solentstars Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Child Benefit being withdrawn for all 40% taxpayers has been badly thought out, whether you agree with it or not. For the record, I am quite happy to give up my Child Benefit, just as I was when I lost my working tax credit (altogether nearly £200 a month). But I am not happy at billionaire Government advisers, and billionaire Tory donors avoiding the millions they should be paying in tax. The Tories have been very quiet about the tax-avoiders. The press should be demonising them, as well as the scumbags who select welfare as a career choice. They are equally loathsome. And if any banker chooses to relocate to Switzerland, instead of supporting a country that protected them from ruin, then they should be ashamed of themselves. That they won't be tells you what sort of people they are. I'm a great believer in rewarding companies who reinvest their profits back into their business, creating the jobs badly needed for the country to prosper. They should be encouraged by suitable tax-breaks. i like your job policys but do not think Switzerland will want these banker losers and yes tax avoiders should be named and shamed but then look who own the papers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 I just shocked that people earning 40K were actually receiving state handouts, ****ing madness. Then there is this new rule to limit benefits to 26K a year! 26K tax free for doing **** all - no wonder this country is broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 I just shocked that people earning 40K were actually receiving state handouts, ****ing madness. Then there is this new rule to limit benefits to 26K a year! 26K tax free for doing **** all - no wonder this country is broke. They're not state handouts - they're universal benefits and always have been since they were introduced in the late 1940s. You could equally apply that statement to the state pension. Both benefits have been paid for over the years by the recipients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 They're not state handouts - they're universal benefits and always have been since they were introduced in the late 1940s. You could equally apply that statement to the state pension. Both benefits have been paid for over the years by the recipients. I'm gonna have to look into what handouts I can get hold of then, I've been paying tax for years as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 That seems to be a very selective list. How about India, China? New Zealand, Australia, Canada have come out almost unscathed. Closer to home, Germany has done ok. That's because Germany has a massive industrial base. Where is ours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 its all gorden browns fault the way he has single handed destroyed the world economy :lol:the bankers should get a medal and bigger bonus pay no tax for their brilliant financial investments and decisions which made all governments pumped in mega tax payers money to stop a world depression and bail out these great bankers, gordan geckois back:rolleyes: The missus will be out of a job if Mark and his colleagues move to Switzerland, the reason? Errr, Mark and his company pay the taxes to keep her in her state paid job - is that too difficult to comprehend? Mark should get a medal actually, through his shrewd investments he has made his clients millions of dollars profit, allowing them to spend it in shops, on services, holidays, cars, new houses etc etc All keeping you and I in jobs. Where has anyone said high earners should pay no tax? Seriously point that out? Mark pays 54p in every pound he earns to the tax man. How much do you pay? Look, it's simple. Bankers that are not successful get sacked. Simple (as I said), those that do well and make millions of $ for their companies and clients get paid a decent whack in bonuses - with the 46% they are allowed to keep they spend it on things that keep the hard working people of the service/ manufacturing industries in jobs. Why the jealousy? Tax them more and they will move abroad, if Mark takes his wife and kid abroad my missus and 6 of her colleagues will no longer be able to be payed from his taxes alone. Successful people are integral to this country - we should celebrate them, thank them for their tax contributions and yes, give them a medel if need be - hopefully that will make kids aspire to be successful, pay millions in tax rather than claim benefits for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 (edited) The missus will be out of a job if Mark and his colleagues move to Switzerland, the reason? Errr, Mark and his company pay the taxes to keep her in her state paid job - is that too difficult to comprehend? Mark should get a medal actually, through his shrewd investments he has made his clients millions of dollars profit, allowing them to spend it in shops, on services, holidays, cars, new houses etc etc All keeping you and I in jobs. Where has anyone said high earners should pay no tax? Seriously point that out? Mark pays 54p in every pound he earns to the tax man. How much do you pay? Look, it's simple. Bankers that are not successful get sacked. Simple (as I said), those that do well and make millions of $ for their companies and clients get paid a decent whack in bonuses - with the 46% they are allowed to keep they spend it on things that keep the hard working people of the service/ manufacturing industries in jobs. Why the jealousy? Tax them more and they will move abroad, if Mark takes his wife and kid abroad my missus and 6 of her colleagues will no longer be able to be payed from his taxes alone. Successful people are integral to this country - we should celebrate them, thank them for their tax contributions and yes, give them a medel if need be - hopefully that will make kids aspire to be successful, pay millions in tax rather than claim benefits for a living. Not another post noshing off your hero Mark! We all pay tax, we all contribute to the economy and public services - the lower/middle earners contribute more in total than people like lovely Mark. If Mark buys a million shares for £1 each and sells them for £5 each he is a hero because he has made his company a fortune. He hasn't created any wealth though, he's just taken wealth from one part of society and put it in his company's bank account. They pay some in tax and keep most for themselves - they have taken more out than what they have put back in. Edited 9 October, 2010 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 good post and i agree the bankers at the lower level can not be blamed for their institutions managements failure of policy but i blame the downturn squarely on these people for the vast part and so dos the bank of england governer and to a lesser extent governments around the. world not regulating their casino economy policys. no one mentions that bush was president in the us a conservative had also pumped in vast sums to stop a 1930,s depression. i,m glad the money was pumped in worldwide to save our capitalist system and that unemployment has not rocketed like the 1980,s. I would be quite happy to see Bush sharing a cell with Gordon, not problem with that at all. I would probably chuck in Bliar to keep them company. I just shocked that people earning 40K were actually receiving state handouts, ****ing madness. Then there is this new rule to limit benefits to 26K a year! 26K tax free for doing **** all - no wonder this country is broke. As much as I hate to see the rewarding of failure, the benefits system needs a complete overhaul - £26k for doing **** all is rewarding idleness. That's because Germany has a massive industrial base. Where is ours? Germany's manufacturing base is only 3% more as a percentage of GDP than ours. It is bigger, not not as much as some people are led to believe. Many famous German brands are often not made in Germany anymore such as BMW, VW, Mercedes and Bosch. The number of bankers earning big bonuses is relatively smal in the scheme of things. As for the super rich not paying their fair share of taxes, I have suggested before (with Fuengirola's agreement) that the super rich should be offered a choice - invest your money in the UK economy and UK businesses (upon which you may get a return and increase your wealth) or we'll tax it. To me this will kick start the UK economy, create jobs and even create more wealth. Too much money is locked away and if this can be put to good use, this coud be good for us all. We're all in this together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Not another post noshing off your hero Mark! We all pay tax, we all contribute to the economy and public services - the lower/middle earners contribute more in total than people like lovely Mark. If Mark buys a million shares for £1 each and sells them for £5 each he is a hero because he has made his company a fortune. He hasn't created any wealth though, he's just taken wealth from one part of society and put it in his companies bank account. They pay some in tax and keep most for themselves - they have taken more out than what they have put back in. He pays 54% tax. I'm no mathmatition but that is giving back more than he takes out? I'm on middle income and I don't pay that % of my wages. Do you? Of course he creates wealth, from his massive wages he's buying a £50k kitchen from Smallbones of Devizes, through that purchase he's helping the boss of that company get wealthy? What have you got against successful people? How much tax should he pay? Who will pay teachers/ nurses/ armed forces wages if he moves abroad? Right now Mark is my hero - he's paying for 8 of us to fly club class to Vegas in 4 weeks and putting us in Villas at the Bellagio all for his stag do. Another example of him paying the wages of those fantastic, non striking, Virgin cabin crew. I'm chuffed to bits a lad from Harefield with sod all GCSE's etc can get to the top of his profession through shere hard graft - we should celebrate these people rather than wallow in our own anger and jealousy. With your attitude the whole country would be bitter and twisted and living in a gloomy 70's 3 day week moaning. I also have a missus that is a science teacher at an inner City Southampton school. I appreciate the struggles teachers have and think they are worth more, but hey, we can't afford to pay them any more as we're broke and spending more on deficit interest every year than we do on the NHS - do you understand that? Celebrate success, give them medals and hope they don't sod off abroad to give their talents to oother country's whilst they spend their hard earned money on other country's economys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 (edited) He pays 54% tax. I'm no mathmatition but that is giving back more than he takes out? I'm on middle income and I don't pay that % of my wages. Do you? Of course he creates wealth, from his massive wages he's buying a £50k kitchen from Smallbones of Devizes, through that purchase he's helping the boss of that company get wealthy? What have you got against successful people? How much tax should he pay? Who will pay teachers/ nurses/ armed forces wages if he moves abroad? Right now Mark is my hero - he's paying for 8 of us to fly club class to Vegas in 4 weeks and putting us in Villas at the Bellagio all for his stag do. Another example of him paying the wages of those fantastic, non striking, Virgin cabin crew. I'm chuffed to bits a lad from Harefield with sod all GCSE's etc can get to the top of his profession through shere hard graft - we should celebrate these people rather than wallow in our own anger and jealousy. With your attitude the whole country would be bitter and twisted and living in a gloomy 70's 3 day week moaning. I also have a missus that is a science teacher at an inner City Southampton school. I appreciate the struggles teachers have and think they are worth more, but hey, we can't afford to pay them any more as we're broke and spending more on deficit interest every year than we do on the NHS - do you understand that? Celebrate success, give them medals and hope they don't sod off abroad to give their talents to oother country's whilst they spend their hard earned money on other country's economys. I don't have anything against success, my mate has made millions selling sub-prime mortgages and I don't begrudge him a penny. He worked his ass off and took the risks. He hates paying tax and exploits every loop-hole there is to avoid it. If we up the tax rate there is no way he will move abroad though, he is settled here with his family. I think we could get away with taxing the higher level at least another 5% without too many leaving. You have to remember that every pound your mate's company makes has come out of the pocket of someone else - who would also have spent it on services, products etc. By having a few super rich it doesn't mean they are contributing any more, we all contribute. Edited 9 October, 2010 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Germany's manufacturing base is only 3% more as a percentage of GDP than ours. It is bigger, not not as much as some people are led to believe. Many famous German brands are often not made in Germany anymore such as BMW, VW, Mercedes and Bosch. I refitted my kitchen last year using four AEG appliances, naively buying into the German made quality hype. On unpacking it was clear only the oven was made in Germany, the combi microwave was made in Britain, dishwasher Hungary and gas hob Slovakia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill. Never were truer words spoken so it's hardly surprising that anyone who has gone out there and done well is sneered at by the Reds on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill. Never were truer words spoken so it's hardly surprising that anyone who has gone out there and done well is sneered at by the Reds on here. In fairness, I don't think anyone begrudges "Mark" gaining a very, very high salary for the important job he does for our economy (our reliance on them was set up by Thatcher unfortunately). But the discussion for me is about his £300k bonus, and whether he really needs it, or is it just a case of greed. Seeing as he can afford a £50k kitchen and to pay for all his friends to go Business Class on Virgin to Vegas, I would suggest he doesn't really need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 In fairness, I don't think anyone begrudges "Mark" gaining a very, very high salary for the important job he does for our economy (our reliance on them was set up by Thatcher unfortunately). But the discussion for me is about his £300k bonus, and whether he really needs it, or is it just a case of greed. Seeing as he can afford a £50k kitchen and to pay for all his friends to go Business Class on Virgin to Vegas, I would suggest he doesn't really need it. Communism doesn't work - Capitalism does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 This isn't about Communism or Capitalism, otherwise i'd suggest Mark should earn the same as everyone else. It's about whether he 1) deserves and 2) needs, a £300k bonus on top of his already huge salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 This isn't about Communism or Capitalism, otherwise i'd suggest Mark should earn the same as everyone else. It's about whether he 1) deserves and 2) needs, a £300k bonus on top of his already huge salary. Of course he doesn't need it, but he earns it, so deserves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Of course he doesn't need it, but he earns it, so deserves it. He deserves it for simply doing his job, a job which he already gets a massive salary for? They are rewarding him twice for doing the same thing, where are the bonuses for doctors? He deserves his salary, not his bonus. As Dave points out, we are all "in this together". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 This isn't about Communism or Capitalism, otherwise i'd suggest Mark should earn the same as everyone else. It's about whether he 1) deserves and 2) needs, a £300k bonus on top of his already huge salary. I understand where your coming from but he'd argue he needs it as it's a seriously stressful job doing what he does and, by his own admission, he's missing his son growing up. With this in mind he wants to bail out at 40 (8 years time) so needs every penny he can earn. The bonus is based on how successful his investments have been in the last 12 months, if they didn't work he'd either get less money or his P45. Honestly the jobs a serious stress and if he wasn't getting big money he'd do something simpler with 9-5 hrs near his home. or move abroad where they are crying out for UK bankers with a good track record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 I understand where your coming from but he'd argue he needs it as it's a seriously stressful job doing what he does and, by his own admission, he's missing his son growing up. With this in mind he wants to bail out at 40 (8 years time) so needs every penny he can earn. The bonus is based on how successful his investments have been in the last 12 months, if they didn't work he'd either get less money or his P45. Honestly the jobs a serious stress and if he wasn't getting big money he'd do something simpler with 9-5 hrs near his home. or move abroad where they are crying out for UK bankers with a good track record. To be honest, i'd normally say fair play to him, who on this forum can honestly say they wouldn't like to earn that amount and retire at 40? But when so much of this country is in real dire straights through no fault of their own, it does leave a bitter taste in the mouth. I'd give the £300k to charity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 That's because Germany has a massive industrial base. Where is ours? I sometimes think that I'm all that's left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 The short term-ism of the bonus culture in The City is what's brought the country to its knees as it led to a recklessness that was verging on the criminal. My best mate (posts on here as well) works for Bank of New York, earns huge bonuses every year, is as red as they come and even he admits that he can only see as far as his next bonus. Until that conundrum is solved the problems will remain. The simple undeniable fact is that the banks are more powerful than the government and have got away scot free, as have those bankers in The City that got us into the mess in the 1st place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 They're not state handouts - they're universal benefits and always have been since they were introduced in the late 1940s. You could equally apply that statement to the state pension. Both benefits have been paid for over the years by the recipients. Well said, btf! It is wrong to call it child benefit. It used to be called child allowance and all parents were entitled to it, just the same as personal allowances, annual capital gains exemptions and all the others. It is all a part of the overall tax system balance and the anomalies that have been raised are so severe that these proposals are bound to be modified before 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 The short term-ism of the bonus culture in The City is what's brought the country to its knees as it led to a recklessness that was verging on the criminal. My best mate (posts on here as well) works for Bank of New York, earns huge bonuses every year, is as red as they come and even he admits that he can only see as far as his next bonus. Until that conundrum is solved the problems will remain. The simple undeniable fact is that the banks are more powerful than the government and have got away scot free, as have those bankers in The City that got us into the mess in the 1st place. Rewarding risk-taking was an important factor in causing the crisis, but by no means the only one. It's people like Fred Goodwin getting enormous rewards for totally wrecking RBS that I can't stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 The simple undeniable fact is that the banks are more powerful than the government and have got away scot free, as have those bankers in The City that got us into the mess in the 1st place. That's the problem, governments should be able to ensure there is some fairness in society, at the moment they are completely powerless. I'm not anti-capitalist but capitalism without control is just survival of the fittest at it's worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Rewarding risk-taking was an important factor in causing the crisis, but by no means the only one. It's people like Fred Goodwin getting enormous rewards for totally wrecking RBS that I can't stand. It's the fact that the risk taking wasn't in fact risk taking as they knew if things went pear shaped Mr & Mrs Tax Payer would bail them out. I'd gamble my house if I knew that if I lost someone else would be picking up the tab and I'd be keeping my house regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Let us imagine that Child benefit never existed. In his first budget as chancellor George Osbourne decides that every parent should get £1,000 per child a year, regardless of the parents wealth. The Bankers, the City wizz kids, the professional footballers, the families from the Tory suburbs on £40,000 a year will all get this benefit. The lefties would be going absolutely bananas, why is George paying state money to rich