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!

Kiwekey - I claim, as do other Forces wives who live abroad, and our children are not in the UK.

The whole overiding feeling I am left with is that my children don't matter. And we're on our own. Symbolically we have a government that is anti-family and doesn't appreciate the sacrafices that all parents make. That's quite a scary thought.

I'm wondering now why I would ever encourage my children to do well in life and work for this country when any support for them has been dropped at such a young age.

Aside from those who live in poverty or right on the breadline, anyone who can afford to pay for extras beyond food and shelter could be deemed able to live without CB. There seems to be this illusion that a household with one HRT payer has lashings of spare cash and that any household with earners below £44,000 have just enough income, with CB, to pay for food and shelter.

I think everyone should be bothered by the unfairness of this cut (especially for single parents) and we should all be concerned about what next could be taken away from children.

Don't know if this has been discussed,but is this true? (it is from the DM)

"Is there any way of avoiding this income trap?
Some higher earners could still receive child benefit by paying a larger proportion of their income into their pension fund, or contributing to charity.
For example, someone with children who earns £45,000 but pays £1,500 into a pension would be taxed only on £43,500, allowing him or her to keep their child benefit."

DinahRod. We only just fall above the threshold, dh actually earns less than £44k but his company car is a taxable benefit and pushes him just above. Theortically he could put more of his earnings into a pension and move below the threshold, he is going to take advice from an accountant. But the problem is he can't really afford to put more of his salary into a pension because we need every penny now whilst the children are so young.

Just listening to DC on Radio 4 talking about 'better off people.'

One year's fees at Eton for one child: almost £30,000.

School fees at Norland Place where George Osborne's 2 children go to school: £12,000 a year each.

(Costs don't include extras and uniforms).

What on earth do these people know about a single parent living on an income of £44,000 in London? How dare they call such a person 'better off'?

These people are complete, complete, complete idiots. They are thick - that is why they have made this mistake.

(Probably thickness result of a bump to the head during some Bullingdon club jape).

Listening to Cameron on Radio 4. He keeps banging on about how better off families need to make a 'contribution'. As if the state were a charity. By earning a wage tax-payers are already making a large contribution. By bringing up the next generation of British society, and tax-payers, those earning 44000K are making a massive contribution on a now dwindling amount of money.
In fact the amount saved is small change in state terms so can anyone suggest what is the coalition's real motivation?

Dinah Rod, the theory is that you pay income tax on your pension when you receive your pension, not on investments made into your pension.

Therefore, for instance, if deductions are made from your salary and paid into your pension fund, this is done before tax and not included in taxable income for tax calculations.

Benefits like cars and health insurance are included in income.

@ manicmonday22

"So much for self respect."

If someone forced to beg for money from dh because there's not a reasonable system of sharing their families income in place, then the person not showing respect is dh.

It shouldn't be the governments responsibility to give a stay at home partner money just because their relationship with their spouse is such that they can't ask for money without feeling demeaned.

@Pernickety

"I'm wondering now why I would ever encourage my children to do well in life and work for this country when any support for them has been dropped at such a young age."

Perhaps so they can live a life where they are not dependent on government handouts?

The economy is in dreadful shape, why should those who are in the top 20% of UK earners receive this benefit? The implementation isn't ideal, but the idea behind it is reasonable. If you're earning that much and can't afford children without receiving the benefit then you should look at your lifestyle!

So if you are on the cusp and paid more into your pension, you'd qualify for CB?

Will everyone see through these "cuts" as just a tax rise?

Tories cannot raise income tax oh no so they are hitting the more "well off" who can contribute more.

It's a sly, unfair and easy way to raise taxes for higher rate tax payers.

Yes I am bitter we are going to be over £200 a month worse off, I am a SAHM, DP just over threshold, 4 young children. Why did DP and I bother to get into so much debt getting 3 degrees between us to enable us to earn a little bit extra for our children?

Just heard David Cameron on R4 and he keeps going on about how it is "fair". How is it fair that a family can have a combined income of £86k and still get CB but a family on £44k will lose it? I wish they would answer how that is fair.

But if you can afford to pay into your pension and live without that bit of salary do you need CB.....

I agree that CB (should be cut for the wealthier - the cuts have to come from somehwere - but it should be household, not individual income assessed.

Breaking News on Sky

David Cameron announces that couples will be able to tansfer their personal tax free incoem tax allowances if one parent is SAHP. This will offset loss of CB for couples where one stays at home.

Cant help thinking this has been announced in response to the firestorm set off yesterday by GO. Sensible decision in my view and does recognise the contribution parents make to bringing up future tax payers.

Wow. That helps a bit, I suppose.... I'm a SAHM with DH earning just over the threshold. We were set to lose over £170 a month.

I wonder what he'll say about NI and HRP....

I also think it's a sneaky way to make sure parents are married as you are better off for CB if you are together and earning a lower amount than if you were totally alone and had no-one to transfer the tax to..

Just wait to see what else they announce, this might be nothing in comparison

Well, it still doesn't make it fair for lone parents paying HRT.

That does make a difference and at £6475 Personal allowance someone who just falls into the upper rate 40% txa band it will mean an extra £2590 after tax income per year.

The loss of CB for two children would be about £1770 so any family with one earner just falling into the higher rate tax band will actually gain a few hundred pounds if these two measures are brought in together.

In effect the loss of CB seems to have just been offset by a change on the tax system. In effect a complete climb down in the face of the massive adverse response.

btyiew - you missed out the itallics in my quote.

"I'm wondering now why I would ever encourage my children to do well in life and work for this country when any support for them has been dropped at such a young age."

I'm not going to encourage my children not to work, but I may not encourage them to stay in the UK and work here.

riven - not clear the exact details. Just been listening to DC on Sky and I get the impresison thsi is very much a very recent decision.

I am actually impressed that DC has responded quickly to this. I wrote yesterday that I hoped DC would bang heads together over this and he looks as though he has. Credit where credit is due.

A transferable tax allowance in my view has always been something that was a sensible measure and I think if it had been announced at the same time as the loss of CB yesterday it would have been welcomed with little fuss.

Dont suppose they will allow childcare costs to be offset against tax so more SAHP can go out to work though.

So it's really an attack on single parents then? If married couples are going to be able to tranfer tax allowances to offset the loss, where one is a SAH parent? Who looses? Oh the single parents, but that's ok because it'll teach them to get above their station and become a HR tax payer. The Tories seem to hate us.
And how come they are able to manage to work out

...who can transfer tax to whom, but not the relatively simple exercise of what is earnt by each household?

Yes I agree this whole thing now probably means it wil actually cost more than if they had left the old CB and tax allowance system in place.