Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 6:26:23 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11470983I have to be honest, when i first heard this report at work, i thought this is going to be a bit tricky, because it was something i had always thought a little bizzarre, and quite frankly, the idea of millionaire families getting child benefit was (and is) rediculous. I had actually found myself in agreement with condem policy thankfully, it turns out that if you are a couple, both earning upto £43k each (household income therefore of £86k) you will still get child benefit, but if there is only one earner in the house who earns £45K (household income of £45K) you dont get child benefit. Surely thats the most arse backwards bit of politics ever?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 5, 2010 7:12:36 GMT 1
Lol..take off the blinkers Pab. Benefits as a whole have to be addressed, they had two choices with this option higher tax band or mean income. I would have hoped they would have gone for mean income of £40k myself. Had a discussion about this earlier, is a benefit a want or a need ? Personally I believe it's a need. It has already been stated it is open to further review. But well done the Government for trying to deal with a complex and emotional issue....they could of course keep borrowing billions and pretend nothings wrong to appease people.
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Oct 5, 2010 8:13:38 GMT 1
it is a strange anomaly but not a new one for example a couple where both earn 39k dont pay higher rate tax but 1 person who earns 45k does I guess the alternative was means testing which has its own problems including take up rates
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 5, 2010 8:15:45 GMT 1
The major western economies and their satellites are in quite an extraordinary situation. Any grand political plans to remove moral hazard from the banking sector have fizzled out. In the US there has been a highly watered down set of reforms that fall short of the Glass Seagall Act.
In Europe there only seems to be an appetite to want to legislate against the hedge fund industry - which has never received any government support.
This has left us with the obscene spectacle of the investment banking community continuing to play casino with cheap Central Bank funding in the reasonably safe knowledge that they will be bailed out again if necessary , whilst shorting the sovereign debt of those countries that have put themselves at risk to keep their banking system alive.
Despite all of the liquidity that governments and central banks have thrown at the markets via a range of stimulus packages and quantative easing, money supply has been steadily slowing in the west and is starting to contract in some economies.
At this time there is a coordinated deficit reduction programme within the euro area and beyond - regardless of the serious economic conditions.
So credit conditions are tightening and so aggregate demand (which includes the change in credit as well as company, household and public spending) will waiver. Deflation looms.
It seems that Gideon is still an admirer of Irish economic policy as he was in 2006.
The drastic reductions in public expenditure would only be paralleled in the private sector if a company was on the verge of bankruptcy. UK gilt yields are lower now than they were during quantative easing, so that is not the case.
On the subject of changes to child benefits it is a measure of the government's present confidence that it is willing to directly take money from people as low down the income scale of £43,000. To many of us this will seem a lot of money. And it is some way above the average (arithmetic mean and also mode) of the income distribution in this country. But such is the inequality in our society that it is in fact some way down the income scale.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Oct 5, 2010 8:27:24 GMT 1
I think it makes a lot of sense.
Firstly, it won't need to be means tested and require a whole heap more bureacracy: if you're a higher rate taxpayer then it applies: no new forms, departments, means tests, investigations, fraud.
Secondly, it does not do anything to disincentivise women returning to work following childbirth. If your husband earns £35k then after earning £10k you lost a benefit, it would not be a good thing. Say a Mum going back as a teacher / social worker for two days a week. £10k a year works out at £169 a week. £20 off that is more than 10% of your wages. Add in two days at nursery fees, and it simply is not worth going back.
As an aside I personally don't like means testing based on the "Household" income, because I think it penalises parents who stay together. As well as penalising parents who actually go out and work.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 5, 2010 8:36:31 GMT 1
Surely thats the most arse backwards bit of politics ever? Not exactly rocket science either is it? Checking one salary compared to the combination of two. Simply looking at the earnings of one household. I wouldn’t say most ever however, I agree…daft that. If they can't handle that the lord help folk...
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Oct 5, 2010 8:38:45 GMT 1
No wonder this forum is dying a really quick death. Pilch all this boring stuff needs stamping out quickly. B&A IS DYING
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Oct 5, 2010 8:42:48 GMT 1
Windsor,Matron,Seanbrosely,hope2010 need banning.It is just all politics.I got a warning off Glyn price about posting about the BNP.He said i could only post about the bnp once a month.I am seeing double standards here. Sort it out now!!
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 5, 2010 8:46:43 GMT 1
Windsor,Matron,Seanbrosely,hope2010 need banning.It is just all politics.I got a warning off Glyn price about posting about the BNP.He said i could only post about the bnp once a month.I am seeing double standards here. Sort it out now!! Heavenly just **** off.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Oct 5, 2010 8:51:04 GMT 1
Personal abuse.I like it
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 5, 2010 8:52:27 GMT 1
Personal abuse.I like it It qualifies as fair comment you are a right wing ignorant c*** of the ****ing highest order.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Oct 5, 2010 8:54:13 GMT 1
Welldone.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Oct 5, 2010 8:59:54 GMT 1
Windsor,Matron,Seanbrosely,hope2010 need banning.It is just all politics.I got a warning off Glyn price about posting about the BNP.He said i could only post about the bnp once a month.I am seeing double standards here. Sort it out now!! Heavenly as you have said often if you are not interested in a thread don't read it. Martin all you seem to do these days is moan moan moan. There is a total difference between the irrelevant BNP and topics which affect many posters on here. The limiting of benefit to the average wage will have an tragic effect on the unemployed in London and other major cities. How is an unemployed family expected to live on £2000 a month when their housing costs may well be £1000 a month. This will push more and more children into poverty. This might be acceptable if there were jobs out their but ConDem policies mean that unemployment will rise over the next 5 years. "A Price Worth Paying" I think not.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 5, 2010 9:04:06 GMT 1
Have you had your monthly yet heavenly? By which I am referring to your monthly BNP post obviously.
Stop your bleating and go and give it your best shot. What words of wisdom can you give on this fine early October morning from the land where the one-eyed man is king?
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Oct 5, 2010 9:12:10 GMT 1
As I alluded to on the NHS thread...are we in a 'welfare' state, where parity is key, or not? Was that not the whole principle behind the creation of the welfare state? Well, that principle is being eroded continually, and once again the scare mongerers will have us believe we need all of these measure to tackle this deficit. The fact is, this is an easy option for the government; tackling tax loopholes is not, and despite all the big talk from government on tackling issues such as tax havens/loopholes, nothing will be done. Child benefit today; cold weather payments tomorrow; bus passes next week; Free NHS access next year. Stealth tax on families, on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Oct 5, 2010 9:16:10 GMT 1
I would suggest there is a huge difference between discussing and sharing opinions about things which relate to every day life from across the political spectrum and peddling the misinformation of an extremist party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 9:22:13 GMT 1
I can just about understand the government's thinking on this one. Trying to encourage two-working parent families.
However, will this put off many younger families from having kids until they are older and more finanically secure? Thus pushing up an ageing population.
In addition I'm not sure families should be goaded into having two parents working, especially when children are young. Surely it would be more sense to take away benefits once kids are at a school age, making it more possible for the non-working parent to source a job.
Or on the other side of the coin, will this encourage larger, poorer families to keep popping the sprogs out as they'll still keep all their benefits?
|
|
|
Post by earleyshrew on Oct 5, 2010 9:34:32 GMT 1
Just for fun a simple question to the previous posters on this thread. Would you either go with the changes proposed or keep things as they are on child benefit ? just interested in your thoughts.
PS
Sean enjoyed reading your original post always a pleasure too read a post with depth rather than sound bytes.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Oct 5, 2010 9:36:20 GMT 1
In addition I'm not sure families should be goaded into having two parents working, especially when children are young. Generally I agree with this 100%, and think some parents spend far too little time with their kids. But the flip side is if we want equality in the workplace, fair opportunities for women, and have key parts of our workforce (primary teachers / nurses / social workers) dominated by women then we need to make sure as many qualified people are able to work, even a little bit. There is no point paying an agency social worker £150 a day because we disincentivised a back to work Mum from working 2 days a week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 10:02:07 GMT 1
Rather worrying that what is considered a major piece of reform can have such a large anomoly...
Wasn't aware earning £44K put you in the bracket of the super rich.
Equally worrying is the cap on benfits, puts local councils in a bit of a fix as well, especially after the work that has taken place to encourage famillies to take private rentals as opposed to wait for inadequate council housing on some s**t hole block, miles away from school and in rather deprived areas.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Oct 5, 2010 12:21:30 GMT 1
everyone seems to be ignoring the bit about it not coming inuntil 2013!
On the one hand Osborne is going on about the urgency of reducing the budget deficit and the mess we're in, and then this reduction in child benefit (which I support in principle) but not until 2013. Why not start it immediately or from April 2011 if they're serious?
it semes to me to be another PR con-trick so they can say they're prepared to hit the middle-classes, but not for another 2 and half years.
You can bet that when they announce other welfare cuts which will hit the working man & women, those will start straight-away!
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Oct 5, 2010 12:28:42 GMT 1
Why not start it immediately or from April 2011 if they're serious? The Benefits Agency and the DWP staff numbers are being decimated in the next 6 - 9 monts. No chance of having it in 2011, Ive spoken to some there in the last 24 hours who doubt whether it can be geared up to for 1/4/2013 as the staff that remain are all hands to the pump firefighting on the old system.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 5, 2010 13:11:29 GMT 1
I suppose it is all relevant to our experiences.