families? Why is he discriminating against poor people who can not have children. Why are childless people subsiding a give away to rich people who choose to have children? People wonder why there is cynicism about Politian's, examples like this are why. Lefties opposing cuts to rich families, solely on the basis the Tories brought it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 The government is only giving back a small portion of what it has taken away, so it's not a handout. That term is reserved for those who don't pay any tax at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 It's the fact that the risk taking wasn't in fact risk taking as they knew if things went pear shaped Mr & Mrs Tax Payer would bail them out. I'd gamble my house if I knew that if I lost someone else would be picking up the tab and I'd be keeping my house regardless. Yes, that was (and still could be) the big problem. They were taking risks with effectively our money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 The government is only giving back a small portion of what it has taken away, so it's not a handout. That term is reserved for those who don't pay any tax at all. That's nonsense, we all pay tax so that there is a health service, police and the streets are kept clean. People getting cash for having a kid is a handout IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 That's nonsense, we all pay tax so that there is a health service, police and the streets are kept clean. People getting cash for having a kid is a handout IMO. Not if they pay far more in tax than they receive in 'benefits'. Call it 'child allowance' instead and you'll see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Not if they pay far more in tax than they receive in 'benefits'. Call it 'child allowance' instead and you'll see what I mean. What is a handout then? If I lose my job and end up on benefits I will receive handouts, I've paid tax all my life, it doesn't stop them being handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 That's the problem, governments should be able to ensure there is some fairness in society, at the moment they are completely powerless. I'm not anti-capitalist but capitalism without control is just survival of the fittest at it's worst.i agree and its funny how germany and france don,t use the anglo saxon model of short term winner takes it all and don,t just rely on the financial sector only,i think we need to diversify so the economy has more diverse industrys and take along term view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 What is a handout then? If I lose my job and end up on benefits I will receive handouts, I've paid tax all my life, it doesn't stop them being handouts. If I steal £20 off you and then give you £2 back, is that a gift? There are some people who have never paid any tax. They are the ones on handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 i agree and its funny how germany and france don,t use the anglo saxon model of short term winner takes it all and don,t just rely on the financial sector only,i think we need to diversify so the economy has more diverse industrys and take along term view. We have a lot to learn from other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 The short term-ism of the bonus culture in The City is what's brought the country to its knees as it led to a recklessness that was verging on the criminal. My best mate (posts on here as well) works for Bank of New York, earns huge bonuses every year, is as red as they come and even he admits that he can only see as far as his next bonus. Until that conundrum is solved the problems will remain. The simple undeniable fact is that the banks are more powerful than the government and have got away scot free, as have those bankers in The City that got us into the mess in the 1st place. Surely if he is as red as they come, he would share his spoils with his public sector friends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Yes, that was (and still could be) the big problem. They were taking risks with effectively our money. i agree its like you lending me £300 and then i lose it all gambling in a casino but i expect you to give me a bonus of £500 for all the hard graft i put in, i,m a risk taker so i don,t need to make real things and pay any tax :rolleyes:reminds me of spongers on the dole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 We have a lot to learn from other countries. yes i think you are right, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Let us imagine that Child benefit never existed. In his first budget as chancellor George Osbourne decides that every parent should get £1,000 per child a year, regardless of the parents wealth. The Bankers, the City wizz kids, the professional footballers, the families from the Tory suburbs on £40,000 a year will all get this benefit. The lefties would be going absolutely bananas, why is George paying state money to rich families? Why is he discriminating against poor people who can not have children. Why are childless people subsiding a give away to rich people who choose to have children? People wonder why there is cynicism about Politian's, examples like this are why. Lefties opposing cuts to rich families, solely on the basis the Tories brought it in. You're missing the point, and maybe that's Georgie's problem - he