are always depicted as desperately poor and shivering over a one-bar fire. As I peer out of my window I spy fit and healthy 60-somethings trotting out of their £800K houses (bought for £25K) swinging their golf clubs, setting off on cruises and driving off in shiny cars to gastropubs.

And they get winter fuel allowance.

I have only skimmed the thread, so apologies if this has already been said.

But it seems to me that targeting the middle classes in removing CB from a significant swathe of people is to create anger at those people lower down the scale, in order for the coalition to push through draconian cuts to other benefits which normally would be met with opposition.

I went back to work and literally worked to pay the childcare. I accepted that. You work those first years pretty much as a loss. What you gain is X amounts of years in the workplace and the salary increases/job knowledge that you gain from not having to give up work.

'I want to know why rich pensioners get winter fuel allowance?'

i imagine that like CB it has always been easier/cheaper to administer as a universal rather than a means-tested benefit

There were plans being drawn up pre-election by the civil servants who had anticipated that dealing with WFA would be high on the priority list of the new government. But it was seen as too politically sensitive at the time and the plans were shelved. Since then it's clear that 'needs must'... and if the government want to do something about it, there's no point dithering.

Looking at the scale of benefit payments in the Times on Saturday, the amount for CB/Income Supporty and Jobseekers is absolutely dwarfed by the bill for the state pension.

Can't imagine that the coalition would want to alienate their core voter by reducing that bill, however.

Chil - I used to have a good job, I gave it up and we moved from the SE to Scotland so we could afford to have children. If DP still has a job in 3 years and gets payrises I suppose we will be OK, but that's a big IF.

I still don't know how they are going to work it and will it be open to all sorts of abuse?

I don't regret for one minute my tax paying for families who are poorer or more needy of the money.

I do regret it bailing out banks who leant more than they should have done to people who shouldn't have had the money and for public sector final salary pensions which have been unaffordable for the majority of private sector workers for many years.

"If this cut will really affect just 15% of the population then there must be a further 85% who are really, really badly off..."

Are you disputing that there are only 15% people earning over 40K? I'm pretty sure that's the case.

ScaryTeacher
"Mmmm, specious a bit. The higher rate taxpayers are paying for the CB as well. It's my dh's salary that pays for the cars, the mrtgage etc, not lower rate taxpayers."

Fair point, should have said the government rather than the lower paid tax payers. Still believe that point stands though with the amendment :)

SweetKitty
"but the chances are my DC won't be able to go to university if I don't save for them now."

Very true and you're hardly alone in that. That's not what the child benefit is for though, making a nest egg.

I would agree with you Chill if the cuts related to household income - but it is not therefore higher income households with 2 earners will not lose out - so of course we won'tt be starving on the streets - but equally those single income hh at the bottom of the HRT threshold are going to be disproportionally affected as has been pointed out many times...

sincity - Probably yes. Then we can all blame each other and continue with our stereotypical views. I can already see the DM spread tomorrow.

Getorf - that's v cynical...

We are South East; I was married before and have inherited debts; our mortgage is huge, and my wages cover exactly half the child care. The rest goes on petrol really. So the loss of Child Benefit won't mean less in savings, it will mean juggling money.

Now I'm dreading free child care (15 hours) going.

I was reading that in Japan, where the old have traditionally been venerated, a tide of contempt has grown for elderly people because there are so darn many of them. People resent the increasing tax burden.

There is going to be trouble here too because the working population cannot possibly sustain the expected number of pensioners as the baby boomers start retiring without increased taxation.

Who would take paying 60% tax on £45K on the chin to support next door's winter fuel allowance where the 60-year-olds are on the same pension as you earn and have no expenses? I'd be lobbing a few dog poos over the fence, I can tell you.

Gramercy - Supporting pensioners will be an ever increasing problem as families are actively discouraged from having more children as they can't afford them. Todays kids are tomorrows tax-payers!

"why are they waiting 3 years if the country is in dire straights right now?"

Presumably because they need to get the back end in place to deal with the admin?

'Why should low rate tax payers also support you having two cars, an extension and a small holiday when they can't afford food?'

