Tories scrapping child benefit for people who earn over £44,000

[Suffragette1]

The payment we're discussing here isn't housing benefit though. It's a payment given to all parents (at the moment) to encourage them to have children and help with the associated costs. It's meant to be used for the children's needs. Using the child benefit to help finance their education seems a good use of it to me.

 

We've saved ours for the kids, for when they go to university. We won't be eligible after 2013.

[llamatron]

I'm not sure child benefit gets taken into account by the banks when they are OK'ing a mortgage application...

 

no but then this isnt my made up and unbelievable scenario:thumbsup:

[Mister M]

All very good, but when the children are born into a family where benefits have been the norm for generations, how will this have a postive effect on tax revenues as opposed to benefit payments?

 

Many of the increasing number of old people in care homes will need looking after by care assistants. And social mobility being as it is, those doing the caring are those from poorer backgrounds.

Also many people at the other end of the income scale are just as much a drain on resources i.e the wealthy that don't pay their taxes but use publically provided goods & services.

[crookesey]

Oh guys, please think, this is quite simply 'top dressing', the self employed can juggle income between spouses, family owned private limited company directors often only pay themselves up to the NI level, and then pay themselves dividends that doesn't attract income tax.

 

The ones that can't avoid going into high rate tax are either very well paid and don't need child benefit, or (in many cases) well paid public sector employees who don't vote Tory anyway.

 

This is just a bit of groundbait to make a lot of folk think that the wealthy are being shafted, just before the owt for nowt brigade gets a size 12 up it's rear end.

 

And before I get the usual 'Rotton Tory' jibes, I'm just translating the decision as I see it.

[RosyRat]

Universal benefits are easy to apply and cheap to administrate. Now child benefit will be means tested. This means submitting returns, having them checked, then spot-checked in case of fraud and a selective means of distibution put in place. Has anyone considered how much this will cost? And at a time when the number of public service workers is to be cut.

 

Has a cost benefit analysis been undertaken for this and, if so, how much will this new system cost the tax-payer?

[hitch_1980]

Universal benefits are easy to apply and cheap to administrate. Now child benefit will be means tested. This means submitting returns, having them checked, then spot-checked in case of fraud and a selective means of distibution put in place. Has anyone considered how much this will cost? And at a time when the number of public service workers is to be cut.

 

Has a cost benefit analysis been undertaken for this and, if so, how much will this new system cost the tax-payer?

 

I believe it may co-inside with the new benefits system being introduced, where there is one benefit etc. So in the long run, it will be simpler and more cost effective.

[jake4jack200]

The scrapping of child benefit for those earning over 44k is a great move. Why do these people need it on their wages ?

 

Well done to the government .

[Suffragette1]

Universal benefits are easy to apply and cheap to administrate. Now child benefit will be means tested. This means submitting returns, having them checked, then spot-checked in case of fraud and a selective means of distibution put in place. Has anyone considered how much this will cost? And at a time when the number of public service workers is to be cut.

 

Has a cost benefit analysis been undertaken for this and, if so, how much will this new system cost the tax-payer?

 

I was once told (on here I believe) that that was the reason it was applied universally in the first place as it's a nightmare to administrate as well as extremely resource intensive. This is presumably why they've lumped everyone into the two top income tax brackets rather than coming up with say a figure of an annual salary *plucks figure out of the air* £90k.

 

£44k is bugger all to support a family on in London and those in the South East will be hit the hardest.

[hitch_1980]

I was once told (on here I believe) that that was the reason it was applied universally in the first place as it's a nightmare to administrate as well as extremely resource intensive. This is presumably why they've lumped everyone into the two top income tax brackets rather than coming up with say a figure of an annual salary *plucks figure out of the air* £90k.

 

£44k is bugger all to support a family on in London and those in the South East will be hit the hardest.

 

But the south east (may) suffer less job losses in places like sheffield etc

[Suffragette1]

But the south east (may) suffer less job losses in places like sheffield etc

 

Not necessarily, there will be a lot of redundancies in the public sector, local government, university sector, NHS and civil service.