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!

It would be fairer to apply the tax increase across the board to higher rate payers, rather than applying a tax increase only to those with children, which is in effect what is happening here.

Please don't tell me the 15 hours nursery vouchers are going?

I've just seen on the news that banks are going to 'need' more taxpayers money as of next year Fuming does not even cover it!

link here

my heart sinks yet again. We keep trying but every year nah every month life just keeps getting more and more expensive. Work take and take, hours worked go up expenses of getting to work go up everything goes up all the time.

On Jeremy VIne Christna Odone seems to think that the £44,000ish earner is a minutely small group. And then there is GO's £70,000 comnet.

Can this be true?

I just want to know what the actual number of tax payers there are in the various bands (say of £5,000) are. The CO's of this world are working om the assumption that £100,000 is much more common. This boslters their argument

If 15% of taxpayers pay 40%, then presumably the number gets smaller and smaller as you go up the pay scale.

I am confused.

What this government really needs is to give the nation a carrot. We've got plenty of sticks already.

If we really are all 'in this together' then for goodness sake start painting a positive picture of what the future might look like in say 2020 when we've paid off the huge debts and our collective books are looking a bit more robust.

We need hope. Something to work for.

They need a new PR... George are you looking for a new consultant. I could do with a bit of extra work

The main thing that these cuts are highlighting is how excessive the cost of living is in this country and how even earning what should be a 'top' salary is not a passport to an easier home life at all.

Thing is most pensioners would argue that they scrimped and saved and did without when their kids were young. All the while paying taxes. I can see your point(s), some pensioners do lead very nice lives indeed. But not all. Not by a long, long way.

So did mine Riven. Before hopping off down to the golf course in their new luxury 4x4

GO just announced at the Tory Party Conference that he will put a hard cap limit the total amount of benefits any one family can receive and the maximum will be set at the level that an average family gets from going out to work. This limit excludes disability benefits which will not be capped.

On CB he has not said anything or if that is included in the capped amount of benefits.

Have emailed my MP to ask for his clarification. Am interested to see what he has to say.

'When will we see the benefits of our hard work?

You know when you pay your house insurance you can claim if you need it?

then.

We were the same as you: in fact at a few stages we had three jonbsbetween us. Thwen disability entered the equation wrt the children.

If the sdame happens to you that's when it is supposed to be available.

Surely teh issue is people getting it when they don't need, not people not geting it when they don't need?

I think noddy is right, and it largely comes down to the cost of property. If any government was prepared to tax property gains properly we might be onto something genuinely redistributive.

He has just said that CB should not go to higher rate tax payers.

He said that he wants to withdraw CB from households with a higher rate tax payer.

Molly, it's true - not all. Just like not all parents are scrounger who spend their child benefit on tennis lessons or playstation games.

They may have scrimped and saved when there kids were young but did not have to find £20k each for a University education, probably have a final salary scheme pension and far more job security than younger generations.

And they still whinge.

I wouldn't be so ticked off about this if it was going to be a fair cut ie based on HOUSEHOLD income.

DH is the sole earner in our house, for a variety of reasons, including v.nasty PND...plus he works stupidly long hours to get his salary...so is unable to help out at home with anything resembling frequency (not that I mind - you can't have it all)

It is unfair that this was a universal benefit, in some ways, although it is the money that keeps us in the black each month, because of our financial commitments.

What really grates is that many of our friends, who already have a higher NET income than us, as they a dual salary families and can access all sorts of credits and the like, plus getting £12,000 pa tax free within the household and keeping to a lower tax bracket, earn over £44,000 between them BUT WILL NOT LOSE THEIR CB...

How is this in any way shape or form FAIR?????

I think Child Benefit should be scrapped if they're going to muck about with it and added to the pre-existing means tested child related benefits/tax credits, then atleast it's fairer (IMVHO) for all.

Why should families who have a potential joint income of £86,000 get to keep their CB because neither one earns over £44,000, when a single parent earning £44,000 will lose their benefit, or a single income family of £44,000 will lose their benefit - it's a stealth tax on the "not quite wealthy enough"...

GGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

What this actually samcks of is a lack of original thiniing.

Do you know what would get me out to work?

being allowed to utilise the student childcare system (i've a year left to qualify for my profession) to hire in a Nanny who coudl deal with the boy's SN, when nurseries can't take them (there's nowhere locally offereing provision over 12 anyway and ds1 is almost 11).

Not more money than we would get, just a different way to spend it.

There's little point of me getting a job in tesco anyway (actually Oi would if I could find one that was only in school hours and let me off for appts, might be fun) becuase facts are fact: tesco work will not pay the childcare costs of two disabled kids.

Nit hand me that tiny amendment and I am going to finish my social worker qualifying (Already doen a degree and lots of work) amd be able to pay for the childcare properly alongside dh's income and not cost a penny.

but they don't think like that oh no. No bloody originality.

But CB apparently will still go to families with 2 earners just below the higher rate threshold? Yes they will have higher childcare costs - but not that much higher! A family like that could potentially be earning £88K gross & still get CB on top.

To quote "In some cases, this could result in families with an income of almost £88,000 receiving child benefit, while others on little more than half this sum lose out because one of the parents stays at home to look after the children.".........apparently because it would be too complicaed to do otherwise........"Mr Osborne acknowledged that his plan would produce "anomalies""...

Speaks for itself, doesn't it....yet again there are some winners whilst others are being kicked in the teeth.

P.S

I have no problem paying taxes to support those who are less fortunate than us for whatever reason - I really do like being a member of society...BUT I think you need to treat even financially successful individuals FAIRLY...

I realise I live up north in an area with low paid jobs, unfortunatley high property prices and cost of living, but wonder who all these people are that are earning just under the threshold. Over/just under and I would be living in luxury and not worrying about losing CB. Fact is that most people don't earn anywhere near the limit.

Does he really think people will tick the box on the ITR?

butterflymum

Yes, typically badly thought through and poorly presented - a cheap way of attempting to tackle what could have been a revolutionary reform to the benefit system with a REAL saving, not just a perceived saving that is going to upset a lot of family budgets in a grossely unfair manner.

Why not bin the freee milk and save an additional £50 million a year - as far as I know not many children drink it and schools and nurseries have to pay to store and manage it - could save a few more quid with not a great deal of loss. Oh no, that one created too much BAD publicity didn't it...

Equally, the kind of child care you need when you have a very young child is quite different to the kind of child care you need when you have an older child, so a single mother of an 18 month old will need more expensive child care than a couple with teenagers.

This really is nuttier than a nutty thing on nutty things day eating a Walnut Whip.

This is incredibly sexist. I'm fucked off.

Can we always rely on mens goodwill to dish out their wages??

FFS.

Incredibly sad right now.