Child benefit to be cut

  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

    Previous
  • Dougs 4 Oct 2010 08:30:24 68,364 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    From 2013, it will no longer to be paid to those in the higher tax brackets. Fair enough, you might say, but it seems this will be done pretty arbitrarily, with a household with 2 people both earning £40k a year unaffected, but one household with one person earning £44k will no longer receive child benefit. Fair? Not from where I'm standing.
  • S.J.Rogers 4 Oct 2010 08:34:53 3,557 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Seems fair to me, if people cant afford to have kids then DONíT HAVE THEM..!
  • speedofthepuma 4 Oct 2010 08:35:39 13,299 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    That has literally nothing to do with what Dougs said.

    I lurk. If I've spoken to you, I'm either impassioned, or drunk.

  • Deleted user 4 October 2010 08:36:43
    Is this child benefit or child tax credits that are being cut? CTC are a bit of a mess imo and it is bloody ridiculous that people can be earning up to £50k and still claim it.
  • S.J.Rogers 4 Oct 2010 08:38:26 3,557 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    speedofthepuma wrote:
    That has literally nothing to do with what Dougs said.

    Well it does, i think all CTC should be cut...
  • Dougs 4 Oct 2010 08:40:26 68,364 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Is this child benefit or child tax credits that are being cut? CTC are a bit of a mess imo and it is bloody ridiculous that people can be earning up to £50k and still claim it.

    Child benefit. They've already laid out plans to stop those earning £40k or more from claiming tax credits.
  • boo 4 Oct 2010 08:41:37 11,823 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I have to say I'm with SJ on this one.

    I can guarantee that someone will trot out the 'it's my children that will be paying taxes for your pension / public services etc'. This sounds like the Western world equivalent of a family in Africa having to have 11 children to support them in their old age.

    By that token, the world is doomed to ever increasing over-population.

    Anyway - rather getting off the point - sorry.

    Just Another Lego Blog

  • speedofthepuma 4 Oct 2010 08:42:31 13,299 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It's child benefit, and therefore still has little to do with your opinion regarding CTC.

    I think the point was the arbitrary cut off points that seemed illogical.

    I lurk. If I've spoken to you, I'm either impassioned, or drunk.

  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 08:45:00 10,861 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Indeed, child benefit and CTC are two very different beasts.

    Either way, this is a very New Labour-ish policy of taking things away from the quite rich and not touching the mass market middle men. Expect more of these things as we slowly slide back into recession by stalling any growth in the economy over the next 5 years.

    Woo! Go Con-Dem coalition!!!
  • Dougs 4 Oct 2010 08:47:09 68,364 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's the mass market middle men that this will hit hardest. £44k living in a City isn't a huge amount. HR Depts are going to be overwhelmed by people wanting a £1.5k pay cut.
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 08:50:37 10,861 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    For child benefit? Unlikely. If the axe falls in a similar place for tax credits or levels of general taxing then perhaps.

    Accountants will be the winners as declarable income becomes twisted underneath the thresholds.

    If the mass market middle men are the ones who are going to be the butt boys of this government then they can give way to any ideas of a second term or outright Conservative government in 2015. Unless I'm completely wrong about their economic policy and everything that is written about economics and how investment sparks growth since the dawn of time is wrong.

    I have an especially nice hat put to one side in readiness for munchies.
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 08:50:39 10,861 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Post deleted
  • dr_swin 4 Oct 2010 08:52:21 4,901 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    How much is child benefit worth again?
  • Dougs 4 Oct 2010 08:53:28 68,364 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Depends how many kids you've got. For a family with 3 kids, £200 a month, give or take.

    We can probably cope without it at the mo, but as I said in my OP, it's the arbitrary nature that gets me. A family with 2 earners earning £80k and still getting CB over one earner with £45k is not right.
  • Deleted user 4 October 2010 08:54:52
    Cheese is making too much sense for a Monday morning.
  • Deleted user 4 October 2010 08:56:21
    £20 for first kid and £13 for subsequent children at the mo.
  • Dougs 4 Oct 2010 08:56:56 68,364 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Ignatius_Cheese wrote:
    Accountants will be the winners as declarable income becomes twisted underneath the thresholds.

