On 4 Oct 2010 at 8:12am Matt Kent wrote:
No child benefit for families earning over ¬£44,000. Without the facts in front of me that must easily be two 'average' salaries. This will affect many, many people. Watch this space for many more inspired and 'fair' efficiencies from your favourite ConDem Government.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 8:33am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
While I have some sympathy with this view, it seems a nonsense that a single person on ¬£10k pays tax to provide benefits for a family with an income of ¬£44k.
I'd still prefer a mansion tax and a Really Rich B@stard Tax of more than 50% though.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 8:50am Voice of Reason wrote:
Let me get this right Matt, the counry is a trillion pounds in debt but you think it is right to give benefits to those that earn ¬£846 a week. Mmmmmm.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 9:11am Down and Out wrote:
So they're taking a benefit which is not means tested and they're transferring it so that each and every potential recipient will have to be means tested. Someone will have to check and issue all the forms and the inland revenue will need to provide information. Another department will need to set up a team to ensure that the benefit will not be claimed fraudulently. They had a senior civil servant discussing this on Newsnight a few weeks ago, and he thought that, given the relatively small proportion of recipients on high rate income tax, the net saving would be virtually nil.
The pragmatic thing to do would, of course, be to raise the higher rate to 42% - which would have a net administration cost of virtually zero. But the Tories are ideologically opposed to raising tax, so they can't. It can't be helpful to have idiot ideologues in charge of running the country, can it?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 9:32am right wing fanatic wrote:
People need to learn to live on what they EARN. Socialism is moving into the past, the new world will be much fairer as rewards for the productive will reflect their own efforts. People who earn over ¬£44k as a family should be ashamed of themselves for taking these bribes. Once you are in to a benefits lifestyle it is hard to escape as it allows people to live in a way they do not deserve. I think you will find this is in fact a popular policy Matt!
On 4 Oct 2010 at 9:47am Dave wrote:
I'm on about ¬£16,000 a year. To me a household income of ¬£40,000 plus is inconceivable. If this is Green Party economics, Matt, the words "fantasy"and "cloud cuckoo land" come to mind.
The admin side of means-testing for a single benefit payment has got to be cheaper in the long run, than the current system of means testing every different claim for the vast range of benefits currently in existence. Anyway, if you gave the testing regime to the Inland Revenue, it could all be linked together, with the declarations of income. At the moment huge sums of public money are spent on matching and exchanging data between organisations like councils, the revenue etc to track. benefit fraud.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 10:04am tilting at windfarms wrote:
Dave, ¬£40k is only around 60hrs a week at ¬£14, thats hardly inconceivable is it?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 10:10am Clifford wrote:
Dave wrote: '...if you gave the testing regime to the Inland Revenue, it could all be linked together, with the declarations of income.'
Unfortunately the previous New Labour government already cut thousands of jobs in HMRC before leaving office so they're hardly likely to be able to cope with the work. And that's before the Tory cuts start. There does seem something odd about cutting the jobs of people who bring in far more revenue than their salaries.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:03pm Off-Message wrote:
Seems odd to me that Matt Kent (a Green) is in favour of a benefit that rewards people for reproducing: whatever happened to the old environmental agenda of population control or does he think that 'climate change' (yawn) can be tackled by more people in the world? As for D&O, surely the answer's not to raise yet more disproportionate tax on the better off, but to abolish child benefit in its entirety? Can someone explain why some people should have to pay for other people to have children if the latter can't afford it themselves?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:33pm Newmania wrote:
Universal child benefit works this way. The state takes your money during your life , and then, when you have children, they let you have that portion back. Child benefit was introduced in return for a tax break being withdrawn.
I am in the position of having funded child benefit for everyone else but not getting it when it is my turn. If you have three children you receive ¬£2392 pa in order to make this up you allow to earn let us say at least ¬£3500. The top rate is due to come down to ¬£42,000 appx at the budget .
The 'average' household single bread winner income in the South is not far below this.
This is a betrayal of Conservatives, the hard working,the aspirational and worse still directed at those with children to worry about.
All hope of progress is cut off For main familiy bread winners between ¬£40,000 and say ¬£47,000 the effective marginal rate is ...well you work it out 90% ...100%? .This HEROD TAX is immoral poorly thought through and about as un-conservative as I can imagine.
Idiot Osborne did not even announce it carefully . Itv would appear that currently a household with an income of ¬£84,000 split between two still gets the full whack .
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:38pm Down and Out wrote:
O-M I don't disagree, but it would be electoral suicide. My post came from the general principle that it is idiotic for the government to claim money in tax only to pay it back. All benefits other than those for the unemployed should be sorted by tax code at source.
It could also make sense just to start creating savings by saying you only get CB for your first two kids, and that it could stop at 16 not 18. Much more straightforward to administer.
I'm not ever going to agree with you on the meaning of 'yet more disproportionate tax for the rich' so I'll walk away from that one.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:40pm stan wrote:
On the one hand we need lots of WORKERS to pay for the ponzi scheme that is our benefits and pension system. On the other we don't know who will become a worker and who will become a net cost rather than a benefit (in the nicest possible way,obviously some people will never be able to earn much for physical or I.Q. reasons.) Lots of "greenfolk" are nice,sweet people but they imagine others will react to things in the same way as themselves. Often they have a middle class guilt complex but cannot understand how their policies hold down those who want to work their way to success.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:40pm Down and Out wrote:
Oh, crikey! - I think I might agree with Newmania!
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:48pm Independent thinker wrote:
I don't have a big philosophical objection to not paying benefits to those who don't need them, but Osborne has really messed this one up. A married couple can earn up to 86,000 and keep the benefit as long as neither pays the top rate of tax, while a single parent will lose it if their salary tops 44,000. That can't make sense to anyone. I was thinking that this would hit the Tories core support and NM has confirmed that. Unless Osborne has a quick rethink to at least address the fairness argument, we're either all in this together or not, this could prove a disaster for him.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:51pm nonplussed wrote:
surely there aren't that many people who earn over forty grand anyway?
are we talking about household incomes or a couple earning 40,000 each?
me and the wife just under ¬£20k each and I must admit the child tax credit really helps. I'd be sad to see it go, especially whilst we're paying for child-care for our three-year-old.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:56pm nonplussed wrote:
...oh ok i've read the proposals now. don't see the problem with this. even if there's only one person earning in the household, if they're bringing in ¬£44k on their own then that's plenty to be getting on with. if they need any more then the other person can get a paper round, shurely?
as i said we earn just under ¬£40k between us and we're not that badly off really. most of our money goes on rent and bills (that's UTILITY bills, not the cafe!) but we have bit left over for a cheeky pint of harvey's so that's fine. if you've got one person getting ¬£44k and the other at home then you should be laughing.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 1:35pm Newmania wrote:
The marginal rate between¬£40,000 and ¬£50,000 fo a bread winner is so high in effect that many people will be asking for demotions and pay cuts .
This is absolute madness the trade in increase pensions payments will boom.
Another stupidity is that when children are thriteen or so both parents can return to work, prior to that it is a fraught equation with child care. Even this would be vastly fairer and was suggested by Frank Field . Idiot Osbourne`s plan hits people just when they are struggling through the toughest part of the journey. Its vicious
As to the remarks about sdome people paying for other people to have children well fine . Lets reduce the tax buden to about 30 % and sod the whole thing . If the effect of the state sticking its nose in is to stop me having children then I want nothing to do with the whole thing .
Can anyone explain why at this time we are increasing International AID ?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 1:47pm Old Cynic wrote:
I think we are increasing internation aid because to show the rest of the world we are not heartless b@stards
On 4 Oct 2010 at 2:03pm jrsussex wrote:
"If the effect of the state sticking its nose in is to stop me having children". Where does that come from? I do not believe, and never have, there should be any financial reward, from the taxpayer, for producing children. By that I not only mean Child Benefit but also benefits such as childcare whilst the parent works. When my son received ¬£250.00 from the taxpayer on production (by his wife) of a son no-one was more surprised than I, absolutely ludicrous. If you want children be sure you are capable of funding them until they are old enough to support themselves.
When discussing benefits and other financial matters relating to the operation of Government forget the terms Coalition, Conservative, Libdem. Labour and any of the others. Use the term taxpayer, the administration in power pays taxpayers money out in benefits, and whilst some are either necessary or worthwhile others are not.
Does anyone really believe that a fit and capable person, who would rather not work, should receive sufficient in benefits to allow them to have a good lifestyle? I do not.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 2:22pm Newmania wrote:
If you want children be sure you are capable of funding them until they are old enough to support themselves.
I am the tax payer and if the system is this brutal to me now then I am not financing everyone else . All of income tax goes on social payments much indirect tax on the bureaucrarcies that live on them .
I therefore withdraw my support from the wefare state which I never like much in the first place . I was only being given back some of my own money and the deal is off I want the lot back I `ll buy my own health insurance as well thanks . I am not paying for Public Sector pensions , mine has gone
.If we are starting on who pays for what then lets start suits me . I will not be getting any state pension until after I die so I don`t want to pay for that either . If you are going to grow old make your own arrangements
Old Cynic you feel free to express you big heartedness with your own money ....oh lookeee now where did he go ?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 2:24pm Newmania wrote:
If you want children be sure you are capable of funding them until they are old enough to support themselves.
I am the tax payer and if the system is this brutal to me now then I am not financing everyone else. All of income tax goes on social payments much indirect tax on the bureaucrarcies that live on them. Not paying
I withdraw my support from the wefare state . I am not paying for Public Sector pensions , mine has gone . Oh yes if we are starting on who pays for what then lets start . I will not be getting any state pension until after I die so I don`t want to pay for that either . If you are going to grow old make your own arrangements.
Old Cynic you feel free to express you big heartedness with your own money ....oh lookeee now where did he go off with the rest of the sanctimonious frauds ...
On 4 Oct 2010 at 2:26pm stan wrote:
totally agree. I do see a problem coming though. The jobs that will be available in the future will require more education and less manpower. The value of unskilled work will continue to decline relative to skilled or professional work. Many people may not be able to reach the academic skills necessary to thrive.(Myself included.) Yes, there will be caring for the large proportion of old people and some construction but if the population declines so will the wealth of that nation eventually. I really advise people to look into the work of Dr Phil Longman who has some really interesting predictions regarding birthrates and economics (including why we might all be mormons soon!!) Long term thinking is what is needed.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 3:10pm Clifford wrote:
jrsussex wrote: 'Does anyone really believe that a fit and capable person, who would rather not work, should receive sufficient in benefits to allow them to have a good lifestyle? I do not.'
No, I don't think anyone does really believe that. But the other side is that we should ensure there are jobs there for people to do, and if private businesses are unable or willing to do that then only the State can (and I'm sorry to have to say that as a temperamental Anarchist). As you know from your old Socialist days, what's fascinating about capitalism is it's ability to have thousands of people looking for a decent home while at the same time thousands of construction workers are on the dole.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 3:30pm stan wrote:
if you were a real anarchist you would know that people can create their own jobs and thousands do every day. Many will fail to make much money but the experience will be invaluable. As for housebuilding,there will not be much until the planning situation is changed and who in Lewes wants more building near them? We are mostly hypocritical on this subject.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 3:58pm not from around here wrote:
I agree that the best option is for more jobs to be available. But, we need the right environment to encourage businesses to create jobs.
Funnily enough I've just been talking to somebody today about the minimum wage - I would abolish it. Not all small businesses can pay the min wage all the time. Before you all jump on me, I'm not arguing for lower wages, not at all, in fact I believe that if you pay low wages you generally get poor quality employees or the good ones don't stay very long. But, what I am arguing for is the ability for businesses to set their own agenda - wage & otherwise - and to be allowed more flexibility to create and shed jobs as needed - and even sometimes to expect people to go the extra mile and work long hours for the same pay (which might equal less than min wage).
Look at countries such as Spain which have draconian laws protecting workers - the net result is that employers are reluctant to take on new workers and then unemployment is massive.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 4:01pm Clifford wrote:
Stan - of course people can set up their own businesses but do you really think that is the answer when unemployment reaches 3 million, as it probably will in the next couple of years?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 4:39pm Old Cynic wrote:
Newmania I do give to charities that work overseas, just as I give to UK charities - becuase I belive it is the right thing to do. Im a public sector worker on a low wage but I still find a few quid for oxfam and cancer research.
You were obviously worried where I had gone, BACK TO WORK AS MY LUNCH BREAK HAD FINISHED - what's your excuse?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 4:45pm Clifford wrote:
not from around here wrote: '...and even sometimes to expect people to go the extra mile and work long hours for the same pay (which might equal less than min wage).'
What a wonderful view of the world - and perhaps workers should give their bosses their blood and their firstborn as slaves. 'Not from around here'? Not from the real world would be a better name.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 4:51pm jrsussex wrote:
Clifford - I don't believe there is any such thing as a true anarchist, even in complete bedlam someone would be the man (or woman) in charge. That is the way of things, read Animal Farm, which you almosr certainly have.
I cannot agree with your comment. If private businesses and their employees were not operating and paying their taxes then their would be no money in the pot to support the State (the public sector), then the State would be unable to provide employment for the masses. Sad fact of economics, that is much of what went on from 1997 to 2010 under the Labour administration. Look where that has got us!
On 4 Oct 2010 at 5:22pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I really don't see why people are so down on tax. As far as I'm concerned, it's the price you pay for living in a civilised society, where everyone can get a decent education, regardless of how rich their parents are (sadly, no longer as true as it once was), aren't reduced to begging and homelessness when a recession puts them out of work, where people can get medical care when they need it and there are emergency services to help in the event of crime and accident.
I'm even glad there are social workers to protect the old, the young and the frail, environmental health officers to make sure our food is fit to eat and planners to make sure developers don't build hideous monstrosities all over the countryside.
And I don't mind paying for any of it, although I'd probably cut defence a bit.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 7:40pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Well said ACT. And weirldy and worryingly, I find myself in partial agreement with Newamania, if I have understood him correctly...
I strongly believe in universal child benefit. We earn decent enough salaries, but would struggle without the child benefit - it really helps with school uniform, school shoes, sports kits etc, which all cost a small fortune with rapidly growing kids and we have no choice about buying these items.
I do think that there could be a moral onus on very high earners to declare that they don't need it and give it back, but I think administering a means tested system will wipe out any potential cost benefit.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 7:43pm Peter Byron wrote:
Agree with you Brixtie, yet again, could be a compatability thing ha ha, Best to you Peter x
On 4 Oct 2010 at 8:00pm nobigdeal wrote:
85% of families in the UK aren't fortunate enough to have a member earning ¬£43,876 a year.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 8:34pm not from around here wrote:
Bloody Hell Clifford! Didn't I specifically say that I'm not in favour of low wages and neither am I in favour of poor working conditions - what I AM in favour of is flexibility because that's what we need right now.
Clifford, you have got to get rid of your out-dated and childish notion that all businesses are rich, greedy exploiters and all employees are downtrodden victims. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.
There HAVE to be cuts - we have no choice as a country. Some of those cuts will affect some people unfairly but that is an unfortunate fact of life.
There are also employers who will be unfair to their employees but most wont. We've all worked long hours for poor pay (I certainly have).
We must recognize (as JRSussex meant I think) that business creates wealth and employment and without businesses paying taxes and all the income tax paid by the staff they employ then everything would collapse - so we must make all the conditions right for businesses to survive and unfortunately in some cases that might mean increasing hours or cutting pay.
On 5 Oct 2010 at 2:24am not from around here wrote:
Apologies Clifford if some of my comments were a bit strong in your direction - it's been a long day y'know!
On 5 Oct 2010 at 10:33am Clifford wrote:
No offence taken Not from around here. What you're describing is what it's like to live under the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'.
On 5 Oct 2010 at 10:48am Ed Can Do wrote:
I'm surprised nobody picked up on this from Newmania:
"Another stupidity is that when children are thriteen or so both parents can return to work, prior to that it is a fraught equation with child care."
My parents were both in full time work by the time I was eight and prior to that my mum worked part-time. People have such a weird sense of entitlement these days, like it's their right to have a kid everyone else can pay for and that they can't live without an aupair or 24 hour child care.
Not only do 85% of the population not have anyone in their household earning enough for this to even be an issue, a lot of those 15% won't even have kids. This whole thing has been massively blown out of proportion by a few hand-wringing arch-cons who are on a very decent salary and as such have got to the stage in life where they think tax in general should be abolished because they are wealthy enough to pay for everything in a free market.
I don't have kids so in effect I'm paying for every single one of you who's claiming child benefit. I don't really see how that's any more fair than someone earning twice the national average not claiming it. An increasing population is a continued drain on the resources of the nation, if anything I'd support tax breaks for people who don't have kids, rather than child benefit for those who choose to have kids before they can afford them.
On 5 Oct 2010 at 6:17pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
But all those kids will be (hopefully) be paying taxes to fund your pension, health care etc when you're in your dotage, not to mention whatever other public services we're left with.