Child benefit cuts

It's also a further attack on families where one parent wants to actually look after their own children. Families like already have to suffer one personal tax allowance that they can't use, lack of tax
credits available to working parents, and now a possible loss of their child benefit.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup. The Tories wanted to introduce transferrable allowaces for married couples but the LibDems weren't keen - wonder if they'll use this to try to persuade them it's a good idea?
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

HYS?

I thought they were going to withdraw it via the tax system, so presumably there'll be some taper there. And unless they put something specific in place, an easy way round it for people on the borderline will be use to pension contributions to lower the income they're assessed on. This works with tax credits now.

They won't touch pensioner benefits because pensioners are good voters. Labour did their best to bribe them with increased fuel allowances, pension credit, bus passes and applicable amounts double what younger people get...
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't vote for Labour because of the "bribes",and in any case I don't get any means tested benefits such as pension credit.
I voted *against* Cameron because he is so far from reality that he regards high rate taxpayers as "Middle England", and lies that "We are all in this together". All the current Cabinet are well safe from any hardship which will result from the cuts.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

So are most people I would have thought.
If I understand this change correctly, you're only affected if you're earning £900 a week or more -- 3 years from now (when the tax burden could be different anyway).
Also, doesn't Cameron himself currently qualify for child benefit, which would no longer be the case under the new rules?
--
Bartc


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some will cope with it easily. Others won't. Eg a family with 4 kids where one parent earns 45k, it'll be about a 10% net income cut on an income which is now only about 6k per person (net).

Political. It is very popular - this plus the benefits cap both have over 80% support in a YouGov poll. The general public are the morons...
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, because if you take 2500 away from someone who earns 45K you have taken away a significant part of their after tax income. It's easy to say that people on 100K wont miss it but the 45K people will
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


If they're currently relying on spending all of their income plus the £2500, then yes they will miss it. But they have 3 years to adapt.
Many would consider such a family well-off and might resent subsidising them, especially if struggling to bring up kids with a smaller income.
--
Bartc


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is really easy during a period of high inflation, zero pay rises and rising unemployment.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: >>> No, because if you take 2500 away from someone who earns 45K you have

If they become unemployed, then there's no problem: they will re-qualify for the benefit (of course they might realise that earning £45K and *no* child benefit is much better).
However you have to look at how other people see this: people earning double the average salary (and about 4 times mine), receiving state handouts!
And £45K is the very bottom end of the income band we're talking about; there will be people earning £1000 to £2000 a week or more getting state aid. That's not right.
--
bartc


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who's better off, a family of 6 on a single salary of 45k or a single person on 12k?

They might use the public libraries, parks and the NHS too.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


To make it more realistic, let's talk about a family of 4 on £45K and a single person on £12K.
Around here, the single person might pay about the same in rent as the family (2 or 3-bedroom house, say £550pm).
He might pay about the same for water (£450pa).
About the same for a TV licence (£150pa).
A bit less in council tax (£900pa instead of £1200).
Roughly the same for heating and electricity (say £1500pa plus a bit more for the family for extra showers etc).
Also similar fixed car costs (say £1000pa for one car, not including running costs).
The single person does pay a lot less tax, some £1200, while the family I think would pay about £8000 plus NI.
So far, the single person is down to a mere £200.
Meanwhile the family is still on some £26,000 (less NI) !
The family of 4 also have the *choice* of splitting their income, where both parents work, for example into £35000 and £10000; that way, they keep child benefit, and have an extra £6K tax-free band. Plus of course there are the various concessions usually available to children, and young mothers. Plus other economies of scale which are more practical with more people in the house.
Are you still sure it's the family on £45,000pa who deserve the extra hand-out?!
--
Bartc



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You must live in a very different area than me since I would come up with very different figures. Rent or mortgage on a family house would be about 4 times as much as your figures here. As this is a rural areas most families have two or more cars since they cannot travel to work by public transport. According to the AA the annual running costs of a small car is about £2000. A family car would be at least double this. (http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/petrol2010.pdf )

How? Ask their employer for a pay /cut/?!!! This also assumes that the partner is able to find employment and someone else to look after their children.
This does illustrate how the system is unfair on families where one partner looks after their own children. Personally I think that parents /should/ look after their own children, rather than farm them out and I am opposed to the system which discourages looking after one's own children. I know loads of people who felt forced to return to work after having children.

Unfortunately this is a myth. The cost of bringing up children is much greater than any concessions could give. And the economy of scale sounds nice but does not happen in the real world.

Some of them do certainly.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, and the flip side of this is that unemployed families have no incentive to get a job because the net gain (after tax/benefits reduction) would be trivial. This creates a divide between 2 earner households and no earner households - the UK has the highest rate of jobless households in the EU, despite having lower than average unemployment.
The reason for this anomaly is down to the way the tax & benefits systems work - benefits and tax credits are withdrawn sharply at the lower end which acts as a disincentive for the first earner, while independant taxation makes it very worthwhile for the second earner to get a job.
In other countries where taxation is assessed on families not individuals, there is far fairer spread of jobs and as a consequence less is needed for benefits.
The benefits reforms this government are proposing look excellent - the universal credit and single "reasonable" withdrawal rate should simplify the current mess and act as an incentive to work, but unless they combine it with a reform of the tax system it probably won't work, as second earners will still have a far larger gain to work than first earners.
Unfortunately independant taxation seems to be some sort of sacred cow which nobody dares challenge. Or rather politicials have pretended it is.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


OK.

So you expect the single person to have the luxury of living alone, with his own kitchen, toilet etc exclusively for his own use, while the family of 4 have to share the same facilities?
If you want to compare like with like, compare the single person sharing a house with 3 other people. Then he'll have the same standard of living as the family.

Or 112 is he shares his accomodation like the family.

Or 37.50 if he shares.

Or 300 if he shares.

So again you expect the single person to have his *own* car whereas the family should share a car of the same size/expense??

And the difference will get greater, the family will pay more NI and the same tax as from April, the single person will pay less tax and less NI.

Try again assuming the same standard of living.

Do you think the family should survive of the same amount of food as a single person too?

Do they? Do you think it's easy getting 2 jobs which never overlap in time, so there's always some at home to look after the baby?

It shouldn't be a handout. We should have a system like France, where everyone gets to use their tax allowance against the salary that supports them, whether or not they earn the money themselves. I think children get half an allowance, so a family of 4 with a single earner on 45k would get 3 allowances to set against that salary, and the tax bands would be 3 times wider.
--
Andy




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:46:02 +0100, "Andy Pandy"

Can you remind me of these rule changes? IIRC the family would also pay less tax from April.

Sounds like a good idea to me.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Nope. They specifically said that the rise in the personal allowance would be cancelled out for higher rate taxpayers (by lowering the HRT threshold).
For employee NI they are sticking with Labour plans to raise the threshold and raise the rate, resulting in people on under 20k gaining and those on over 20k losing.

It is. But tax rates would probably have to rise, and successive governments have been obsessed with lowering it over the last few decades.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message >>> Who's better off, a family of 6 on a single salary of £45k or a single

I wouldn't have called living alone a luxury. Family life can be much more rewarding.
Anyway the kitchen is hardly shared, unless each member of the family cooks independently..

(Not if they each have their own room)

This is getting silly; you expect mature single people to all live in the same 2-3 bedroom house with strangers?
In practice, a single person on a low income is likely to live in a flat, but they are not that much cheaper than houses (not to the tune of 75%), and they have many disadvantages compared to a house.
So the family still ends up with a far better lifestyle: more income, a nice house with garden, and state aid on top! Compared with 4 unrelated singles each living in their flats or bedsits.

And again, you expect this to be a 4-car family?? I'm saying this should be 1-car family; if they want 2-cars, then no way should they get state aid to support that lifestyle.
(In the family I grew up in, we were a 0-car family.)
Also, pretty much any ordinary car will easily transport two adults and two children. Child benefit shouldn't be for financing luxury cars.

I didn't get to that bit. But my figures (admittedly just a bit of fun), showed the single person had to eat on £200 a year, while the family had over £20,000 left!

I didn't say it was easy. Just possible, and it doesn't need to happen tomorrow.
If the family are likely to have very young children in 2013 who need caring for at home, then maybe the choice isn't there, but then this will be a young family and living costs will also be a lot less compared to teenage kids; a £45K income will still be plenty.

Having extra tax allowances might make a lot more sense. And be less controversial than what is perceived as hand-outs to rich people.
--
Bartc


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

As can sharing anything. A bottle of wine, a meal, a car, a house. You don't have to have a family to share any of them.

Strangers? Do most single people have no mates? No family (in the broader sense)? I lived in several shared houses when I was single, mostly with people I knew already, and one of them with complete strangers when I looked for room ads in the local paper (though obviously they weren't strangers after a week or so living with them).

So share a house, FFS! If you've got no mates, make some by replying to the house share ads in the papers! But if you want to live alone, don't expect to compare your standard of living with those who choose to share their accomodation with others. That's just as stupid as complaining you pay more if you drink a bottle of wine yourself than if you share it.

You said the costs would be the same. A single person only needs transport suitable for 1 (if he's not going to share). Either a very small car, or maybe a motorbike. Even if the family share, and so they can't do different things at the same time which require a car unlike the single person, they would need a bigger car.

And tax allowances shouldn't be financing selfish people who don't want to share.

Extra tax allowances are pretty much identical in effect to universal benefits like child benefit.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message >> Having extra tax allowances might make a lot more sense. And be less

As I said, paid as extra benefits to well-off parents, they are more controversial.
But whichever way the benefit is given, it still leaves the underlying problem that we can't afford benefits for everybody.
If benefits (in this case, child benefit) have to be reduced, we can (1) reduce them equally for everybody; (2) reduce them for poorer people; or (3) reduce them for more well-off people.
The government seems to have decided on (3). In effect, higher-paid people will be taxed even more, with a few corner-cases that are attracting attention.
--
Bartc


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.