    If the mass market middle men are the ones who are going to be the butt boys of this government then they can give way to any ideas of a second term or outright Conservative government in 2015. Unless I'm completely wrong about their economic policy and everything that is written about economics and how investment sparks growth since the dawn of time is wrong.

    I have an especially nice hat put to one side in readiness for munchies.

    Indeed. Struggling to see how any of their policies will promote growth. We'll see what they have to say in the Growth WP I guess
  • dr_swin 4 Oct 2010 08:59:21 4,901 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I agree that child benefit should be means tested. Surely it should be on combined income though - as Dougs said.
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 09:03:48 10,861 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Means testing is fine but requires an arbitrary system of 1000s of civil servants to administer. Not sure they'll be looking at increasing the workforce at the moment...

    The thing about Child Benefit is, on a basic level, it's "always been there". Once it's gone, something else will normally take its place in the form of another tax credit. Perhaps a child slavery tax credit. There's still coal down 'em mines that Maggie's forgotten about. Those little hands will come in useful prying the black gold out of the hills!
  • CosmicFuzz 4 Oct 2010 09:04:03 24,822 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    Depends how many kids you've got. For a family with 3 kids, £200 a month, give or take.

    We can probably cope without it at the mo, but as I said in my OP, it's the arbitrary nature that gets me. A family with 2 earners earning £80k and still getting CB over one earner with £45k is not right.

    That divide between those that get it and those that don't does seem rather odd. I don't understand it at all...

    It always worries me when people on a video game forum point out such blindingly obvious problems with stuff that has been passed by the people that are meant to be "in the know" in these matters.

    Looking for a new video game podcast? Try ours! (And give us a rating on iTunes!) :)

  • woodnotes 4 Oct 2010 09:04:53 4,935 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    S.J.Rogers wrote:
    Seems fair to me, if people cant afford to have kids then DONíT HAVE THEM..!
    Or the current system, if people can't afford to have kids then HAVE LOTS OF THEM and receive a ton of spare cash. And a free house.
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 09:07:32 10,861 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Fuck it! Lets repeal the Human Rights Act and stop poor people from having children. That'll sort this mess out, bloody spongers.
  • boo 4 Oct 2010 09:08:51 11,823 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Ignatius_Cheese wrote:
    Fuck it! Lets repeal the Human Rights Act and stop poor people from having children. That'll sort this mess out, bloody spongers.

    +1

    Just Another Lego Blog

  • Dougs 4 Oct 2010 09:10:10 68,364 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    It always worries me when people on a video game forum point out such blindingly obvious problems with stuff that has been passed by the people that are meant to be "in the know" in these matters.

    As someone involved in policy development, I can safely say it will have been picked up but ignored by the politicos and dismissed as "a vagary of the system", or something.

    @I_C - absolutely, and I understand that. Doesn't mean it's right to ride roughshod over it and ignore it though
  • Deleted user 4 October 2010 09:11:02
    How much per sprog?
  • Deleted user 4 October 2010 09:12:46
    Ignatius_Cheese wrote:
    Fuck it! Lets repeal the Human Rights Act and stop poor people from having children. That'll sort this mess out, bloody spongers.
    You're joking. Which makes it all the more painful when you remember that they are actually planning on scrapping the HRA!
  • Jeepers 4 Oct 2010 09:13:08 13,183 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    Dougs wrote:
    Depends how many kids you've got. For a family with 3 kids, £200 a month, give or take.

    We can probably cope without it at the mo, but as I said in my OP, it's the arbitrary nature that gets me. A family with 2 earners earning £80k and still getting CB over one earner with £45k is not right.

    That divide between those that get it and those that don't does seem rather odd. I don't understand it at all...

    It always worries me when people on a video game forum point out such blindingly obvious problems with stuff that has been passed by the people that are meant to be "in the know" in these matters.

    Presumably the Govt assumes that two earners (on £80k) have childcare costs that one earner (on £45k) doesn't have. Unless this clause applies to single parents as well as couples, in which case it is retarded.
  • Deleted user 4 October 2010 09:13:33
    woodnotes wrote:
    S.J.Rogers wrote:
    Seems fair to me, if people cant afford to have kids then DONíT HAVE THEM..!
    Or the current system, if people can't afford to have kids then HAVE LOTS OF THEM and receive a ton of spare cash. And a free house.
    Yeah, this isn't true. But do carry on!
  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply