+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 65
General Chat Thread, Child Benefit in General; Family 1. Two earners on 40,000 each, total income 80,000 still get child benefit. Family 2. One earner on 45,000 ...
  1. #1

    mattx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    9,240
    Thank Post
    1,058
    Thanked 1,068 Times in 625 Posts
    Rep Power
    740

    Child Benefit

    Family 1. Two earners on 40,000 each, total income 80,000 still get child benefit.
    Family 2. One earner on 45,000 family doesn't get child benefit.

    George Osborne. Sir, you are a moron.

  2. #2
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    i think this is a really a numbers game, the number of families on dual incomes with both partners below the earnings threshold has to be substantially greater than single income families where the income earner is ABOVE the threshold. So you'd be making a hell of a lot more people angry if you applied it to houshold income above 46k or even a higher figure of say 60k. Now

    And on top of that, how many in the high earning single income group have children who are all above the age at which CB stops getting paid...most people i know on those type of middle manager salaries have a partner who works or children who are at university or in work, or surely in a lot of cases they are wealthy off enouhgh where you have one 'stay at home' parent to not need the CB payments ? Sure, there will be cases of single parents with young children just above the threshold who are being hit unfairly with this but again each financial situation is more complex... and that's the anomaly plus the high marginal tax burden, plus the individual cases where it's clearly unfair. Anyone who's any good at their job plus has the experience goes on contract anyway where they pay themselves a much lower salary so don't get hit with the high marginal tax burden of higher rate PAYE.

    But then that high marginal tax burden and 'unfairness' has always happened under the tax credit system for single income households on moderate PAYE incomes....it's been highlighted before, but nobody takes it seriously, probably because these single income families don't read the guardian and the high marginal tax burden on them doesn't have anything to do with child benefit.

  3. 2 Thanks to torledo:

    ButterflyMoon (6th October 2010), chrbb (6th October 2010)

  4. #3
    chrbb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    1,507
    Thank Post
    141
    Thanked 67 Times in 62 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    @Toledo I think I actually agree with you on this one - has that ever happened before?

  5. #4
    apoth0r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northants
    Posts
    1,221
    Thank Post
    151
    Thanked 180 Times in 132 Posts
    Rep Power
    51
    Unfortunately something has to be done, this currently doesnt effect me but at the same time, I'd be willing to do my bit in order to get things back on track. People can moan and moan about it effecting some and not others because of x,y and z but in the end I'd rather see people with large incomes be hit then the same people who just scrape by, which has always been kicked in the nads time and time again.

  6. #5
    AyatollahPies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    900
    Thank Post
    48
    Thanked 105 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    i think this is a really a numbers game, the number of families on dual incomes with both partners below the earnings threshold has to be substantially greater than single income families where the income earner is ABOVE the threshold. So you'd be making a hell of a lot more people angry if you applied it to houshold income above 46k or even a higher figure of say 60k. Now

    And on top of that, how many in the high earning single income group have children who are all above the age at which CB stops getting paid...most people i know on those type of middle manager salaries have a partner who works or children who are at university or in work, or surely in a lot of cases they are wealthy off enouhgh where you have one 'stay at home' parent to not need the CB payments ? Sure, there will be cases of single parents with young children just above the threshold who are being hit unfairly with this but again each financial situation is more complex... and that's the anomaly plus the high marginal tax burden, plus the individual cases where it's clearly unfair. Anyone who's any good at their job plus has the experience goes on contract anyway where they pay themselves a much lower salary so don't get hit with the high marginal tax burden of higher rate PAYE.

    But then that high marginal tax burden and 'unfairness' has always happened under the tax credit system for single income households on moderate PAYE incomes....it's been highlighted before, but nobody takes it seriously, probably because these single income families don't read the guardian and the high marginal tax burden on them doesn't have anything to do with child benefit.
    Are most of us Edugeekers no good at our jobs then?

  7. #6

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,848
    Thank Post
    583
    Thanked 2,162 Times in 987 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    627
    It's also down to how to detect how much a household earns. the 'system' only detects individual earnigns, so for a govt to do a blanket search for all earners over 44k is reletively easy to do. I don't think there is a single govt database that contains info on ALL joint income. Ergo, it is easier to setup and administer this way.
    TBH, if you earn 44k or above you don't need child benifit full stop anyway!

