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!

Can't stand stupid rash supposedly cost saving exercises.

This idea and plan is UTTER nonsense.

It will be IMO completely impossible to administer - what about PAYE, how can you check the box for that?

Also DC1 is stepchild of current DH, DCs father definitely doesn't earn £44,000 per year, so will we still get CB for her, as legally DH has no financial obligation to DC, he does it out of love for us both???

Agree CB needs reform, but this is such a shoddy idea and a very unfair way of doing this.

What I don't get (unless more will be revealed) is why a grown up didn't tell GO that taking it away from family A on £80,000 because mummy stays at home/ daddy stays at home whereas giving it to Family B on £80,000 because both troll off to work was a bit unfair, and unlikely to change the electorates view that GO has the job becuase of who he knows not what he knows.

Have just emailed my MP to express my outrage concern. I understood the election manifesto was to support hard working famillies [hmmm]

If your MP is Conservative all contact details can be found on thier website

here although from the bbc website it sounds like it's a done deal.

If the Tories didn't get back in could a new government give it back?

Just thinking if it starts from 2013,it would be 2 years without it.

Just thinking surely it would be very unlikely that the Tories would get back in if that was the case. We'll loose best part of £200. I'd vote for anybody that would give that back,as I'm sure would most families hovering around that bracket.

Can't believe it's not on the 50% bracket

As pretty much everyone has pointed out, the problem with this isn't the principle (high earners shouldn't received benefits) but the implementation.

There are four issues with the implementation:

1. The cost of living is different across the country. In London a family with 3 kids earning £45k is not well-off, but in say Northern Ireland they'd be rich. This should be recognised by the benefit system.

1. Withdrawal should be tapered. If all benefit is withdrawn as someone crosses the threshold then it creates large negative tax rates. A family with 3 kids gets £1700 CB per year. This means that someone earning £43k would receive more after tax than someone earning £46k. Bonkers.

1. Generational unfairness. Those in their thirties and forties have high outgoings, so that although their incomes may look good, after paying for mortgage, childcare etc they are worse-off than their pensioner neighbours. Child benefit was a recognition of this. If it is to go, then universal benefits for pensioners (other than the basic pension) should also be means-tested.

1. Dual-earners/SAHP - actually here I think the distinction is justified due to the high cost of childcare.

I see they have not spoken to any Lib Dems. Seem to remember them voting to ring fence this (though Clegg obviously knew what was coming as he already mentioned they didn't need it!). He might as well put his blue tie on now!

Welfare cuts/reform, including axing CB has nothing to do with reducing the budget defecit - this is a Tory political move.

We don't need our CB. I would happily do without, if I felt that lower income families could get more. But that's not going to tbe the case is it?

Yes but the costs of the benefits changes are so high that there is a huge risk of them being effectively undunchangeable for any new Government.

Worth aiming for though....

Roastchicken - re dual incomes - yes there are childcare costs, but with this system, a family can take home (after tax) THIRTY THOUSAND POUNDS more than us and still get child benefit, but we are going to lose three thousand pounds a year.

SAHMs are in the minority so let's target them.

FFS.

grumpypants, re "Someone earnig 60k, no tax return, who is going t know if s/he is married/ has children?"

everyone paying higher rate has to complete a self-assessment return every year (DH used to but hasn't for years, I can't remember what information it asks for though!)

Lily - how will you lose 3K per year?

SAHPs - the invisible, unheard minority, once more forgotton and brushed aside...

See the current government, supporting families in all their shapes and sizes...

It seems so unfair that a household with one earner loses CB at £44k, but a family with 2 earners keeps it to £83K!!!!!!!

Also, if you have a child under 12, will you be able to keep HRP until the child reaches that age, even if you no longer receive the cash?

It's annoying/painful to deal with the drop in income, but quite another thing to replan many years of NI contributions.

SCL, I was thinking about social housing as an alternative for you. The remaining housing association properies around here are really nice, a lot of the original housing stock was sold off.

I still stand by what I said. If I earned £40K a year I would be very very happy indeed. I am working poor and it's getting worse even though I have a 'good job' as opposed to working in Maccy D's/Tesco. Don't get me wrong not slagging off people who are at this limit or who work for the companies mentioned. I am [jealous] of the higher rate tax payers.

4 children

Last time the conservatives were in power it took them a few years to think up the poll tax and VAT on fuel.

The coalition have come up with a riot worthy barmy tax policy within weeks.

It's not just hitting SAHP's though is it? Families where both mother and father work and therefore have to deal with childcare costs are also losing their CB, and childcare vouchers to boot.

This makes it harder for women to work which in turn means they will pay less tax and employ less childcare, who also will pay less tax. Well done George, your grasp of basic economics is quite astounding.

sorry, that was to feelliketweedledee - 4 children = 3k per year in child benefit.

I've worked out that if we lose CB it's equivalent of paying another 4% in tax or our net income going down by 6%.

Bet the Tories wouldn't be in such a hurry to raise taxes across the board would they?

Ponders - really? I thought you could be taken off self assessment once your affairs were pretty simple. (Note - have not practised for several years)

CCL - applause for you and your tax knowledge. Please get in touch with George and let him know...

The risk of this debate is that it can turn into a version of the 'four yorkshire men' sketch where we all compete for how hard done by we are and it becomes divisive (all to the benefit of the ruling classes). I am as guilty of this as anyone, and I do feel 'got at' by the state but I am aware it is all relative.

Despite the fact dh income puts him in hrt he is still a wage slave, he does not have control over his destiny or his wages, we are at the whims of the market like everyone else. The government is fiddling with piddling amounts to pay off debts that are based on confidence and credit ratings decided by the very people who put us in this financial crisis in the first place - free market capitalism, corporate banking, the value of the housing market - all these things are constructs based not on gold bullien but our belief in them - a bit like tinkerbell. Maybe we should stop clapping and start again, with trading goods and services for food and shelter .... anyone want to join me in a commune in wales {grin]?

Anyway must put the kettle.

I don't see how its making it harder for women to work. Is anyone seriously saying that two HRT earners are going to be affected so much by losing say £20 or £30 a week?