[Closed] child benefit

[quote=stumpyjon ]Personally I don't think households with an incomeof 42.5k should get child benefit.
What other "universal benefits" shouldn't they get?

I think the whole point of child benefits being a universal benefit is that it's money for the kids' benefit not the parents. Unfortunately it seems that in some poorer families the money doesn't get spent on the kids. Universally providing 2 or 3 school meals a day might be a better use of funds.

Maybe taking just one away is enough Druidh

I always love the way the £x income is earned by the top 10% statistic is brought out. It would be great to know how this is calculated. Is it?

- 90% of income is earned by people earning less than £x
- 90% of people earn less than this amount of £x
- Something else completely different

Can someone clarify?

Someone else mentioned that mud shark. Not much good for the under 5s is it?

- 90% of people earn less than this amount of £x

Someone else mentioned that mud shark. Not much good for the under 5s is it?

Keep it for preschoolers? Hearing about kids being sent to school without breakfast is just upsetting.

Jamj1974

You could start here:

As I thought. Would love to see the value of each of the remaining percentiles. I imagine there is some significant variance...

Jamj1974

You could start here:

/p>

Nb Chapter 3!!!!!

Sorry double post due to adding nb for ch 3

Thanks THM. I will have a read of that.

They managed to base child tax credits on joint incomes ok.

Yeah, that's a really good example of a nice efficient system which is simple for people to claim, cheap to implement and where they always get their sums right 🙄

Its been implemented in an unfair manner for sure.

Unfair on those who lose CB? Or unfair on those who have neighbours with a higher household income who get to keep it? Because it's the latter there seems to be the most bleating about.

the later was what i meant - I dont think the loss in general is unfair but the implementation has made it unfair for households which is a more sensible measure IMHO.

I not sure whether GO is being unfair or just stupid. But it makes little sense to mix the receipt of benefits (based on households) and their funding (based on Individuals though taxation). But since little of the hotchpotch that is UK taxation makes much sense after so much bodging by politicians over the years, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the latest proposal are based on flawed thinking.

An extra 1%, or whatever it would take (less?) on higher rate tax would have been fairer and cheaper to implement but it's not about fair.

Unfair on those who lose CB? Or unfair on those who have neighbours with a higher household income who get to keep it? Because it's the latter there seems to be the most bleating about.

I not sure whether GO is being unfair or just stupid

I have this conundrum with all Tories tbh 😀

It's easy to say 'oh you should be able to live in £60k blabla', but if you do earn that much this could still have an impact.

Not everyone is pissing their money up the wall. Some folk might have bought an expensive house for an investment for example or to allow their kids to go to the good school etc. The problem is that this has happened really quickly, and people may have already budgeted for it.

Do you think that it's right that a family on 99k still gets CB?

I don't have a big problem with it, if removing it from them would cost more to implement than it would save. Why, do you think the government should waste money on making sure such people don't benefit?

Clearly I'm just rather more pragmatic and less ideological than most on here.

Why, do you think the government should waste money on making sure such people don't benefit?

I think the government should be ensuring that families that earn less and get nothing aren't subsidising families that get more. As has been pointed out, there are other benefits/breaks that are calculated in that way; why is this different?

How should benefits be judged? I would suggest: Are they comprehensive, are they clear, do they avoid stigma, do they encourage high take up rates, are they cheap to administer, are they progressive (in terms of funding)?

Against those criteria, history suggests that universal benefits perform better than means-tested ones. So on that basis I would not take child benefits out of the universal system in isolation unless I was a politician looking for what looks (at face value) like an easy crowd pleaser.

Interesting reading here on how tax is split by income level:

(OK I lied about it being interesting).

Worth noting how much of the tax collected by PAYE comes from a small number of individuals.
On £50k a year you pay nearly 15k in tax! So really letting people on these kind of salaries keep child benefit is just a small rebate to reflect the fact they are raising a family. They are still MASSIVE net contributors tomthe tax system. For some this equates to a 5% cut in houshold income...not chickenfeed.

I am sure that everyone affected will manage. Am also sure it will give an interesting bite in the backside to the Tories come 2015.

Why, do you think the government should waste money on making sure such people don't benefit?

I wonder if, given a bit more time, it could have been sorted out more equitably without excessive cost?

I don't have a big problem with it, if removing it from them would cost more to implement than it would save. Why, do you?

It's quite possible that since I'm only marginally over the threshold we won't lose all of ours anyway, and if I put more into my pension we could probably keep it all so please don't mistake my opinions for sour grapes. I'm sure lots of people will find ways around this. Just because they can doesn't mean that's right either.

CHB that is why GO seems to be so stupid. OK the over 55s might like what he is doing, but many typical Tory voters are going to dislike this measure clearly. So probably JY is correct - unfair and stupid*!

* not in an academic sense!

Some folk might have bought an expensive house for an investment for example

So, we should continue to pay the benefit as its underwriting someones investment?

many typical Tory voters are going to dislike this measure clearly

Overall, its hitting a fairly small number of people, and being honest, are these people swing voters? has GO got to worry about them deserting the party? I would suggest that people in this financial position have probably got more to lose by Labour getting back in, so perhaps its actually quite a 'save' move?

Are they comprehensive, are they clear, do they avoid stigma, do they encourage high take up rates, are they cheap to administer,

are they progressive (in terms of funding)?

Against those criteria, history suggests that universal benefits perform better than means-tested ones

yes its an easy tax to administer that everyone gets. I agree

The winter fuel allowance meets all those criteria
It still does not mean Sir Alan Sugar deserves it or it make sense to do it.

I am not really a fan of universal benefits tbh.
Some folk , even those in "need " dont need it.
I imagine Professor Hawkings gets DLA - I assume he is a millionaire- I dont know if he claims anything its an example. CMD claimed for his son iirc - he mentioned the forms in an interview. I suspect they could have got by without it. They just create anomalies and benefits are for the poor - we could argue where we draw the line for poor I guess.

winter fuel allowance

Now, we know that would be gone to higher earners if they had not been painted into a corner - back to the 'swing voter' example above, cutting this one would likely be a very unsafe move, in fact probably electoral suicide, given the pledge made in 2010

we could argue where we draw the line for poor I guess.

Median wage? maybe adjusted for household size?

What this really highlights is how the whole tax/benefits system could do with a massive root and branch reform. But I doubt that any politician of any persuasion would ever be able to get a mandate for that, unfortunately.

What this really highlights is how the whole tax/benefits system could do with a massive root and branch reform. But I doubt that any politician of any persuasion would ever be able to get a mandate for that, unfortunately.

Are they fair? The ultimate question - define fair!!!!! No single definition but to go back to my op on this thread, the current welfare state designed by Beveridge concluded that the fairest system was one where benefits were available to all but funded (via taxation) in a way that the higher income people paid more to support them. Hence the term 'progressive'. Remember that it replaced a combination of means testing and insurance. (edit: hence aracer's point about take up rates which has a historic precedent in the low access to healthcare pre Beveridge)

So in this case the concept of "fair" was wrapped up in being available to all, but paid for more by those who could afford to do so. Of course, there are plenty who would argue that is not fair (Nozick school etc)!!!! Hence economics is best studied in conjunction with philosophy and politics, but sadly so few Unis offer this brilliant combination!!!

Edit: JY this is why druidh asked the best question of all many pages back!

YES we do need more folk with a grounding in PPE in politics.

Define Fair - its a bit late to try something so complex but no one thinks it is this bodge.

But it is interesting to sleep on the basic idea that if we accept the original foundation 1 outlined by Beveridge (now sadly re-written on nHS website) on which the NHS is based and accept that this is fair, how can we not apply this to other benefits including child benefit?

I can see the argument with CB - we are all at our poorest [whatever our income for 90% of us until free [s]childcare[/s] compulsory education kicks in ]when we have kids and we all could do with some help so I can get it.

However being ill is not like having a child. You dont choose to be ill as a rule and that is about a safety net. They are not the same but it is an argument with some merit.

I struggle to see any argument with Universal Winter fuel though unless it was not age related

I wonder if, given a bit more time, it could have been sorted out more equitably without excessive cost?

If they spent a bit more time (and a bit more of our money) and found that there wasn't a way to do it differently without it costing more to implement, presumably you'd happily accept that then? Or would you still be complaining that it's "not fair"? Come to that, how do you know they didn't look into alternative ways of implementing this, and this was really the best way to do it?

Not sure why you are ignoring the most important bit - are they fair.

That's only most important (or even important at all) if you look at things from an ideological rather than pragmatic perspective. Otherwise the reasons you dismiss as being less important are really the only ones which matter.

JY - really!!! That would be a turn up and a weird squaring of a circle of debate . More PPE grads in politics => more privileged Oxbridge (and Warwick) grads => fewer "real" or "representative" people in politics!!!

How could you argue such a thing 😉 !! Good night!!

Agree about the bodge!

if you look at things from an ideological rather than pragmatic perspective

I think its pragmatic to design a tax system that is fair.

Pragmatism is an ideology but we would be here all night with that one

It may have been mentioned, but given that high earners are paying ( in principle) much more tax than others, it seems no big issue that they get some back, the same as everyone else

It may have been mentioned, but given that high earners are paying ( in principle) much more tax than others, it seems no big issue that they get some back, the same as everyone else

+1

It may have been mentioned, but given that high earners are paying ( in principle) much more tax than others, it seems no big issue that they get some back, the same as everyone else

you've not really grasped how the state is funded have you, or what the tax is/ should be used for.

What's not to like about free money....

DrP, being antagonistic.... 😉

A_A, please elaborate/explain for our benefit.

[quote=CharlieMungus said]It may have been mentioned, but given that high earners are paying ( in principle) much more tax than others, it seems no big issue that they get some back, the same as everyone else

What about those without children ?

Worth noting how much of the tax collected by PAYE comes from a small number of individuals.
On £50k a year you pay nearly 15k in tax!

you've not really grasped how the state is funded have you,

Probably not, i'd thought it was in part by taxation.

or what the tax is/ should be used for.

I rhink i've grasped that those might be two different things.

What about those without children ?

They get a raw deal. I can see that.

Why do they get a raw deal? Because they don't benefit? They will once other people's children start paying for their retirement - and, all else being equal, they had more disposable income. TBH, I thought this was the point, those with more disposable income should pay more tax.

Worth noting how much of the tax collected by PAYE comes from a small number of individuals.
On £50k a year you pay nearly 15k in tax!

Do you think that's a lot or a little?

Depends where you sit in the earnings table...

But it does highlight one thing, above the 40% threshold, comparing gross salaries is massively deceptive ( - until you get up towards 6 figure, perhaps?...) 50k sounds a hell of a lot if you are on 30k, but the difference is a lot less than the gross figures suggest - and not just from the net income, but also from loss of access to other state provision etc

....and what about the pacifists/conscientious objectors, those who opt out of the state provision of health or education etc?....when you start adopting the a la carte approaches to all this, it quickly becomes a little silly.

Depends where you sit in the earnings table...

"I think the government should be ensuring that families that earn less and get nothing aren't subsidising families that get more. As has been pointed out, there are other benefits/breaks that are calculated in that way; why is this different?"

People with less money are not subsidising those with more money - at least in terms taxpayers using PAYE. People on higher salaries are already paying for their own and others child benefits. They are in fact (Correctly IMHO) subsidising low earners.

Anyone paying using PAYE and many small business's, sole traders are however subsiding organisations that fail to pay reasonable levels of corporate taxation and the super rich who are both avoiding tax to a huge and highly immoral extent.

"you've not really grasped how the state is funded have you, or what the tax is/ should be used for."

I do, but your grasp seems tenuous.

"But it does highlight one thing, above the 40% threshold, comparing gross salaries is massively deceptive ( - until you get up towards 6 figure, perhaps?...) 50k sounds a hell of a lot if you are on 30k, but the difference is a lot less than the gross figures suggest - and not just from the net income, but also from loss of access to other state provision etc"

From my perspective, bang on with statement RKK01.

"Overall, its hitting a fairly small number of people, and being honest, are these people swing voters? has GO got to worry about them deserting the party? I would suggest that people in this financial position have probably got more to lose by Labour getting back in, so perhaps its actually quite a 'save' move?"

It hits me and I have never voted Conservative in my life and never will. TBH Labour are not socialist enough.

It is one thing removing a benefit or increasing a tax for the right reason - to improve the situation for society in general and those with very little , it is another to do it because it is opportune as the Conservatives have.

I wonder would Labour reverse this change if/when they get in ? Assuming they do get in, my personal opinion is that much of what they say they oppose now, will largely stay in place, under "the previous Govt have got us into this and our hands are tied and cant afford to reverse it"

[quote=hoodie ]I wonder would Labour reverse this change if/when they get in ?
Labour have an excellent track record of reversing policies they objected to whilst in opposition. Trident, Rail Privatisation, Union laws etc etc etc.

You are not wrong DruidHbut the same goes for the tories - minimum wage - european Human rights, Social contract etc

Yes good examples - but this is an unravelling of the welfare state on quite a grand scale...I just dont see it returning, as Labour wont be able to afford it (you could argue it hasnt stopped them before...)...In 2015 they stand to inherit a deficit thats behind target, an economy reeling for a third dip and various (mega expensive) large govt projects halfway in place not yet starting make savings...ie universal credit. I just cant see them being able to afford to pay CHB again universally....

@ jamj1974

Have you tried using the "quote" button when quoting other posters?
It makes it a whole lot easier to read

[quote=hoodie ]Yes good examples - but this is an unravelling of the welfare state on quite a grand scale...I just dont see it returning, as Labour wont be able to afford it (you could argue it hasnt stopped them before...)...In 2015 they stand to inherit a deficit thats behind target, an economy reeling for a third dip and various (mega expensive) large govt projects halfway in place not yet starting make savings...ie universal credit. I just cant see them being able to afford to pay CHB again universally....
Labour are already saying that they don't believe in universal benefits. It's not that they wouldn't be able to afford a reversal - it's that they wouldn't want to.

TBH Labour are not socialist enough.

Yet you're complaining about removing a benefit from higher earners?

Balls!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20928007

Personally I would stop CB and find better ways to fund folks who need it, be it taxation or other benefits. Something not to expensive to administer as well.

It would stop all the 'wealthy elite' (tm by TJ;-)) spending it on safari's and ski holidays:

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9784103/What-a-relief-The-madness-of-child-benefit-for-all-ends-today.html// ]Boris[/url]

Balls!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20928007

Posted 18 minutes ago #Report-Post

He is a creepy creepy man

It hits me and I have never voted Conservative in my life and never will. TBH Labour are not socialist enough.

So, not a swing voter then, perfect, no problem for GO as he's not losing your vote is he! Sorry, that's Realpolitik

It is one thing removing a benefit or increasing a tax for the right reason - to improve the situation for society in general and those with very little , it is another to do it because it is opportune as the Conservatives have.

Like Labour leaving the 50p tax rate to come into power after they left office, knowing it would not raise any money but allowed them to harp on about 'tax cuts for the richest'?

Fact remains, there is no good reason whatsoever that anyone with an income in the top echelon needs handouts from the state.

Is it fair that some still get it? No - but thats not a reason to continue paying it, its a reason to find a way to stop it going to them as well.

"Fact remains, there is no good reason whatsoever that anyone with an income in the top echelon needs handouts from the state.
Is it fair that some still get it? No - but thats not a reason to continue paying it, its a reason to find a way to stop it going to them as well."

That's where we disagree - they pay tax to pay for the benefits of others and receive a small tax rebate compared to significant tax paid in the form of a universal benefit. The universal benefit adds fairness to the taxation system.

It would stop all the 'wealthy elite' (tm by TJ;-)) spending it on safari's and ski holidays

Yeah but TJ's wealthy elite included rather more people than can afford treats like those.

Fact remains, there is no good reason whatsoever that anyone with an income in the top echelon needs handouts from the state.

Keeping TJ's memory alive!

"So, not a swing voter then, perfect, no problem for GO as he's not losing your vote is he! Sorry, that's Realpolitik"

Bang on with that one.

That's where we disagree - they pay tax to pay for the benefits of others and receive a small tax rebate

If you've got money to spare, how about just not charging the tax in the first place, rather than taking it off you and giving it back?

Personally, I'd rather see either:

i) money concentrated on those who need it
ii) lower taxes for all

Slightly OT but I hate this triple dip nonesense. Look at the graph, it is nothing of the sort it is merely flat lining with slight micro variation of a fraction of a percent.

So a couple who decides that the Mum stays at home to look after the her 4 kids, and the Dad does fall into those affected but only just goes onto have what equates to around a 9% cut to household income.

Yet a couple that choose to both go to work and put childcare in the hands of others could earn up to £99k is hardly fair. Sure the only a few families are affected, but those that are it has the potential to hit them hard.

Maybe levy for 10% cut to the PM's pay - how quickly would he agree to that?

Hi Jota - never been successful using quote button on iPhone. Do you know if it can work with iOS?

And the other thing i hate is I'm now forced to do self assessment along with many others. What a royal PITA. For a person on PAYE this is sheer lunacy.

What a royal PITA. For a person on PAYE this is sheer lunacy.

Sigh, no it's not. There are many reasons why, as a higher rate tax payer, doing a self assessment is a good thing. If you have a private pension or make charity donations using gift aid then you can claim the additional correct tax, you can also ensure that your savings are taxed at the correct rate.

I'm PAYE and been doing a tax return for years and it is a pretty good thing as far as I'm concnerned. I even got a huge rebate last year as a consequence. Granted I'd have preferred that the tax be correct in the first place but this is the next best thing.

Contrary to what you might expect from a government website, the online form is actually pretty good and doesn't take long to fill in, especially if your only source of income is PAYE.

I thought you only had to do PAYE if you took the benefit rather than just stopped claiming it

is that incorrect?

never been successful using quote button on iPhone. Do you know if it can work with iOS?

Ok, well may be it is not so bad. Still not looking forward to it. Cheers for the information though.

you can also just type

and then again with bracket/quote]

bracket missed or it will quote

 

Contrary to what you might expect from a government website, the online form is actually pretty good and doesn't take long to fill in, especially if your only source of income is PAYE.

+1

I've been doing self assessment for years and once you've gathered all the information, it takes 15 minutes max for PAYE & Property sections.

It really is very easy - just make sure you register in enough time because the password has to come through the mail - or at least it used to do.

So this information you have to collect, do they take your word or do you have to provide evidence? For example, interest earned on bank accounts and donating to charities. I sense a whole other thread closer to the time.

Well you can lie if you want but they do investigate some people and then you have to supply proof. Fail and you die. Possibly.

I discovered when I phoned to ensure I was being allowed for the 40% on my pension contributions, HMRC could see exactly how much tax on the interest my banks were paying them.

Watch out.

I wasn't suggesting I'd falsify but wondered how onerous the process was. As it happens, i bet my interest earned is less than a whole pound.