  8. #7

    JJonas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Walsham, Norfolk
    Posts
    3,090
    Thank Post
    382
    Thanked 429 Times in 318 Posts
    Rep Power
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Dos_Box View Post
    TBH, if you earn 44k or above you don't need child benifit full stop anyway!
    Exactly what I was thinking and by 2013 you will have probably had more than 1700 of pay rises anyway.

  9. #8
    AyatollahPies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    900
    Thank Post
    48
    Thanked 105 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Dos_Box View Post
    It's also down to how to detect how much a household earns. the 'system' only detects individual earnigns, so for a govt to do a blanket search for all earners over 44k is reletively easy to do. I don't think there is a single govt database that contains info on ALL joint income. Ergo, it is easier to setup and administer this way.
    TBH, if you earn 44k or above you don't need child benifit full stop anyway!
    I agree totally, but I think the point Mattx is trying to make is that it's been done in such a stupid and unfair way.

  10. #9

    webman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    8,403
    Thank Post
    637
    Thanked 961 Times in 661 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    319
    AyatollahPies: Not stupid and unfair. More like easier, quicker, and less complex.

    If the Govt did what what Dos_Box mentioned about knowing all joint incomes - how difficult would that be for them to set up, get right, and implement it? And that's before they start using the data for the child benefit situation.

    I think they're doing the best they can using existing data, and it is fair. I agree with Dos_Box - if you're earning 44k+ you shouldn't need handouts from taxpayers, most of whom earn a lot less!

  11. #10

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,174
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 773 Times in 583 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    There are always losers however you do it. The big advantage of the way it's being done is that it's achievably with the current databases, staffing and IT systems meaning this is an actual saving rather than billions being squandered on extra IT contracts.
    In all honesty, I would've prefered if they had got rid of child benefit all together, those who really need it already receive child tax credits.

  12. #11
    AyatollahPies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    900
    Thank Post
    48
    Thanked 105 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by webman View Post
    AyatollahPies: Not stupid and unfair. More like easier, quicker, and less complex.

    If the Govt did what what Dos_Box mentioned about knowing all joint incomes - how difficult would that be for them to set up, get right, and implement it? And that's before they start using the data for the child benefit situation.

    I think they're doing the best they can using existing data, and it is fair. I agree with Dos_Box - if you're earning 44k+ you shouldn't need handouts from taxpayers, most of whom earn a lot less!
    Don't have kids so don't know the full ins and outs of Child Benefit, but surely you have to fill in a form to get it, and surely you have to put the incomes of both parents on it? There you go, both incomes immediately made available.

    It's not fair in the sense that a couple that both earn 40k, thus a combined income of 80k can still get it whereas a single income household of 45k would not be allowed it. (My understanding of it)

    Regardless of weather or not you think those on 45k+ should be entitled (I personally don't think they should), you cannot suggest that this is a fair way of doing it?

  13. #12

    mattx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    9,240
    Thank Post
    1,058
    Thanked 1,068 Times in 625 Posts
    Rep Power
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by AyatollahPies View Post
    I agree totally, but I think the point Mattx is trying to make is that it's been done in such a stupid and unfair way.
    Indeed - with all the info the government holds on us - [ tax records, property, how many living in household etc etc ] then it would be straight forward to work out what the overall income is. What they don't take into consideration is also cost of living. I have lived in London most of my life and it's expensive - god knows why, it just is.
    There is no excuse in my book this process is un-fair but something should be done however I feel this is not the correct way of doing it.
    Maybe, just maybe they should be doing more on bankers bonuses......They got us into this mess and yet again they will be getting around 7 Billion - [ yes that's 7 Billion pounds ] in bonuses this year. A few billion of that will be put back into the system but it's still extracting the urine.
    But don't worry though - because of all the cuts they are making - schools, health, state etc - they still WON'T cut back on defence.

