Child benefit cut unenforceable

[mcquade]

It has emerged that the scrapping of child benefit for upper rate taxpayers is unenforceable and the Treasury is in a flap about, having failed to consult civil servants before making its headline-grabbing announcement. Yet another mess. Full story here:

blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/10/28/child-benefit-cut-unenforceable-treasury-in-a-flap/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Absolutely agree with Penth, especially about grooming and divide and rule, which I firmly believe is what this cut is about. It saves very little money in the scheme of things, but provides an excellent distraction to occupy a typically noisy and articulate section of the population who might otherwise be busy protesting about issues like cuts to the very poor or to university funding.

Oh dear. So it will cost more to 'enforce' than it will save? Am I right?

Oh dear dear dear.

There is something wrong in your relationship if you rely on a state handout to feel independent IMO.

Well yes. But if there is something wrong with your relationship to the extent that you need that state handout, is it really a good idea to take it away?

And I suspected as much, alicatte.

Totally agree with 'divide and rule'. Horrible, really. Look at this thread - full of people arguing the toss about who is having a worse time. Frankly, I think most people in this country are going to have a fucking horrible time of it over the next five years or so. Currently being a higher rate taxpayer is most certainly not going to insulate anyone from the effects of the cuts.

Loudlass your comment re me thinking I'm better than you is rather nasty and uncalled for,where have I said that? I think it's really nasty to be so unpleasant over somebody just saying they'll miss their cb. I've tried to show you in a respectful way as have others why, so it would be nice if you give the same respect back.

Personally I find it slightly annoying that my huge taxes pay for people to live in London near their family when we can''t actually afford to do the same. Now I'm prepared to respectfully listen to the bigger picture and another point of view re HB without giving bitchy comments it would be nice if you could do the same.

As it's been pointed out to you what is in our pockets at the end of the month isn't vastly different however you seem to think it's ok for you to complain that money is tight and I'm not allowed to.

Re running a car we only use it when totally necessary,dp cycles 13miles each way to save on bus fare and petrol,we all walk so it's rarely used.

Re camping if you know where to look you can camp very cheaply.

Oh and I'm not married and you know absolutely nothing re dp's job, qualifications,how hard dp works,sacrifices we've made over the years or anything else so please don't judge me on information you know nothing about.

Also re windows I was referring to replacing the actual windows themselves and sorry providing lightbulbs is not the same as funding general wear and tear(eg replacing a full set of rotten windows).I've rented for many years and sorry financially it's completely different,it's vastly more expensive however 'lucky' one may be. At the end of the day we're in the same boat as if anything needs replacing we can't do it as don't have the funds,you have to wait for your landlord.

Personally I think you're refusing to see my point of view and are being extremely 'bloody minded' yourself.

you don't pay taxes. you don't work.

the person you are arguing with is in a household where two adults work if i read correctly.

and no you don't end up in the same boat you end up owning a property outright and having many many more choices in your old age.

And I agree totally with Zephir re the divide and rule thing,it's very clever.

I very much object to the idea that all mothers regardless of household income need a state handout just in the man they live with turns out to be abusive.

Maybe it would be better to just raise the rate of tax for HRT payers as we then get their child benefit back from them and I would imagine a bit more and they still think they are getting something back from the state.

I am very proud that my taxes help people to have a happier more fulfilled life.

It would certainly be very very much fairer to raise the higher rate of tax, and I imagine it would have far more deficit reduction potential than this very strangely targetted CB cut. But it would be rather less useful politically given the divide and rule approach that the Tories Coalition appear to be taking.

And lets not forget most Tories are on the higher rate.

I think it's a fairer option but it'll never happen as Tories tend to look after their own.

Would it be fairer to raise the higher rate of tax to claim back child benefit, what about those HRT who don't have chidren?

I agree it would be the simplest and most cost effective way of doing it though.

There is no actual need to cut CB for anyone though, is there Waterloo? The reasoning behind CB as a universal benefit is the perfectly respectable idea that we should recognise both the value and cost of raising children.

Raising the tax rate overall is fairer because it doesn't hit those just over the threshhold (who as others have pointed out may not have very much higher net incomes than those on a low wage topped up with HB and tax credits) in the hugely disproportionate way that the CB cut does.

the very simplest thing to do is scrap the married couples tax allowance thing and keep the child benefit. think we worked out on the other thread that that would make a clear half a billion pound saving plus the costs of administrating the married persons tax thing.

I get all nostalgic when I hear about married couples tax allowance. Dh and I are just old enough that we got MIRAS for a year or two before it was abolished. Couldn't really argue with abolition but it was nice while it lasted.

ermm = MM - I mentioned lightbulbs - not Loudlass

And yes - I've rented and owned (done both in equal amount during my adult life 50/50 split - but soon renting will be the longest).

And believe me - if you had my effing light bulbs in this house you'd think it was expensive too.

I've spent more on light bulbs for this house in 6 months than I did in about 2 years in my "own" home (well the banks really ). They are beautiful light fittings they really are, he's got great taste the LL, but my god he REALLY didn't think about the cost of buying randomly shaped bulbs to fit in them.

