so, the higher tax band are to lose their Child Benefits in 2013,,why not from April 1st next year?

Avatar Image
Bobbisox | 10:55 Mon 04th Oct 2010 | News
33 Answers
A petrol increase can go on from midnight the same day as announced same as the fags and beer, why wait till 2013?
The downside to this would be couple each earing £22,500 a year or £45,000 beteween them, wouldn't lose out, but the person who earns £40,000 + a year , will
maybe not so fair after all?


21 to 33 of 33rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That sounds fair enought to me.

I will loose mine but I am happy with that so long as we are not wasting money in other quarters in the Public service.
That's how I took it haggis. Which is very unfair...

Also, what I would like to know. Why do people on the higher tax band apply for it anyway? It's not compulsory. I've never received any child benefit for my 11 year old because I didn't need it.
Well why shouldn’t they apply for it?

If someone was going to give me a minimum of £1k per year for filling in a form I’d be glad to do so. I don’t particularly “need” it but I would not refuse it.

What has been lost in this debate is that prior to the introduction of Child Benefit those in employment and with children received an additional tax-free allowance via PAYE for each child. This was regardless of their earnings and nobody saw this as a benefit, “middle-class” or otherwise.

It was perceived that very often, where the father was the principle breadwinner the allowance for the child may not have been finding its way to support the child and was instead being spent in the pub. So was born Child Allowance and this could be paid directly to the mother, hence reducing the risk that it may be spent unwisely.

Now we seem to be saying that such an allowance is only needed for the less well off, implying that only those £45k or less incur the additional costs that child rearing brings to bear.

We are told that we are “all in it together” but it seems increasingly obvious to me that some of us are in it considerably more than others.

If we accept the fact that the costs of bringing up children should be borne in part by all taxpayers, the benefits of that largesse should be available to all those with children.
I will loose mine, which in principle I don't mind, but when a couple earning 43K a piece can still keep it and my husbands income is considerably less than that then I'm not amused at all. It should be on household income if it's to be given on need.
Universal benefits should not go to those in the top income bands. I am retired, get winter fuel allowance and a bus pass yet pay 40% tax on a significant income. My mother-in-law lives with us and she gets the enhanced winter fuel allowance and free tv licence. She is not short of money either. I say scrap universal benefits and direct the savings to those in need.
Question Author
I am in agreement with that McM
Well I’m not.

If they are universal they should either be kept universally or scrapped universally. The idea that those “in need” should be treated more beneficially than those in not such dire circumstances is completely at odds with the “we’re all in this together” mantra.

In particular Child Benefit was introduced to replace the Income Tax allowance that everybody who was working and who had children received. It was to recognise that those people deserved to keep a little (and it was only a little) more of their income because they had additional costs. The allowance was not means tested and was not available only to those “in need”.
My point is that certain benefits should not be universal.
The Govt has to draw the line somewhere, to target higher tax payers seems not unreasonable. It always seemed iniquitous to me that Princess Diana was able to claim child benefit.
it should not matter whether the claimant is related to the queen of sheba, if they meet the requirements, they qualify.
Three years seems a long time before being implemented. You would have thought that as its only a matter of changing the tax allowances it could have been done from April 2011.

Also Duncan Smiths universal benefits will take over 8 years to get it running. Can you imagine if the Labour party getting in in 5 years time they will continue to make the changes.

As the Tories aim to rid the deficit before the next election obviously these plans have nothing to do with reducing it.
Still won't stop underage pregnancies those who think having kids will bring them all the benfits stop it completely!
"Back in the old days you never used to get Child Benefits for the first child, this was introduced in the 70's..............personally I thought it ridiculous as we didn't need it, and I'd rather it had gone to someone who did. " Totally agree - my father earned a good wage - we didn't need the money - my mother used to put it into a savings account for me. Personally I don't see why people should be 'paid' for having children and I'd stop it totally if I were in charge. Which I'm not. Perhaps a few might learn how to keep their knees together........

21 to 33 of 33rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

so, the higher tax band are to lose their Child Benefits in 2013,,why not from April 1st next year?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.