Why should I buy a jaffa cake with no VAT and buy a digestive biscuit with VAT. Why should there be entrepreneur's relief on CGT and why are offshore trusts allowed?

Why can anybody go to an NHS hospital or a state school regardless of income?

Child benefit is not a means tested benefit. It is a benefit that recognises the increased cost of bringing up children during their dependent years. So what if rich people earning hundreds of thousands of pounds claim child benefit? You can easily make up the difference by taxing them more. Just don't pretend that a 5% reduction in household income for a family living on £44,000 is fair.

I don't have any articulate comment to add to this thread but wanted to register an aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh
how many more ways are we going to be shafted by this government ?

Hmmmm.

It also looks as if carer's will be meanstested (or at elast brought under universal credit which is same thing) so part of my instinct is to say that I chose to ahve kids, I didn;t ask for the disability.

But.

I'm largely becoming inclined to the idea that if we are taxed as individuals we should be considered as them throughout. If you each earn £40k then you don't need CB and won;t qualify for anything else anyway.

If one of you earns £40k but you both earned beforehand so your mortgage is high, or you get sick, or your kids do- then the eprson bearing that should count as an individual.

I'd pay higher taxes for that system absolutely.

Otherwise everything is seeming to be an attack on those whoa re trying: lower / middle earners, carers, whatever- and I am not quite sure what any of us did to deserve it.

I already know one eprson who spends her carers and CB on therapy for her child, therapy that is working. her dh earns just above the proposed thresholds. if she loses this she cannot afford the therapy: she has to make the choice of stop teh therapy or ask her dh to leave and claim it via burasry.

not nice.

And so far from what DC seemed to be selling.

riven, re HRP:

"Changes from April 2010 for parents and carers

Home Responsibilities Protection has been replaced for people reaching State Pension age on or after 6 April 2010.

From 6 April 2010, parents and carers are able to build up qualifying years through new weekly credits for the basic State Pension and additional State Pension. If you are a parent or carer, you will get a credit for each week in which you:

* are getting Child Benefit for children aged under 12
* are an approved foster carer
* are caring for at least 20 hours a week for people who are getting Attendance Allowance, the middle-rate or highest-rate care component of Disability Living Allowance, or Constant Attendance Allowance, or the need for care has been certified

There will be no limit to the credits awarded to parents and carers after April 2010, as long as you meet the qualifying rules.

If you reach State Pension age on or after 6 April 2010, complete tax years of Home Responsibilities Protection you have already built up before 2010 have been converted into qualifying years up to a maximum of 22 years. These qualifying years will also count towards bereavement benefits."

(from directgov)

If I am reading this correctly, I think this is actually better for carers than HRP, as there was that max of 22 years before. Now if you are a carer for longer than that you will continue to get credits towards pension etc.

OTOH, what will happen with SAHPs who have under-12s but will no longer get CB needs to be explained

(apols if this has already been pointed out)

That's a good point gramercy, it is a major issue in Japan.

While I know this isn't the case for all elderly people, my older relatives and their friends are very comfortably off, sitting in big mortgage-free homes on their final salary (mostly public sector) pensions and enjoying holiday after holiday after holiday... We sure as hell aren't so yes resentment is growing...

However, for us this is cheaper than a 1% increase in taxation, so I should be thankful for small mercies.

'Child benefit is not a means tested benefit. It is a benefit that recognises the increased cost of bringing up children during their dependent years' and crucially, that chioldren are essential to maintaining the country for the future 9the only other option being immigration), especially in an ageing society.

Kids grow into adults who pay tax: economists know this.

@ Riven, big changes in people's income need adequate lead-times so that everyone has chance to adjust. CTC disappears for many of us in January so that's the first phase to prepare for. Also, we'll find that 2013 coincides with other welfare reforms... various things happening simultaneously or sequentially leading progressively to the end result. In this case the bigger picture is 'The Universal Benefit'.

'OTOH, what will happen with SAHPs who have under-12s but will no longer get CB needs to be explained'

Oh good point!

And a scary one too.