On a more serious note, no - I've never found owning our own home any more expensive than renting (aside from the buildings insurance) in terms of looking after the wear and tear

I disagree with universal benefits so yes I think that there is a reason to get rid of it.

But listening to people attacking each other perhaps it is best to just raise the rate of tax.

I agree with many posters in that removing Child Benefit from HRT penalises many families in the 'threshold zone' who (depending on no. of chn/childcare costs etc) have net incomes which are not dissimilar to families on lower incomes and benefits top up (not criticism, just financial fact). Basing the cut on household income is a fairer option but still loses 'universal recognition' of cost (to family,) and value (to society), of raising children. Ok with tax rise but politically more damaging to Government than targeting a group perceived to be (though not necessarily) well off, so unlikely to happen.

If Child Benefit has to go, how about cutting for all and replacing with universal free school meals for all children attending state schools and any nursery provision. A further top via tax credits could go to low income/unwaged families who were already in receipt of free school meals anyway.

Children would still be supported universally (like the valued pensioners!!). Everyone would see the universal £ is being spent on children, families would still receive some saving to cover the hole left by Child Benefit (currently school meals cost a family about £10 per week per child) and still a huge saving over existing system.

Any appetite for this?

(sorry for joke - couldn't resist - but serious question!)

I completely agree with Loudlass that if people were paid a living wage much of this messing around with benefits (and the cost of administering them) would be unnecessary.

I think anybody who doesn't like universal benefits should stick with the Conservatives and look forward to a minimal penison (or 'flat rate' as it might be called), less money in their hand each week as employers are forced to contribute to pension funds (fab if you earn a living wage already and the contribution will be worth anything when you retire, not so great if you don't and it won't), diversion of funds towards private schools (free schools, charity status kept etc. etc.), and increasing reliance on private healthcare for the well off and winding down of the NHS.

For many higher rate tax payers, if they can hang in there, get good health cover and pension payments from their employer and put the effort into getting their children into the right school and see taxes go down, they really won't care about losing child benefit.

Might leave everybody else in a bit of a pickle though.

"if a HRT payer is barely any better off than us, how they manage to run a car or go on holiday"

HRT payers have access to credit cards, loans etc. etc. at a much better interest rate than somebody on benefits. Their perceived wealth may all be on the never never.

Also regardless of tax rate, some people have parents who will fund holidays, share access to a holiday home, provide generously for grandchildren (major birthday presents, shoes, winter coat), fund extra curricular activities (swimming lessons etc.), help with school costs, pay for days out, or provide free childcare. This can add up to tens of thousands of pounds of additional untaxed income a year. Even the knowledge that you have a safety net if you are in a crisis will make you more able to take financial risks, and therefore have a financial value.

Many people completely underestimate how much they are helped by others when they talk about how much money they do or don't have.

Merry I have never voted conservative in my life, I would not use private education and my dd goes to the local primary that most people avoid in droves. I don't think I should be getting child benefit because I would like to see taxes directed to those who need it the most or improving failing schools like the one my child attends.

I have no credit cards, I fund my parents holidays and care and have no free childcare. We have no safety net which is why we had to sell our home so we could look after elderly relatives.

I'm opposed to universal benefits as I think that the welfare state should be directed at those who need it, not handouts for everyone.

Merrymouse is right in some regards about the usefulness of having a strong family to fall back on and to help out where needed.

Also, a HRT payer will often use credit now/spend rather than save on the assumption that they will earn more money in the future.

Huddspur and Waterloo, we can either have a welfare state in which everybody has a stake or we can have an American system where 'being on welfare' is for ne'er to wells, who need charity (and soup kitchens and food drives by churches).

At the end of the day it's up the electorate.

I agree but it goes both ways.

My family firmly believe in standing on your own 2 feet as do dp's. My sil ran up 40k in debt with her business,they refused to bail her out so she's facing the music so to speak as she should do.

We had no help buying our house(tiny flat originally) however my dsis got given 50K by her in laws so her mortgage is much lower,they're on 2 incomes so will keep the CB.

I've taught kids on full benefits who have gone on holiday each year to Florida paid by grandparents.

Personally I think a system that gives benefits that practically amount to a salary on the HTR is seriously flawed. Either the HTR is too low or benefits are too high. You can't have it both ways or lecture somebody when you are practically on the same income however you get it.

I disagree merry. I have a stake in the system. I use state schools, state hospitals, I use the police, roads etc. I don't need £17 a week fro the state to have a stake and am sure that £17 could be put to better use.

I agree there needs to be limits to the system. Maybe the HRT does need to be lifted. Life is expensive, I accept that. I do not think that the HRT should be recieving state benefits or if they are they should be clawed back though an in increase in the tax rate.

I agree its up to the electorate but I don't see whats wrong with a welfare state that only helps those who need it to help them.

The question is how much of it is needed if some benefits bring a family up to practically the same as a HRT family. If it is needed then the HRT family need it too.