I am a higher tax payer (?) and the wife is part time. We don't receive the benefits any more but when we did we used to want them more than need them. We used them to fund holidays and Christmas (for the boys)
Thus they were not imperative to us living a basic standard of life day after day but were more of a luxery.
As stated I am glad the Government are trying to tackle our cost with regard to Benefits. I do think that money saved by people who don't "need" it could be better used elsewhere.
I also feel that in this instance the Government have not hurt the minimum wage population. I also fully understand that we received said benefits for many years as I say it's down to out experiances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 16:24:16 GMT 1
Just for fun a simple question to the previous posters on this thread. Would you either go with the changes proposed or keep things as they are on child benefit ? just interested in your thoughts. . i would be happy with reform. i agree to a great extent that for many middle and higher income families, child benefit is a want, not a need. however, the reform has to be fair and make sense. nothing anyone has posted so far has explained how it can be fair to allow a couple earning £80K jointly to keep claiming child benefit, yet a single mum (for example) on £44K will not be allowed to claim. i challenge anyone to suggest otherwise. If the savings need to be made right now (another discussion) then ok, but surely the people who should go without should be those who can afford to loose it most, ie, those on the higher income. personally im all for means testing, and child benefit (as with many others) i see as no exception. the further up the pay scale you go, the less you get in benefits, of any kind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 16:25:27 GMT 1
I am a higher tax payer . Now why doesnt that suprise me
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Oct 5, 2010 17:00:54 GMT 1
Just for fun a simple question to the previous posters on this thread. Would you either go with the changes proposed or keep things as they are on child benefit ? just interested in your thoughts. . i would be happy with reform. i agree to a great extent that for many middle and higher income families, child benefit is a want, not a need. however, the reform has to be fair and make sense. nothing anyone has posted so far has explained how it can be fair to allow a couple earning £80K jointly to keep claiming child benefit, yet a single mum (for example) on £44K will not be allowed to claim. i challenge anyone to suggest otherwise. If the savings need to be made right now (another discussion) then ok, but surely the people who should go without should be those who can afford to loose it most, ie, those on the higher income. personally im all for means testing, and child benefit (as with many others) i see as no exception. the further up the pay scale you go, the less you get in benefits, of any kind. Income tax is calculated on an individual basis is it not ?, not on a household Income basis. So if 2 people living in the same house earn a joint income of £60000 (£30k each) should they be higher rate tax payers ? Is that fair when compared to a husband earning £50000 when his wife stays at home ? and he is a higher rate tax payer.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Oct 5, 2010 17:11:22 GMT 1
Income tax is calculated on an individual basis is it not ?, not on a household Income basis. So if 2 people living in the same house earn a joint income of £60000 (£30k each) should they be higher rate tax payers ? Is that fair when compared to a husband earning £50000 when his wife stays at home ? and he is a higher rate tax payer. The family allowance has in my memory been paid to the mother. Maybe fairer to stop paying family allowance if the mother earns more than £44,000. Lets remember this is a Cameron / Osborne broken promise. What next my winter fuel payment and my free bus pass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 17:16:34 GMT 1
[ Income tax is calculated on an individual basis is it not ?, not on a household Income basis. So if 2 people living in the same house earn a joint income of £60000 (£30k each) should they be higher rate tax payers ? Is that fair when compared to a husband earning £50000 when his wife stays at home ? and he is a higher rate tax payer. sorry, would you like me to start a thread about the unfairness of the PAYE Tax system or have i just completely missed the point you are trying to make?
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Oct 5, 2010 17:33:35 GMT 1
[ Income tax is calculated on an individual basis is it not ?, not on a household Income basis. So if 2 people living in the same house earn a joint income of £60000 (£30k each) should they be higher rate tax payers ? Is that fair when compared to a husband earning £50000 when his wife stays at home ? and he is a higher rate tax payer. sorry, would you like me to start a thread about the unfairness of the PAYE Tax system or have i just completely missed the point you are trying to make? Merely pointing out that if you look hard enough there are anomolies throughout the various systems
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Oct 5, 2010 17:34:59 GMT 1
Income tax is calculated on an individual basis is it not ?, not on a household Income basis. So if 2 people living in the same house earn a joint income of £60000 (£30k each) should they be higher rate tax payers ? Is that fair when compared to a husband earning £50000 when his wife stays at home ? and he is a higher rate tax payer. The family allowance has in my memory been paid to the mother. Maybe fairer to stop paying family allowance if the mother earns more than £44,000. Lets remember this is a Cameron / Osborne broken promise. What next my winter fuel payment and my free bus pass. Its not a 'free' bus pass, someone is paying for it aren't they
|
|