    Can someone remind me when the last time they saw the Army holding a fete, or event to raise money for weapons ? Schools and hospitals do it all the time !! [ But not for weapons !! ]

  14. #13
    adhutton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northeast England
    Posts
    399
    Thank Post
    164
    Thanked 86 Times in 64 Posts
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    There are always losers however you do it. The big advantage of the way it's being done is that it's achievably with the current databases, staffing and IT systems meaning this is an actual saving rather than billions being squandered on extra IT contracts.
    In all honesty, I would've prefered if they had got rid of child benefit all together, those who really need it already receive child tax credits.
    Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I have 3 children and my wife and I both work full time and are on modest incomes - nowhere near the 45k a year. We get only 10 per week Child Tax Credit and would find it quite hard to lose the Child Benefit money.

    Do you have any kids? Do you know how expensive they are? Have you seen the price of food, shoes, clothes etc. these days?

    Andrew

  15. #14

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,848
    Thank Post
    583
    Thanked 2,162 Times in 987 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    627
    Actually it's not that easy. Many points of information held by the govt are in seperate and disparate systems. There was a HUGE aoutcry when teh previous govt suggested makign 'super' databases with all of the information on there, not least because the opportunity for misuse was rife, and the previous govt's track record in IT projects wasn't exactly the best in the world. I'm afraid that it isn't easy, and the easiest system is to use the exisiting one, which is rater limited in scope. With divorce and seperation at such high levels and people renting and moving properties mixed in with 'cohabiting' unmarried parents how do you judge a 'joint income'?

  16. #15

    bossman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,905
    Thank Post
    1,186
    Thanked 1,057 Times in 749 Posts
    Rep Power
    328
    Quote:
    You can please "all of the people some of the time" and please "some of the people all of the time" but you cannot please "all of the people all of the time"

    It may seem like stupidity from our perspective but to be honest I really do feel for the government at this time as I personally feel they are trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear" and being honest in their evaluation about the situation this country is in.

    It couldn't keep going on as it was with the Labour government (even though I vote labour) borrowing and spending at such a rate that the country was near to bankruptcy, we could have easily have gone the way of Greece and Spain.

    Yes it will have an impact on some people and I really do feel for them but come on 44k is still a large amount for a single earner, better than say 10k which quite a lot of people earn and even though there are 2 wage earners in the family it still only amounts to 20k for some families.

    The so called middle class as they like to call themselves are much better off than those on the breadline and the upper class well I feel the government should bring in an even higher rate of taxation for these people but we all know too well how good they are at avoiding taxes so it would be a waste of money and time.

    I do feel for people in certain positions where they are just above the threshold and I am at this moment experiencing this with my son going to Uni and having to pay for some of his expenses as we are not entitled to anything except his tuition fees. We are just over the threshold and it will be a little tight for us over the next three years unlike some of his friends who have full access to all benefits because their families have split up.

    A family we know split up and the wife remarried between her and her new husband they are over the threshold for their sons College and Uni fees but as the Ex Father still lives on his own and is in fulltime education they told the governing authorities that the son was living with his father which meant that while going to college he received the EMA allowance although he was living with his Mother and new father this is what they did for his Uni fees also trying to dupe the authorities.

    I know of more people in these situations and it is not fair that couples who marry and stay together bringing up children should be penalized for being together whereas those that play the system because they are either single parents or divorced should get away with taking from the system what is sometimes not due to them, this is also so unfair.

    So what is the solution? I don't think we are in the position to slate people who have a better working knowledge of the countries finance than us.

    "We are mere pawns in the game of life".

    Apologies if I have ruffled anyones feathers it is not a dig at anyone in particular just get so frustrated after seeing this country, my country go downhill so fast over the last decade.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Home Use Program SA Benefit
    By Mr.Ben in forum Licensing Questions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 31st July 2010, 03:46 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26th March 2010, 07:59 PM
  3. Any additional benefit to getting HP Procurve over Netgear Prosafe?
    By Cache in forum Network and Classroom Management
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27th November 2009, 08:50 PM
  4. Benefit of using wireless g only?
    By rocknrollstar in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30th January 2009, 01:21 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •