| Non-motoring > Budget 2012 | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Crankcase | Replies: 116 |
|
New Wed 21 Mar 12 20:24
Budget 2012 - Crankcase
|
|
I don't know what this site is coming to. We always do the budget endlessly. Ok, BBC calculator here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946 Just over £300 better off in our household. Hurrah. Last edited by: Crankcase on Wed 21 Mar 12 at 20:25
|
|
New Wed 21 Mar 12 20:26
Budget 2012 - Zero
|
| £280 up here. Would be more if i consumed less wine, |
|
New Wed 21 Mar 12 20:48
Budget 2012 - Dave_
|
| £105 better off next year. Tax credit increase outweighs extra costs for diesel, RFL and vino. |
|
New Wed 21 Mar 12 20:53
Budget 2012 - rtj70
|
| From the BBC link I might be £42 better off... per annum. What will I spend it on :-) |
|
New Wed 21 Mar 12 21:09
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
£112 though bigger gains if I can use less petrol. Income tax threshold helps us both, useful. Tax credits look about the same for us. Not too unhappy about the budget overall, happy with the stamp duty rises on the big pads, id have been happy if they had gone to 25%. Could never see the fairness in potentially taxing cash poor pensioners out of fairly modest homes in the SE although they clobbered them across the board instead. The test will be what effect it all has and we wont know that till next year. |
|
New Wed 21 Mar 12 21:19
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
Discourage poorer familes from having children? Nope. Encourage the more well off to procreate? Nope. Encourage families to bring their own children up, rather than rely on childcare so they can have 2 incomes? Nope. As a budget to promote any improvement to the social agenda I'm not impressed :-) |
|
New Wed 21 Mar 12 21:22
Budget 2012 - R.P.
|
| 287 squids if I don't bother working. |
|
New Wed 21 Mar 12 21:31
Budget 2012 - Westpig
|
| £177 better off |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 00:34
Budget 2012 - devonite
|
| -£23.50 - that`s it! ... her wines got to go!! |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 01:12
Budget 2012 - rtj70
|
|
>> -£23.50 - that`s it! ... her wines got to go!! >> Or your beer. :-) Or buy beer and wine at ALDI. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 06:01
Budget 2012 - zookeeper
|
| anyone who thinks there better off under this shower are deluded |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 06:24
Budget 2012 - Meldrew
|
| I am £92 up and everyone else who has posted so far has gained so we probably think we are better off after the Budget |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 06:34
Budget 2012 - Dutchie
|
| Milliband had a good speech.Nod your head if you are better off to a bunch of miljonairs.They all nodded. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 08:09
Budget 2012 - Zero
|
|
Millibands speech was typical labour rubbish. The labour party only have one speech "The tories are the party of the rich and unemployment" - blah" Then the tories only have one speech as well "The Labour party is the party of high taxes and high spending" - blah. They are both too stupid to realise that one policy automatically begats the other policy in a constant circle of Spend - deep Cuts - Spend - deep cuts - spend - deep cuts. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 22 Mar 12 at 08:10
|
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 07:01
Budget 2012 - Duncan
|
|
>> anyone who thinks there better off under this shower are deluded>> Why did you vote for them then? |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 07:28
Budget 2012 - AnotherJohnH
|
|
Unless I have the wrong end of the stick... that calculator is as much smoke and mirrors as the budget itself: The income tax changes don't happen until April next year and that's where most of the "better off" comes from. The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day >> Why did you vote for them then? Because Politicians are like socks - they need to be changed once in a while otherwise the stink becomes unbearable. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 07:52
Budget 2012 - Old Navy
|
|
>> Because Politicians are like socks - they need to be changed once in a while >> otherwise the stink becomes unbearable. >> +1 |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 08:17
Budget 2012 - idle_chatterer
|
|
So, I tried the BBC website and found that I am nearly GBP 600 worse off - or I would be if I return to the UK. So, this prompted me to do a comparison and I find that my UK tax would be a full GBP 25,000 more on a salary which is roughly 60% of my HK one. Blimey, hadn't looked at that before, crumbs. And before anyone asks - there is free schooling and medical care of decent quality available plus unemployment benefits - albeit of a much more time-limited nature. The middle classes will be revolting (perhaps we already are) ;-) |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 08:48
Budget 2012 - L'escargot
|
|
>> I find that my UK tax would be a >> full GBP 25,000 more .......... I wish I had an income which resulted in me paying in excess of £25,000 p.a. tax. Last edited by: L'escargot on Thu 22 Mar 12 at 08:49
|
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 10:12
Budget 2012 - bathtub tom
|
|
>> >> I find that my UK tax would be a >> >> full GBP 25,000 more .......... >> >> I wish I had an income which resulted in me paying in excess of £25,000 >> p.a. tax. I wish I had an income ................ of £25,000 ;>( |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 08:17
Budget 2012 - Cliff Pope
|
|
Started the calculator but got fed up half way through. It started by asking for weekly figures, but when I got on to salary, interest etc I couldn't remember whether it still wanted weekly figures or if it had moved onto annual. Who cares? |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 14:22
Budget 2012 - TheManWithNoName
|
|
>> >> Because Politicians are like socks - they need to be changed once in a >> while >> >> otherwise the stink becomes unbearable. >> >> I prefer the analogy that politicians are more like nappies, in that they have to be changed regularly and often for the same reason. Last edited by: TheManWithNoName on Thu 22 Mar 12 at 14:23
|
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 14:26
Budget 2012 - movilogo
|
|
I wonder why public can't be potty trained so that we don't need the nappies (er... politicians) :o) |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 16:34
Budget 2012 - AlastiarM
|
| +1 |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 09:30
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
>>anyone who thinks there better off under this shower are deluded << One would have to be deluded to think it affects everyone badly. It doesnt. But it does hurt most people. The people who gain most are full-time minimum wage workers, like my wife. She is very happy to be set to pay less tax. Since we dont drink, drive a V8 or are trying to sell a 2 million quid pad, the effects are minimal for us. Im not in the least bit bothered about the 45p tax rate other than it will liberate more cash in the hands of my customers who may well spend it my way, so its good for the services industry, so id be foolish to dislike it, to hell with the politics. Chill :-) Last edited by: FoR on Thu 22 Mar 12 at 09:31
|
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 08:17
Budget 2012 - Dog
|
| Ere's my response to the budget ~ www.youtube.com/watch?v=113FzU6Uf9U |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 08:44
Budget 2012 - L'escargot
|
| £301 better off. However, their estimates of state pension and income tax were a mile out. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 08:54
Budget 2012 - DP
|
| £284 worse off. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 09:11
Budget 2012 - madf
|
|
Apart from fuel prices, no change at all. When we come to sell our house, the picture is , however, a disastrous -£220,000 based on current prices. Last edited by: madf on Thu 22 Mar 12 at 09:12
|
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 09:22
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
It is a miracle that, in these austere times, anyone can be made better off in the budget. I will willingly take the bitter medicine now, if the result is that in the long term the British economy is not as worse off as it otherwise would be. The national debt means we are paying ~£125 million a day in interest, and borrowing to pay that interest. www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ The personal debt mountain is nearly 1.5 times that (government debt ~£1 trillion, personal debt ~£1.5 trillion). Personally, I don't bother checking the budget impact on my finances as most of the measures are such that they can be mitigated by making choices on how you live your life. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 10:22
Budget 2012 - Westpig
|
|
I find the 'yah boo' politics appalling. What on earth did they look like on t.v. it was childish. Then there's the automatic opposition to something by the Opposition, regardless of its merits. Surely they don't think all the polulace are morons? Why not oppose something that needs it...and agree with things if they are good for the country...they'd gain more credibilty. ...and as for all that rubbish about "the same old Tories". There's a coaltion govt if they hadn't noticed. If Vince Cable is willing to go on t.v. and argue the budget's merit, inc the reduction of the 50p rate of tax and the alternative way rich people will pay...then that's a rather lame method for Labour to concentrate on....Still, I suppose if they can get the Mirror or something to headline that, it'll pass muster with some of the electorate. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 11:08
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
I get rather tired of the 'same old Tories' line, mainly because, if you are involved in Right-Wing politics, you are well aware of the fact that the Conservative party and especially those in government, are far from the same old Tories at all. The same old Tory voters are taking flight for that very reason. Same really goes for Labour - they arent really a left-wing working mans party anymore, but more of a public sector party that champions middle earners in the public sector. As a low earner outside of the public sector, I hear very little from Labour that relates to my life. Infact, shudder, I hear the most from the Lib Dems that relates to me - I think they are potty still, but they are more Labour than the Labour Party. Partisan politics is exceptionally irritating for those who care about the real issues rather than re-election. I just to tell them to shut the hell up if they havent anything genuinely constructive to say. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 13:10
Budget 2012 - movilogo
|
|
Child Benefit anomaly still remains. 1 earner in family getting over £60k = no child benefit 2 earners in family earning £50k each, thus £100k in total = full child benefit So, some people would be better off if husband and wife splits. This should not be happening. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 13:55
Budget 2012 - rtj70
|
|
Quick question - how man families do people on here now where husband and wife are both earning over £50k and they have children? Although movilogo is right in saying there's an anomaly. Someone on £50k and partner on say £20k would still get child benefit. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 14:48
Budget 2012 - idle_chatterer
|
|
>> Although movilogo is right in saying there's an anomaly. Someone on £50k and partner on >> say £20k would still get child benefit. >> But not a family with one earner on GBP 70K - who incidentally would pay considerably more tax than your example. Or perhaps even one earner on GBP 60K and the other on GBP 10K. there is an anomaly in both child benefit and taxation meaning people pay disproportionately more to the state according to an arbitrary rule. My rather crass example earlier today stems from this, in HK married couples can elect to be taxed together, there is also a married person allowance and allowances for both children and dependent others (grand parents, disabled siblings). Hence the massive difference in tax demanded. I understand that the UK used to operate like this (HK is modelled on the UK of 20 years ago in so many ways). I'm not intentionally advancing an argument for supporting marriage or the extended family - although I suspect this does lower the financial burden on the state from the elderly and infirm. Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 22 Mar 12 at 14:49
|
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 15:10
Budget 2012 - DP
|
|
A Tory pledge was to "recognise marriage in the tax system". The child benefit reforms are the diametric opposite. We will lose some of our child benefit due to my earnings. My wife works part time to take care of the children, so I am the main earner. Yet, it is technically possible for a similar household to earn almost twice what we earn and keep every penny of the benefit, if the salary split is equal. This cannot be right. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 15:25
Budget 2012 - Westpig
|
|
>> This cannot be right. >> +1 I fail to see why a married couple on a £60K income with a single earner, because the other one is looking after the kids....should get no family allowance, when two people on £50K each do. Why couldn't there be a single figure for income into the family? |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 15:47
Budget 2012 - rtj70
|
|
And it should be based on take home pay after tax/NI and not a pre-tax (and pre NI) figure. Not only does it need to reflect the higher rate tax thresholds but you might be getting more take home pay than someone else through tax credits. Now if family allowance became a tax-credit then it would take into account your take home pay. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 16:37
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> "recognise marriage in the tax system". >> Unfortunately, the equality, single, gay rights, and/or unmarried parents' lobby is too strong for this to be achieved. The separate taxation of married couples was the start of these anomalies. The reasoning was that a couple, married or not, should have the right to keep their earnings and tax affairs private and secret from each other. Such anomalies will always exist as long as you have benefits and tax thresholds. Also, once a benefit has been "given" in a budget, it is very difficult as well as very unpopular for a future chancellor to take it away. Hence the outcry over freezing age related tax bands. The next give away to tackle is winter fuel allowance and free travel for OAPs, but it remains to be seen when if ever a chancellor has the guts to abolish those benefits. If you are in the fortunate position of a couple earning £99,999 or less each, then you will be spared the burden of 60% income tax (yes 60%) because of this trap that waits for either earner who goes over that limit: news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51038000/gif/_51038550_incom_tax_rates464_01_11.gif Our tax and benefits system is one where childless people (single, married, or whatever) pay taxes to pay for child benefits and for schooling children regardless of the income of the parents. The ConLibs have a poisoned chalice and they are having to do the dirty work now to allow Labour back in power at the next election so that the giveaways can start again. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 15:17
Budget 2012 - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> although I suspect this does lower the >> financial burden on the state from the elderly and infirm. >> As "marriage" has become a taboo word, I see the opportunity for marketing a new product which would combine both the social advantages of old-style marriage, and relieve the state of the costs of caring for old people. An old person worried about becoming a burden and having limited resources would team up with a "couple in partnership" who would enter into a Vulnerable Persons Support Agreement. The old person could be anyone, not just a relative. The couple would look after the old person, receiving a state grant for doing so. They would also receive tax incentives to remain in partnership. This would reinforce traditional family values, but in a setting that completely avoided any necessity to actually have a real family. In fact "family" is itself a taboo word, the proper expression being "multi-generational shared accommodation partnership". |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 15:23
Budget 2012 - Roger.
|
|
Well, my own income is still (just) under the £10650 allowance for really old gits! 'Er indoors is VERY well under it. So our main hit from the budget is the cost of fuel to run our little car and of course, any extra on a bottle of plonk or other booze, which is to be deplored! |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 16:34
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
I cant help thinking that the child benefit changes could have come under the Universal Credit because one hopes, its one form, fill in the sections relevant to you and then they would have the info to distribute the benefit via household income as they do with other benefits. They collect all the relevant info for child benefit on the Tax Credits form and while it needs tidying up, one form, once a year, is no hardship and would solve this silly issue. I really dont know why they have defined it by higher rate taxpayers, its stupid when the tools exist to make it fair. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 16:46
Budget 2012 - movilogo
|
|
>> >> "recognise marriage in the tax system". >> >> Unfortunately, the equality, single, gay rights, and/or unmarried parents' lobby is too strong for this to be achieved. I have no problem in treating people equally. But where I'm angry with is the culture of making people worse off (by govt.) when they marry. Shame I voted Con last time. We need an alternative to Labour and Conservative. They are just two faces of same coin. For me, it is UKIP next time. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 16:56
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> For me, it is UKIP next time. >> That will ensure Labour gets in. What is UKIP's policy on benefits and income tax? |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 17:06
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
'UKIP believes in merging income tax and national insurance into a flat rate income tax to greatly simplify our tax code, which currently stands at over 11,000 pages. At the last election we opted to merge 20% basic income tax with 11% national insurance to create a 31% flat tax on all earned incomes over £11,500. As a tax cut for all, with a higher threshold, it would also take the poorest paid out of income tax altogether. It would also mean abolishing the existing 40% and 50% income tax brackets, the latter actually costing the economy rather than taking in revenue. For employers, UKIP aims to abolish employers’ national insurance across a parliament to end the tax on jobs. This will undoubtedly boost employment and simplify the process of employing people.' 'The UK’s current welfare system is ridiculously complicated and requires an army of bureaucrats to administer. There are more than 70 separate benefits, each requiring masses of forms and helping to entrench dependency. UKIP’s proposals will humanise the system and help people to help themselves out of the poverty trap. UKIP will: · Roll the mass of existing benefits into simpler categories, while ensuring every UK citizen receives a simple, non-means tested ‘Basic Cash Benefit’ (BCB) · Roll key benefits - such as Jobseeker’s Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Student Maintenance Grant - into a single, flat-rate BCB set at the same weekly rate as Jobseeker’s Allowance or Income Support. For students, the BCB will be termed ‘Student Vouchers’ or ‘Training Vouchers’ · Allow part-time and temporary workers to continue claiming BCB until their wages reach UKIP’s proposed £11,500 personal allowance so they can take jobs without being heavily penalised by the system · Merge Child Benefit, the Child Trust Fund, Child Tax Credits and the Education Maintenance Allowance into an enhanced Child Benefit, payable for each of the first three children in a family · Merge Early Years’ Funding, Sure Start, the childcare element of Working Tax Credit and the tax relief on Employer Nursery Vouchers into a flat-rate, non-means tested ‘Nursery Voucher’ to cover approximately half the cost of a full-time nursery place · Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years. Currently, British benefits can be claimed by EU citizens in their arrival year · Require those on benefits - starting with Housing and Council Tax Benefit recipients in private rented homes - to take part in council-run local community projects called ‘Workfare’ schemes. The schemes will be in addition to council jobs' As requested. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 17:54
Budget 2012 - WillDeBeest
|
|
Why couldn't there be a single figure for income into the family? You'll need to ask the notorious radical feminist and scourge of family values Nigel Lawson about that one. It was his 1988 budget that introduced the grand-sounding 'independent taxation of women' and effectively did away with the idea of the family as an economic unit. A small 'married couple's allowance' survived to the late 1990s - I remember getting a couple of years of it when newly married - but only extreme oldies get that now. It grieves me not so much that I pay more tax on my single, highish income than I would if I could get the benefit of Mrs Beest's unused personal allowance, but that, as Lygonos points out, there's a whole generation of children of middle income parents who are condemned to a life of childminders and 'after-school clubs' because one moderate income is no longer sufficient to pay for a family house in many parts of the UK. We've yet to see the true social effects of this outsourcing of parenthood, but I don't think they'll be pretty. This isn't a woman's-place-is-in-the-home argument, by the way. I've had a spell as the at-home parent and I think it was good for my children and for me. But I do think children need time with their parents to do and learn about mundane things, not just expensive treats to make up for lack of attention the rest of the time, and the present tax system is not helping with that. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 18:03
Budget 2012 - zippy
|
|
WillDeBeest +1 One earner in a family of four, with two kids and even after the change to the child benefit cut we will still loose it. Seems unfair as if my income were shared by two workers it wouldn't be a higher rate tax payers wage and of course we would be better off because we would have two tax free allowances and not just one! It really is time for a fully transferable tax allowance. £414 worse off. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 18:54
Budget 2012 - mikeyb
|
|
Willdebeest - I often wonder what the effects of the mass use of childcare will have on future generations. I see colleagues who drop of children at 7:30 for breakfast club, and then pick them up from after school club at 6pm. We have made a choice not to use childcare for the little B's - we experimented with it for our eldest, but were not really happy, and he became very reluctant to go. After this we made a few changes in our life which have protected them from needing to use childcare, but allowed us to both work and retain a reasonable standard of living |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 18:56
Budget 2012 - hjd
|
|
One of the main arguments for only considering one partner's income for child benefit is the fact that it is, like pensioners' Christmas bonus, non means tested. Once a birth has been registered, and a form completed, then the money is paid. Doesn't depend on the tax system. Once you add two partners' incomes together to work out qualifying income, the tax system will grind to a halt. HMRC don't know what someone has earnt for several months after the end of the tax year when they are on PAYE. The child benefit would become a bureaucratic nightmare in the same way that the Child Support Agency became, but on a much larger scale. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 19:09
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
>>the tax system will grind to a halt. HMRC don't know what someone has earnt for several months after the end of the tax year when they are on PAYE. The child benefit would become a bureaucratic nightmare in the same way that the Child Support Agency became, but on a much larger scale.<< How do you think they work out Working Tax Credits then? The payments continue past the 5th Apr on an estimated basis, you then have to submit the forms with the new figures for that year, I think its by July 31st. I get my self-assessment done by the end of April, my wife gets her P60 about the end of May, forms get sent in June. Job done. Its not rocket science and means tested benefits already exist. If its just a matter of income you could even use the WTC forms as the relevant info is filled in on those forms for Child Tax Credits. If people earning 50k cant fill in one of those forms, they have bigger issues than a few quid to worry about. It doesnt grind to a halt, the system is actually very swift to react. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 20:48
Budget 2012 - AnotherJohnH
|
|
without any googling or other research... off the top of my head.... I think some of the change back in Lawson's time (or before) was introduced so that the child benefits were claimed directly by the mother. I have the feeling prior to that the money ended up in the father's grasp, as a tax deduction, and not all the mothers got their due, IYKWIM. Edit - more complicated that I'd ever have guessed: www.cpag.org.uk/MakeChildBenefitCount/ChildBenefit_4.htm Last edited by: AnotherJohnH on Thu 22 Mar 12 at 20:51
|
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 20:53
Budget 2012 - Armel Coussine
|
|
In the course of my life hundreds, if not thousands, of budgets have been elaborated, made law and enforced. None of them has made any difference to me or changed my life in any way or caused me more than a momentary twitch of anxiety. This may be because of a gross insensitivity to fiscal matters that may have biological or genetic roots. If there's one thing I can't do easily it's open a brown envelope. As a result I suffer more or less constant anxiety and occasionally have to pay penalties and even tax, although I can't imagine that I really owe any tax given my piffling income and great age. I see the penalties, 100 quid a pop in recent years, as some sort of recompense for all the correspondence. And up to a point perhaps as a sort of fine for managing to have a decent life while behaviing like an irresponsible teenager. How you geezers come up with a gain or loss to three decimal places within seconds of the Chancellor's speech is completely beyond me. There's something wrong with you if you ask me. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 21:43
Budget 2012 - hjd
|
|
>> >> How do you think they work out Working Tax Credits then? The payments continue past >> the 5th Apr on an estimated basis, you then have to submit the forms with >> the new figures for that year, I think its by July 31st. I get my >> self-assessment done by the end of April, my wife gets her P60 about the end >> of May, forms get sent in June. Job done. >> >> Its not rocket science and means tested benefits already exist. If its just a matter >> of income you could even use the WTC forms as the relevant info is filled >> in on those forms for Child Tax Credits. If people earning 50k cant fill in >> one of those forms, they have bigger issues than a few quid to worry about. >> >> It doesnt grind to a halt, the system is actually very swift to react. >> I can only say that you don't have much experience of the system. I am an accountant and have the misfortune to be dealing with it all the time. As you say, the Revenue figures are always estimated and up to two years behind. We have the same problem with student finance applications; system should be simple but in fact drags on for months with constant estimated figures, lost documentation and the Revenue taking several months to reply to any correspondence. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 22:24
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
>>I can only say that you don't have much experience of the system. I am an accountant and have the misfortune to be dealing with it all the time. As you say, the Revenue figures are always estimated and up to two years behind. We have the same problem with student finance applications; system should be simple but in fact drags on for months with constant estimated figures, lost documentation and the Revenue taking several months to reply to any correspondence.<< I claim Working Tax Credits so have direct experience of the process and I dont recognise the issues you talk of. When I rang in my exact figures once my tax return and wifes P60 were in, I was sent paperwork on the adjustment within a week. That said, maybe you deal with a different department such is the array of benefits about, but I must say, ive never come across such a well oiled machine. Its true that the Tax Credits are essesntially paid in arrears, so what I earn this tax year dictates next years tax credit payments, but thats their system. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 21:32
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
>> One earner in a family of four, with two kids and even after the change >> to the child benefit cut we will still loose it. Seems unfair as if my >> income were shared by two workers it wouldn't be a higher rate tax payers wage >> and of course we would be better off because we would have two tax free >> allowances and not just one! >> >> It really is time for a fully transferable tax allowance. >> >> >> £414 worse off. I can only agree. We took the view that our children should be brought up by us, not a nursery, and since then (30 years ago) I have been the sole or main earner. It always galled me that we only had one tax allowance and a higher rate tax bill, but two earners with more income could pay less tax. That was before the inequity of the child benefit change. I struggle to understand why households with two working adults get help with childcare, but there's no support for those who make the choice to care for their own children. This inequality has now been made worse. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 21:45
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
My household will be about 500 quid/yr worse off. Next year we'll lose child benefit for 3 kids (~£2200 or so) who are being brought up by their mother. In addition my pension contributions will go up to 28% from 22% over the next 3 years. And my income will slightly drop as staff costs rise but remuneration stays static (with further drops due to inflation eroding the value). Not to mention my pay hasn't increased in the past 3 years (albeit after a decent rise 5 years ago...) I live well within my means (miserable so-and-so) so the actual effect of this will be a paper exercise (ie. less savings than I would have had otherwise) but I can now easily sympathise with professionals I know who are heading for Australia and South Africa. I find it very annoying that we are training medics and engineers for them to head overseas - this traffic can only worsen as we become an increasingly unattractive place to be a moderately high earner. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 22:17
Budget 2012 - PeterS
|
|
>> I find it very annoying that we are training medics and engineers for them to >> head overseas - this traffic can only worsen as we become an increasingly unattractive place >> to be a moderately high earner. Whilst I don't disagree in the slightest with the sentiment, and in fact think it's a real shame that this government haven't tackled the ludicrous situation of a marginal tax rate of 62% for someone earning between £100k ~ £120k, compared to a top rate that is to become 47% for earnings >£150k. However I think it's also worth reminding ourselves that much of the working population wouldn't class top rate tax payers (less than 300,000 individuals at the last estimate), or even those earning more than £100k (around 2% of all earners), as moderately high earners. For many they are high earners full stop. It's easy to forget that as our own incomes rise, but sobering to look at comparitives once in a while... |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 23:43
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
>> rate of 62% for someone earning between £100k ~ £120k, If your earnings fall into this band it becomes very efficient to make pension contributions to the point of reducing your taxable earnings to £100k. For every £1 contributed you get 50p of your tax allowance back plus the 40% relief. I hope you did! |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 00:14
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
>>If your earnings fall into this band it becomes very efficient to make pension contributions to the point of reducing your taxable earnings to £100k. For every £1 contributed you get 50p of your tax allowance back plus the 40% relief. I hope you did! With regard to child benefit, if I paid enough extra pension contribution to bring my net income down to 50 grand would I still be entitled to it? Yours 'greedily', Lygonos. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 07:39
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
>> With regard to child benefit, if I paid enough extra pension contribution to bring my >> net income down to 50 grand would I still be entitled to it? >> >> Yours 'greedily', >> >> Lygonos. Good question. Don't know! Could you afford to put 75% of your salary into pension? ;-) |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 07:47
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
Would need to be 90% - I'm a GP dontcha know! Cheeky blighter :-) |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 08:46
Budget 2012 - PeterS
|
|
>> With regard to child benefit, if I paid enough extra pension contribution to bring my >> net income down to 50 grand would I still be entitled to it? >> >> Yours 'greedily', >> >> Lygonos. >> If it is to work I think it'll have to bring your gross, not net, income down to £50k, a bigger challenge from a lifestyle perspective I suspect... |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 06:01
Budget 2012 - PeterS
|
|
>> If your earnings fall into this band it becomes very efficient to make pension contributions >> to the point of reducing your taxable earnings to £100k. For every £1 contributed you >> get 50p of your tax allowance back plus the 40% relief. I hope you did! >> That's right of course, but it's still a sneaky little trap IMO!! |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 22:29
Budget 2012 - Roger.
|
|
>> I find it very annoying that we are training medics and engineers for them to >> head overseas - this traffic can only worsen as we become an increasingly unattractive place >> to be a moderately high earner. We are, of course, importing people, too. The trouble is that many of them are totally unskilled and are a drain on State resources not contributors to the common weal. It really IS time that something on the lines of a visa system is implemented. Australia has one in which licence to stay is dependant on the proposed immigrant showing either a sufficient income, or have the required skills and a job offer, before being allowed in. Why not us? Of course our membership of the EU makes this impossible to enforce - we are the country of choice for Europe's undesirables. You will not be surprised that I think withdrawal from the EU is necessary, for this and many other reasons. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 22:42
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
We have Visa requirements for non-Europeans. I don't think the UK's productivity has been negatively affected by the influx of young Poles/Lithuanians/Czechs - they are often the most highly educated people from their countries coming here to work in relatively unskilled jobs. The fact they get jobs with little difficulty reflects on the indigenous youngsters. >>we are the country of choice for Europe's undesirables. True - but they were already here ;-) |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 23:36
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
Ha ha - that must be the weakest frowny face ever! Whoever added it... the world won't miss you when you're dead :-) |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 23:56
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
Anonymous 'blackballing' - must be a Freemason or French. Maybe both :-) Spineless wimp. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 07:55
Budget 2012 - Roger.
|
|
>> Ha ha - that must be the weakest frowny face ever! >> >> Whoever added it... the world won't miss you when you're dead :-) Not me! |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 12:52
Budget 2012 - AnotherJohnH
|
|
>> Whoever added it... the world won't miss you when you're dead :-) Even with a smiley, that's a bit uncharitable. Presuming you are what you claim to be, whatever happened to: I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 13:17
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> Presuming you are what you claim to be, whatever happened to: >> Hippocrates went out of the window long ago. He has been replaced by service to Mammon. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 09:13
Budget 2012 - L'escargot
|
|
>> In addition my pension contributions will go up to 28% from 22% over the next >> 3 years. I didn't know that nowadays you can make pension contributions that high. Ten years ago, and possibly later than that, the limit was 15%. There has to be a limit, because pension contributions are free of income tax. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 09:45
Budget 2012 - PeterS
|
| The limit is £50k per anum, but, IIRC, it needs to be from earned income. There is no % limit otherwise I don't thin |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 10:04
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
>>The limit is £50k per anum, but, IIRC, it needs to be from earned income I assume you can contribute beyond that, you just won't get the tax relief. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 12:20
Budget 2012 - PeterS
|
|
>> I assume you can contribute beyond that, you just won't get the tax relief. >> True; that may well be the case. You can also contribute to someone else's pension (up to £2,880) and they'll get tax relief at 20%. Not sure how many other people you can (or would want...) to do this for though!! |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 10:06
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> >> In addition my pension contributions will go up to 28% from 22% over the >> next >> >> 3 years. >> >> I didn't know that nowadays you can make pension contributions that high. Ten years ago, >> and possibly later than that, the limit was 15%. There has to be a limit, >> because pension contributions are free of income tax. >> I suspect that the filthy rich Doctor is including the employer's contribution in that figure (because his employer is the practice owned by himself). "Superannuation contributions Q. Who funds and pays the employer superannuation contributions for salaried GPs? If the GP is employed by the practice, the practice funds and pays the employer contributions." |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 10:07
Budget 2012 - rtj70
|
|
>> There has to be a limit, because pension contributions are free of income tax. It's not taxed when you are earning it granted. But the pension is taxed when you come to take money out. It would be unfair to tax you twice. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 13:12
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
I have to pay employers (14% or so) and employees (7.5% going up to 13.5% in 2-3 yrs)contributions - this is for the NHS scheme, not a private scheme. |
|
New Thu 22 Mar 12 23:21
Budget 2012 - henry k
|
|
>>We took the view that our children should be brought up by us, not a nursery, and since then (30 years ago) I have been the sole or main earner. >> It always galled me that we only had one tax allowance and a higher rate tax bill, but two earners with more income could pay less tax. >> That was before the inequity of the child benefit change. >>I struggle to understand why households with two working adults get help with childcare, but there's no support for those who make the choice to care for their own children. >> This inequality has now been made worse. We decided to do the same. In spite of me having to travel abroad fairly regularly I was still able to devote a lot of time to my two. Without any training on my behalf, I taught my daughter to read before junior school thus avoiding any trendy methods. The head teacher did not believe she could read but at least apologised later. Obviously we think we should have been better treated tax wisw but we belive the effort we put into our form of education has helped and we are proud to have taken that path. We are so fortunate in having two highly succesful children who have made the very best from their head start. I had hoped to assist in some sort of way at our local school but not with all the red tape involved these days and just like driving lessons - train em to pass exams and then learn about the real requirements afterwards. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 04:40
Budget 2012 - Pat
|
|
I've read this thread with interest and amazement at how many people (who earn far more than most of us) seem to think it's the governments duty to fund their choice to have children and the subsequent childcare. Surely it's a consideration when making the decision to have a child, or even three or four, whether your income can provide for them? You don't aquire a car if you can't afford to run it, so why not apply the same criteria to having children? Why should childless couples, or those who can't have children provide for those who can? If one parent, either parent, was forced to give up work for 10 years to provide a stable home life for the offspring, we'd soon see a generation with far better values that we're seeing now. *keeping head down now!* Pat |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 05:42
Budget 2012 - idle_chatterer
|
|
>> I've read this thread with interest and amazement at how many people (who earn far >> more than most of us) seem to think it's the governments duty to fund their >> choice to have children and the subsequent childcare. >> I'm not sure that this is exactly the argument that is being made ? My own comments pertain to the inequality and arbitrary nature of the Tax/Child Benefit system, I deliberately am not advancing arguments for marriage as a good environment in which to bring up children even if it is in fact my belief. The 'what about childless couples' argument is often used, I sympathise as I have paid for other people's children's education, other people's medical care and benefits and goodness knows what else for many many years as a relatively high tax payer. By any financial assessment I have 'in my life so far' contributed more money than I have cost the UK. Yet - I do not question the need for tax, it is the price of living in a civilised society. If you want arguments for having children (in general) - they will pay your pension and fund your healthcare when you are old (as you do their's now - even if you don't have kids). I was once told 'tax isn't supposed to be fair' - it isn't, but complaining about it is good therapy. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 06:38
Budget 2012 - WillDeBeest
|
|
You don't aquire a car if you can't afford to run it, so why not apply the same criteria to having children? ... Why should childless couples, or those who can't have children provide for those who can? Because, unlike owning a car, producing and raising children is essential to the continuance of our society. I_C has already made that point but I'm happy to underline it. If one parent, either parent, was forced to give up work for 10 years to provide a stable home life for the offspring, we'd soon see a generation with far better values than we're seeing now. Well, we might eventually see that, Pat, but let's not get into 'moral decline' again. But you are, however unintentionally, part of the problem here, for reasons that are only indirectly about tax. Changing social attitudes in the 1960s did away with idea that no married woman could go out to work. Nothing wrong with that; like many other changes in that period it was an overdue correction to an outmoded attitude. But the 1980s brought the Thatcher government and the huge rise in home ownership, which has its advantages but costs more than renting. Combine that with a generation that had grown up entirely in the post-1960s world and many were happy to take advantage of the option of a second income to achieve a way of life their parents could not have aspired to. But markets don't stand still. As two-earner families became more numerous, the housing market had increased demand but constrained supply, and you don't have to be an economist to know that that can have only one effect: higher prices. Throw in a few complicating factors like longer life expectancy, which further constrains supply, and buy-to-let investing, which stokes demand, and you get the situation we have now where unless you're quite a high earner, a second income is effectively obligatory if you want to own a family house. As unintended consequences go, that's a biggie. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 08:36
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
WdB, precisiely. I wouldn't deny anybody the right to work, but the net result has not been an improvement in family life. In the 60s and 70s, it was much more realistic for one partner (then the woman of course, but no reason that must be the case now) to stay at home and look after children. All that has happened is that higher incomes have chased up housing cost. I think it's a great pity that it is now very difficult to do that for most families. We were fortunate to buy our first house in 1977. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 09:19
Budget 2012 - L'escargot
|
|
>> All that has >> happened is that higher incomes have chased up housing cost. >> Increased demand from a rapidly increasing population must also have been a factor. If the rate of increase of the population was limited/controlled, house prices wouldn't go up as fast. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 09:32
Budget 2012 - CGNorwich
|
|
"If the rate of increase of the population was limited/controlled," And how would you achieve that? |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 09:44
Budget 2012 - Dutchie
|
|
I was thinking that,limited controlled.Don't like the sound of that.Only kids for the well of. Gated community's what next. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 09:48
Budget 2012 - -
|
|
>> Gated community's what next. >> Oh they and well heeled areas exist aplenty, those who let and aid violent scumbags to walk free from court and other similar undesirables into the country in the first place probably make up most of the inhabitants. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 09:36
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> it is the price of living in a civilised society. >> How many other societies are there that qualify as "civilised" to meet your criteria of "civilised"- i.e. they need or have child benefit as part of their tax and benefits system? >> If you want arguments for having children (in general) - they will pay your pension and fund your healthcare when you are old (as you do their's now - even if you don't have kids). >> The system whereby you have to rely on present tax payers to pay for past commitments is wrong. Pensions, health and education should be paid from your contributions to a funded scheme, not from general taxation. You can make a start by taking charge of your own future so that you do not burden your children and/or grandchildren and make them pay for the lack of your foresight. >> producing and raising children is essential to the continuance of our society. >> How many on this forum would decide NOT to have children if there was zero child benefit? As it is, there is no need to give incentives to people to have children - too many for England to cope with: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9138541/Warning-over-acute-shortage-of-primary-school-places.html "Prof John Howson, senior research fellow at Oxford University, said the shortage of places for five-year-olds was the “biggest problem” facing schools in England. He warned that successive governments had failed to properly prepare for the surge in applications, which has been caused by rising birth rates and the effects of immigration. .... According to official forecasts, the number of under-11s in the education system will rise from 4m to 4.82m by 2020 – taking the primary school population to its highest level since the early 70s." >> Changing social attitudes in the 1960s did away with idea that no married woman could go out to work. Nothing wrong with that; like many other changes in that period it was an overdue correction to an outmoded attitude. >> Fine. let anyone who wants to work, run their business, or whatever, do what they want. But don't expect the rest of society to fund their lifestyle choice. If you cannot afford to have children, or you cannot afford to bring them up the way children should be brought up, then don't have children whose lives you are damaging by the way you decide to farm out their care to "professionals". www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118060/ "Youngsters cared for by relatives are more 'emotionally secure' and have wider vocabularies" >> the huge rise in home ownership, which has its advantages but costs more than renting. >> Assuming that is true, then using your logic, if home ownership went down, demand for rented properties would rise, causing rents to rise. However, the flaw in your argument is that you are forgetting the massive wealth that Thatcher's "home owning" children have built up from capital growth. Today's 50 to 70 year old home owners are possibly the richest ever British history. >> a second income is effectively obligatory if you want to own a family house >> I is not a human right to own a family house, nor is it a desirable social trait to live in one generation family units. Nothing wrong, in fact positively better, to live in extended family units. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/27/three-generations-one-house-not-frightful |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 09:59
Budget 2012 - idle_chatterer
|
|
>> How many other societies are there that qualify as "civilised" to meet your criteria of >> "civilised"- i.e. they need or have child benefit as part of their tax and benefits >> system? My comment referred to taxation and not child benefit, are you arguing that you would not wish to support the needy or infirm ? >> >> The system whereby you have to rely on present tax payers to pay for past >> commitments is wrong. Pensions, health and education should be paid from your contributions to a >> funded scheme, not from general taxation. You can make a start by taking charge of >> your own future so that you do not burden your children and/or grandchildren and make >> them pay for the lack of your foresight. >> Two different things I'd suggest ? I don't have any problem with my taxes paying for healthcare and pensions of those utilising them today - provided the same is true when I come to need them. As to the provision, I have always seen it as my own responsibility to fund my retirement and have planned accordingly, state benefits should provide a minimum level of support only IMHO. Healthcare is different, insurance based approaches are problematic for the elderly who (generally) require more expensive healthcare which an insurance based approach would not support. >> >> producing and raising children is essential to the continuance of our society. >> >> >> How many on this forum would decide NOT to have children if there was zero >> child benefit? It was certainly not a factor in our decision to have children, but being able to support my family most certainly was, anything else is irresponsible in my opinion. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 10:39
Budget 2012 - DP
|
|
The difficulty is when the benefit exists, and is then withdrawn. Child benefit is part of our monthly budget, and to lose any or all of it has an impact. If I were offered an equivalent pay cut, I would be incredibly upset. The reaction I've had from a lot of people when discussing this is that, as a higher rate taxpayer, I am well off, and therefore can afford to lose this benefit, so I shouldn't have it. Interestingly, another couple I know who earn just a couple of thousand less a year, split fairly equally between them are not considered well off by the same group of friends, even though the household income is actually slightly higher than mine as they don't fall into the 40% tax bracket. We do OK, and are better off than many, but we are by no means rich, and we certainly don't live a luxurious lifestyle. I drive a nice car, but it isn't mine, and I couldn't afford anything close to it with my own money. There's also the simple fact that money simply doesn't go as far as it did even a couple of years ago. Like most other people, we reckon our monthly spend on essentials such as food, energy, household bills and essential insurance has gone up by about £200 a month relative to a couple of years ago. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 11:45
Budget 2012 - devonite
|
|
You should have to prove your worth before your allowed to breed! - you should be made to prove that you can care and look after them (children) properly. Should give all folk thinking of breeding, a Rabbit or Guinea-pig to look after for a couple of years first, and then only after showing successful care and control of such, issued with a "Certificate of competence to breed" ;-) |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 12:14
Budget 2012 - Zero
|
|
>> Should >> give all folk thinking of breeding, a Rabbit or Guinea-pig to look after for a >> couple of years first, Not sure a nation of kids growing up to crap in woodshavings and only capable of biting or running in a treadmill is a good idea. Second thoughts the treadmill thing might cure the energy crisis Yeah go for it. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 12:23
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
DP - please note this is not an attack on you or your income or your lifestyle but merely presenting another point of view. >> We do OK, and are better off than many, but we are by no means rich, >> Say we define "poor" as the bottom 30% households, "rich" as the top 30% households, and "middle" as those in the middle in between the poor and rich. See where you fit in by looking at the chart halfway down the page here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966 further details in this excel file: www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/business/11/tax_benefits_download/xls/tax_benefits.xls >> and we certainly don't live a luxurious lifestyle. >> You may think so, and I may think so too. But it depends on who you ask to define "luxurious" - it is a matter of opinion. >> There's also the simple fact that money simply doesn't go as far as it did even a couple of years ago. Like most other people, we reckon our monthly spend on essentials such as food, energy, household bills and essential insurance has gone up by about £200 a month relative to a couple of years ago. >> 1. Most of the world's population is in the same boat. People in PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) are deep in pigs manure. 2. Budgets time, except before election time, generally means pain for the taxpayer. >> I drive a nice car, but it isn't mine, and I couldn't afford anything close to it with my own money. >> It is your car, albeit financed via a company scheme rather by extra pay in your pocket and is therefore called a "benefit in kind". |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 12:28
Budget 2012 - Zero
|
|
There is no excuse for paying child benefit to anyone in the higher tax bracket. Its should be stopped, dead. Its intended role was and should be to provide for kids in POORER households For many years I was in the higher tax bracket, and yes I took the child allowance. I didn't need it, I thought about it, and then selfishly took it and used it to supplement our lifestyle. And that's all anyone who pays higher rate tax does with child benefit. If its stopped you will just have to readjust your budget, no-one forced you to have kids. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 12:38
Budget 2012 - DP
|
|
>>There is no excuse for paying child benefit to anyone in the higher tax bracket. Its should >> be stopped, dead. Its intended role was and should be to provide for kids in POORER households Would you be saying the same thing 20 years ago? >> And that's all anyone who pays higher rate tax does with child benefit. If its stopped you >> will just have to readjust your budget, no-one forced you to have kids. It's called moving the goalposts. Whatever the rights and wrongs, the support was there, and it's being withdrawn. Very easy to hold such forthright views on this when it doesn't affect you. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 12:53
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> Would you be saying the same thing 20 years ago? >> >> It's called moving the goalposts. >> Lesson - do not plan your future life based on the annual decisions of a politician. 20 years ago, you would have been worrying about mortgage rates. Would you be happy if those goalposts were frozen at the 15% bank rate of 1990? To quote Martin Lewis “Today’s interest rates aren’t just low, they’re not even just the historic lowest rate ever, they’re 1.5% below the prior lowest in its 316 year history!” I understand perfectly well that it is but human nature to whinge about the negatives but conveniently forget the positives. To satisfy our nature, the next few years hold plenty more coming in the pipeline for us all to whinge about. :) Last edited by: John H on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 12:54
|
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 13:12
Budget 2012 - Zero
|
|
>> Would you be saying the same thing 20 years ago? Yes - I did. As my post said I thought about it at the time, and took it greedily knowing it was being used to supplement my lifestyle. Both when it was child allowance (paid into a holiday account) an when you had to claim it as credits. >> It's called moving the goalposts. Whatever the rights and wrongs, the support was there, and >> it's being withdrawn. The goalpost is only so wide and so big, if you shoot wide you know you won't score. You can't deny its being used to enhance your lifestyle, not care for your kids. >> Very easy to hold such forthright views on this when it doesn't affect you. It did, so i can hold them. And as we all pay for them (the childless as well) we have some say in the levels they are set at. It is indefensible to be in a higher tax bracket AND get child allowance, completely indefensible. Last edited by: Zero on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 13:13
|
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 13:14
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
>>It is indefensible to be in a higher tax bracket AND get child allowance, completely indefensible Unless Child benefit is for the benefit of the child, rather than their parents. In which case it is a bit more defensible. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 13:17
Budget 2012 - Zero
|
|
In the higher tax bracket the child has all the benefits it needs. It certainly has the same or better benefits than poorer families. Ok Ok yes there are particular circumstances where that won't apply, but they are the exceptional rather than the rule. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 13:22
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> Unless Child benefit is for the benefit of the child, rather than their parents. >> The poorer families, for whose children the benefit was primarily intended, end up using it to subsidise their fags, booze and Sky habits at best, and heroin/crack at worst. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 15:48
Budget 2012 - DP
|
|
>> It did, so i can hold them. And as we all pay for them (the >> childless as well) we have some say in the levels they are set at. It >> is indefensible to be in a higher tax bracket AND get child allowance, completely indefensible. So you admit to claiming this benefit for years while in full realisation that you didn't need to, but on the other hand are pleased / think it's correct that the younger generation in a similar relative income bracket to yours at the time, who are bringing up their kids now in a time of record living and energy costs, have that same benefit withdrawn. Sorry, with the greatest of respect, that view comes across as incredibly selfish. Last edited by: DP on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 15:50
|
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 16:21
Budget 2012 - Pat
|
|
Selfish yes, DP, but on the other hand there are a lot of people who have actually taken wage cuts as well as benefit cuts who wouldn't agree with you. Child benefit is as it says on the tin, a benefit. Relying on it to subsidise your standard of living is like relying on a bonus paid in a good year at work. There are not many people out there who haven't had to tighten their belts to a lesser ot greater degree during the last 5 years but most of us have managed to do so without whinging about it. The playing field isn't level for us either and our goalposts have also moved, but we're dealing with it. Pat |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 16:50
Budget 2012 - Zero
|
|
>> >> It did, so i can hold them. And as we all pay for them >> (the >> Sorry, with the greatest of respect, that view comes across as incredibly selfish. Yup, BUT, I knew it wasn't needed , I didn't defend it, and had it been stopped I would not have bothered to defend it. With the greatest of respect I was prepared to be honest about it. To be fair I am not having a pop at you, I am having a pop at the fact that government can be prepared to state that £xxx is a good income and should be taxed at a higher rate, yet still decided that £xxx is not a good income after all and needs child benefit. They can't take cake away with one hand and give you biscuits back with the other, Its stupid. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 17:01
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
>>They can't take cake away with one hand and give you biscuits back with the other, Its stupid. << Think you will find then can and they will. Its called government policy. Joined up thinkers need not apply. Extend it further and look at not the incomes, but the living costs on families who's root cause is government policy. Energy policy, transport policy, food, anything you like. Its all part of the bigger picture. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 12:30
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> are you arguing that you would not wish to support the needy or infirm ? >> Having a benefit system for that purpose is quite different to one where child benefit, heating allowance, travel subsidy for OAPs, etc. is paid regardless of your wealth. It is fine to support the needy and infirm, but not a system where all and sundry have rights and benefits and entitlements without responsibility, or a system where tax-free housing benefit is paid to work-shy scroungers that exceeds the average after-tax income of those who have a work ethic. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 14:02
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
We used to save our child benefit, therefore you could say we didn't need it. You can certainly make an argument that there is an income level enjoyed by a lot of people above which child benefit should not be paid. You could even make the case for that being the income of a higher rate taxpayer. The injustice is that it is not household based. Some of the households losing it all will already have a lot lower net income than others losing none. Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 14:02
|
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 16:42
Budget 2012 - AnotherJohnH
|
|
>> You could even make the case for that being the income of a higher rate taxpayer. [devil's advocate] But the level of income it takes to become a high rate tax payer is a moving target too - twice over: not only is there the chancellor's friend "fiscal drag" (threshold stays the same when incomes increase) there is threshold reduction - see the bottom of this link: www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm [/devil's advocate] Last edited by: AnotherJohnH on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 16:43
|
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 19:29
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
Quite. A family with 2 or 3 children and one earner just into higher rate tax would not in general consider itself "well off" - especially in the south east with a mortgage on a modest 3 bedroomed house. Certainly they will be far less well off that the two-earners-just-below-higher-rate household whose child benefit is untouched. I don't agree on this occasion with Zero, though I acknowledge his point. The tax/benefit system should recognise families, and child benefit has been the way of doing that for some time. Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 19:30
|
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 20:06
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> A family with 2 or 3 children and one earner just into higher rate tax would not in general consider itself "well off" >> They meet the generally accepted definition of well off. >> - especially in the south east with a mortgage on a modest 3 bedroomed house. >> So you expect the taxpayer to fund the southern lifestyle of a higher rate tax payer, who has chosen to live in the South East and chosen to have children he/she cannot afford. A free choice. It is not forced upon the high rate taxpayer. >> Certainly they will be far less well off that the two-earners-just-below-higher-rate household whose child benefit is untouched. >> That is quirk of the system which is difficult to get rid of. Until child benefit is completely stopped for all, such quirks will remain. The problem arises in a society where everyone is supposed to be treated as individuals for their tax but then gets in to difficulties establishing the rights and duties of the biological father (up to the point where alleged fathers need to be identified via DNA tests). I have no idea how all these benefits affect gay/lesbian parents who have adopted children or fathered children them through surrogacy/IVF/AIDonor. >> The tax/benefit system should recognise families, and child benefit has been the way of doing that for some time. >> Child benefit has had nothing to do,with families. It has been a benefit paid to mothers (except where a partner opts to stay at home to care for the child/children and opts to have the benefit paid to him so that he can claim NI contributions too.) |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 20:25
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
We have very different perspectives. It's very difficult in general for one of couple to stay at home now - it is wrong that more support goes to families in which both parents choose to 'pursue careers', or as I see it grub for money and shiny things, while society subsidises their childcare. If child benefit is to be removed, it should at least be done fairly. And it's splitting hairs to deny it has been de facto relief for families since it replaced family allowance and child tax allowances in the 70s. As for the hackneyed refrain that people shouldn't have children unless they can afford them, I wouldn't dignify that with a comment. Transferable tax allowances would go a long way to redressing the imbalance and make it possible for more people to look after their own children. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 20:43
Budget 2012 - John H
|
|
>> If child benefit is to be removed, it should at least be done fairly. >> The proposed Budget solution is the best/fairest that the ConLibs could agree on. >> As for the hackneyed refrain that people shouldn't have children unless they can afford them, I wouldn't dignify that with a comment. >> The hackneyed idea that high rate taxpayers should decide to have children, and then expect the taxpayer to pay for them, and not change their lifestyle and careers, and fail to give the utmost priority to bringing up their children - I won't dignify that attitude with a comment either. As I said in an earlier post, you can see where you fall in the rich vs poor divide by looking at the chart halfway down the page here: http:\www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966 further details in this excel file: http:\www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/business/11/tax_benefits_download/xls/tax_benefits.xls |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 21:22
Budget 2012 - Manatee
|
|
This is not about me. My children are 31 and 26. I support proper family life, our government doesn't. Successive governments have said they do, and done the opposite. The reason is obvious. The household with an earner, supporting a spouse and children that was once common is now so rare that there are no votes in considering it. I believe households with two parents unemployed and claiming benefits are more common. >>The hackneyed idea that high rate taxpayers should decide to have children, and then expect the taxpayer to pay for them, and not change their lifestyle and careers, and fail to give the utmost priority to bringing up their children - I won't dignify that attitude with a comment either. Not sure where you got that idea from. I'm talking about people who do want to adapt their lifestyle to looking after a family. To characterise CB as a subsidy, when the recipient is paying higher rate tax, is inaccurate - it's a partial rebate. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 21:45
Budget 2012 - Stuu
|
|
Its a funny world where with a two parents on minimum wage can either have one stay at home with the kids or go to work and see everything they earn go towards paying someone else to do it. Unless theres a decent financial bonus over and above child care costs or you can palm your kids onto someone else for free ( like grandparents ), for lower earners especially, having two parents in work makes little financial sense, especially as by staying at home, your household not only doesnt have the cost of childcare, you also likely get more help from the state by making yourself poorer on paper - theres no pat on the back for funding childcare yourself, your just paying other people to raise your kids. Ive read this dicussion and I find I agree with Manatee on the whole, the family unit is a very powerful tool, even if its rather out of fashion these days. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 22:02
Budget 2012 - Zero
|
|
>> Its a funny world where with a two parents on minimum wage can either have >> one stay at home with the kids or go to work and see everything they >> earn go towards paying someone else to do it. When talking about higher earners and child care, its usually about career. If you can keep your career on track, during the early child years there is higher salary later on, and pension, that compensates for child care costs. Investment if you will. |
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 23:17
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
Higher earners pay 40%+ of their earnings as tax. Lower earners pay 0-20%, especially once tax credits are taekn into account. For all the right-wing market forces guff eschewed above it still smacks of socialism in action to me :-) Like Zero I personally couldn't give a stuff about child benefit - if it's going I'll take it - I'm not an idiot - but the only reason the middle earners (say £25-100k pa families) are being humped is because the govt can get away with it. Below that, there's little to gain, above that they simply move abroad/convert to PLCs/find other avoidance measures. The 'winners' at present are those in receipt of pensions that will be paid for longer than initially conceived, after paying contributions that were inadequate, being paid for by today's taxpayers. .... What needs to be accepted is (as previously mentioned) TAX IS NOT FAIR. It is used by government to push their social agenda. The current agenda has lurched in favour of the poor breeding more than the well off. Argue all you want about the semantics of it but that is indisputible. Is that good for the future of the UK? Debate away. Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 23:19
|
|
New Fri 23 Mar 12 23:47
Budget 2012 - rtj70
|
|
>> Higher earners pay 40%+ of their earnings as tax. Higher earners pay 40%+ tax on their earnings above the upper threshold. Below that it's still 20% and you still have a tax free allowance like everyone else. Which you will know Lygonos :-) I find the coverage of pensioners being targeted a bit funny too. These are the pensioners on pensioners us workers can only dream of. We're taking a hit with pay freezes etc so tac allowance of pensioners perhaps need freezing too... ... Although for pensioners reliance on interest as income that's a bad situation I hope rectifies soon. I'm trying to accumulate savings and you get little interest whatever you do! |
|
New Sat 24 Mar 12 00:00
Budget 2012 - Lygonos
|
|
>>... Although for pensioners reliance on interest as income that's a bad situation I hope rectifies soon. I'm trying to accumulate savings and you get little interest whatever you do! I agree with this: at present if you can get 2-2.5% after tax you're doing quite well which isn't evem inflation. This doesn't exactly encourage fiscal prudence/saving for the future. On the other hand I got a 'tracker' mortgage back in 2005 that was base rate + 0.39% (at the time was around 5.5%) which has been 0.89% for more than 2 years. I think interest rates should go up slightly to improve savings returns and help banks have a solid balance sheet of savings vs lendings. The upshot would be a fall in house prices, but as a 3 bed semi in Nowheresville is still expected to sell for £200k+ (meaning a family income of £40k pa and a £40k deposit) it's pretty obvious to anyone outside London that house prices are still insanely high on the back of 20 years of unsustainable growth. |
|
New Sat 24 Mar 12 00:08
Budget 2012 - rtj70
|
|
>> This doesn't exactly encourage fiscal prudence/saving for the future. No but we personally have a target of saving for a place.... in Greece! :-) Trying to save say £8k at least per annum. When I first took on a mortgage the monthly payments were about £720pm.... same mortgage and company it dropped when out of the fixed rate to about £500 over time. No longer have the mortgage but if I did I'd be cheering low interest - SVR for us was as cheap as it might get. All will change at some point - SVR's rising now - and most cannot avoid. Unless you don't have a mortgage. But what's money without health.... which goes back to wanting a stress free life somewhere like Greece. UK home rented for £900-1000 per month will generate some income for us living somewhere else. Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 24 Mar 12 at 00:09
|
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
