Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Child Benefit to be scrapped for higher earners
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
lol -dunnit Mike?
a nice collective non-profit making venture.
1979 700,000 people unemployed using the old method of counting them - EG people not working, kids of 16 could sign on, students could sign on during term time etc... still only 700K out of that 700k about 250k are long term (Or three and a bit full Old Traffords)
2010 Counting the unemployment figure the same way they did back then nearly 6 million unemployed and about 4 million long term (or about 53 full Old Traffords)
What happened? - 30 years of the 'free' market and 'no such thing as society'
Marvellous
Wouldn't it be scary if each of the long term unemployed/sick/disabled turned up at your workplace and told your boss they'd do your job for a tenner less a week?
Then you'd be the scrounger...
I've read lots of the posts on here and funny as they are this change is the nail in the coffin for us. I'm a high earner (just about) - and have now made the decision not to go back to work after maternity leave for my second child.
I've slogged for the last 15 years travelling wherever work has demanded - I have endured a four hour daily commute for the last five years but basically it is no longer worth our while. While I may be marginally better off working - when you take into account the personal side of not seeing the children it's just not worth it. 45k in London is not high earnings - we live in the cheapest part of London and barely survive. Childcare alone is 1200 a month.
Well done Cameron - you've pushed me out of a good professional career and you will no longer be benefitting from my higher rate tax!
And incidentally to the 'pay for your own kids' argument - our children will be your doctors, nurses, care workers etc when you're old as well as paying your pension so investing in young people is in all our interests!
I have some sympathies with your position Jiggler.45k aint much in London and commuting etc. Some have to work "unlifelike" hours to get that money. More to do with unaffordable housing in London etc. Why should anybody have to do long long hours for it? Seems crackers to me. More equity in pay and a shorter working week would be better for all.
Only Capitalism has created them conditions for "high earners" too. It's a crap system. We humans are clever enough (I hope) to create something better than that for all.
In a more fair society everybody's children could be doctors , nurses etc provided they have the ability.
Oh, and the banks are $4 trillion in debt ($700 - 800 billion in the UK alone) - expect them to come cap in hand pretty soon for some more of your money.
BTW - those second set of figures come from the IMF - not Socialism in Action
I have been, in the past, an active poster on these hallowed RW forums.
For reasons that will become apparent below, in recent times I have been taking a bit of an enforced break from the banter and, indeed, from running itself.
But stumbling across this thread, I thought I would share my experience on the Child Benefit debate...
Here's our story.
I provide the sole income in our household.
We are a family of 6.
I have twin daughters aged 2.
I have twin sons who are nearly 4 weeks old.
(Both sets conceived naturally.)
My wife and I think of ourselves as incredibly lucky.
And, yes, I am lucky enough to be a higher-rate taxpayer. But only just.
(Incidentally, I lost my job in 2009 and was super-lucky to find work quickly.)
Every penny I earn (after tax!) is spent supporting my family.
Paying the bills. Covering the mortgage.
We do not smoke. We don't drink.
We have not had a holiday as a couple since 2004
(We have not had a holiday as a family ever.)
We live in London. (My job only really exists in London.)
Where property is expensive. (We bought our house without any family help.)
In our part of London, childcare is scarce.
(We had to plead for places on a nearby play-group for our girls.)
And it's not cheap. (The play-group is charity-run, but still costs us £3500-a-year.)
So for us, Child benefit for us is not 'Mummy's Latté Money' or 'University Fund'.
It is cash that keeps us afloat.
Without Child Benefit, what would we do?
It is effectively impossible for my wife to return to work at the moment.
She was refused flexible working by her employer. (Male, not married, no kids.)
She had to resign her job as a well-paid Head of Marketing.
She became a full-time-Mum.
If she returned to working full-time, the cost of full-time childcare (if we could find places) would wipe out her earnings twice over.
We have no family living nearby.
We have no help from friends.
We would just have to find a way to survive.
I'm not moaning, just stating the facts of our situation.
You see, what the Government is trying to apply a simple solution (and, indeed, a simple-minded solution) to what is a very complicated issue.
And you have to ask why.
Yes, we have a gigantic black hole in the nation's finances.
But there is also an ideological agenda going on here.
And we are foolish if we ignore it.
And unless any reduction in Child Benefit is based on *household* income not *individual* income, all Cameron's claims of 'Fairness' and 'We're all in this together' are nothing but hollow political posturing.
isn't there still that 50% super tax on bankers bonuses?
plus 52% tax/NIC anyway
so 7 billion in bonuses will yield, err, just over 7 bn in tax take.
if the bonuses weren't paid, then it would go to shareholders and be extra taxed income in the banks
err, i think that's 10.5 bn taxed at 30% = 3bn, say average shareholder tax rate 30% = around 2bn, total tax yield around 5bn
as a result of those bonuses, treasury is better off by 2bn, than if the bonuses weren't paid
alhough assuming that a lot of those banks had losses(?) then the cash benefit to the treasury might be closer to 5bn
(ps I don't hate people on the dole or bankers. i know you're supposed to hate one or the other, but i can't be arsed. just in a time when government finances are tight, these bonuses are a nice little earner for the treasury, compared to the position if they WEREN'T paid out. and by little, i mean huge!)
I dont see the problem with bonuses, if by attracting the right talent Financial Services contribute more and more money to the tax pot thats less money the rest of us pay in tax!
FFS im bored of the same old tune everyone keeps playing about the Bankers, sure maybe a few 100 fund managers made a balls up but thats not representational of the whole Banking Industry which on its own more or less funds the NHS.
stop being so logical candy, its much more fun if you can just emotively blame everything on bankers!
i think the reason that they have removed the benefit from earners over a certain wage rather than from a certain household income is that it is easier (and presumably cheaper) to administer.
incidentally, £45k is not a big salary, particularly in London, but it is high enough to get you into about the top 15% of earners.
i think the reason that they have removed the benefit from earners over a certain wage rather than from a certain household income is that it is easier (and presumably cheaper) to administer.
spot on mr moron
it is just easier
Clearly people want to ruin the UK Financial Services industry (about the one thing we still lead the world on), I just wonder if we'll look back in 20 years rooing the idiots (i.e. those calling for draconian capital holdings, calling for banks to be split up etc) that ruined it in the same way we remember how some people fucked up the UK motor industry.
Like it or not Financial Services keep the UK in its current global position, without them our economy would be like Italy's.
agree nam, 'er indoors and me were looking at moving into central london last year, we are not particularly well off but are both higher rate taxpayers. there are plenty of areas of london that we cannot afford to live in but where 20% of the population live there on benefits without working. I am not proposing a solution or criticising anyone, just stating a fact.
and carl i agree completely, its quite mad that there are so few people publicly arguing that point too.
1. The bonuses are now paid in a very complicated manner, so complicated even a mediocre FA can spirit much of it away before the taxman gets his mucky mitts on it.
2. Fantastic idea though bonuses - understandable if they are linked somehow to productivity, like a washer maker or porn star... what exactly does a hedge fund manager produce?
Neither Calf nor I qualify to be high rate tax payers... LOL ... I'm feeling positively impoverished and disenfrenchised in this debate...
We either swim with them or sink... and believe me; if the runes are being read right by some very respected economists over here... we're going to be blowing bubbles in the deep end very soon.
tee hee, i thought you did hate bankers corinth... stu agreeing with you at the top of the page and saying that he thought they should be killed, i kind of tarred you with the same brush
re the economy's over reliance on one sector being risky, that's true and much the same as it's unwise for a company to over rely on one customer (and why tesco and asda make so many farmers commit suicide)
however, pragmatically, if you set up corinthian consulting services when your contract ran out next april, and were making 20 grand a year from little jobs here and there, and then some new potential customer came up to you and offered you a 10 grand a year regular contract, would you turn them down on the basis that you would be over reliant on them?
lol -praps not stringing up then but punished for "anti-social behaviour"
still seems like the "old guard" is defending a failing system. Let us hear their tunes in a year or two
When considering salaries, the government should talk in terms of median wage not mean wage to show the skew, then these people who get huge bonuses might regain a bit of the perspective that they lost somewhere along the way.
Mr LB's accomodation bill in London is more than some people's wages! Its not just about your income - its about your expenses!
And before anyone tells him to find somewhere cheaper - he has a room in someone else's house not a suite at the Ritz.