just doesn't understand. If you are used to a certain income and then, suddenly and without warning, some of it is removed at a stroke (and it could be as much as 5%) you'd be unhappy, particularly if, in the expectation you would continue to receive that income, you rely on it to support your family. Yes I know, I know - this can happen when people are made redundant but it doesn't make it any more right or acceptable. However, the unfairness is multi-faceted. It is unfair that a family with one income of £44K will lose Child Benefit whereas a family with two incomes jointly producing £83K won't. It is unfair that a mother, choosing to stay at home with her baby or toddler, and having a partner who can provide for the family, should suddenly lose her NI credits for time spent as a carer, thus affecting her state pension in years to come. It is unfair that a couple with children from previous relationships, who choose to live together, will find that where the wage earner earns over the threshold but still pays maintenance for his own children, this should cause his partner to lose the Child Benefit she was receiving for HER children for whom he has no legal or fiscal responsibility. It's the unfairness that people like me are railing against. And it's the incompetence of the current regime that galls. They just don't think the ideas through. Even their own members and MPs are highly critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 You're missing the point, and maybe that's Georgie's problem - he just doesn't understand. If you are used to a certain income and then, suddenly and without warning, some of it is removed at a stroke (and it could be as much as 5%) you'd be unhappy, particularly if, in the expectation you would continue to receive that income, you rely on it to support your family. . When the previous Govt raised the income tax level to 50%, those people were "used to a certain income" but it was cut. Tough, they can afford it. Is that the basis that cuts can't be made, because people are "used to a certain income", in that case there would never be any cuts, never be any tax rises, what do you want? Govt policy based on the status quo, how can you make cuts if you cant touch people's budgets? Is your point that people on joint income of £80,000 should lose their child benefit, in which case you're cutting from more families than George, or is it that you shouldn't cut the Child benefit? In which case where are you going to get the billion from? Just to keep complaining about the unfairness of it without stating whether you think 40% taxpayers should receive £1000 just for having a baby, is complaining for the sake of it. There is a hell of a lot more unfairness in the benefits system than this percieved unfairness towards people who quite frankly are pretty well off.We didn't have the option of my Mrs staying at home bringing up our children, we could not have afforded it at the time.We pay billions and billions of pounds to people who are work shy, who work but still claim benefits, who pretend to live apart but live together,who make out they have bad backs or stress related illness, and who have no intention of ever finding work, perhaps we should look towards them before looking at the few 2 wage earning familes that have slipped through the net.When people on benefits can afford play stations, foregin holidays, wide screen tv's, new motors and 7 packs of fags a week there is something seriously wrong.Benefit should be a safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable are cared for. It should not be a lifestyle option and it certainly should not be dished out to people on £40,000, even if the wife wants to stay at home and look after the children. I've had 4 children and had thousends off the Govt in Child benefit over the years, we use it towards a holiday, why should the Govt part fund my foregin holiday each year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 Lord Duckhunter - I'm surprised you've had 4 children as it seems that is now considered irresponsible. Yep - there's a rider. It's irresponsible if you can't afford it. Tell me, what happens to the people who have had 4 children because they could afford to and then suddenly, through no fault of their own (perhaps one dies, perhaps they are made redundant) find they can't afford those children. I mean, it could have happened to you if circumstances conspired against you. Which children should they put into care because they can no longer afford them? It isn't my policy to cut Child Benefit so I'm not going to defend the cuts. I'm just pointing out the anomalies and unfairnesses and the fact that this government patently hasn't thought the policy through. At the end of the day, regardless of decisions made by parents, children are the innocents in all this. It's probably cheaper to support the children of the 'undeserving poor' than to put them all into care. I was listening on the radio to a man who took the conscious decision to give up work to look after his severely autistic son (I'm not sure what happened to the boy's mother although the sex of the caring parent is irrelevant anyway). It was actually cheaper to pay him various benefits than to put his son into residential care and, of course, the boy was happier at home with his father than in a home. But of course some would consider him to be a scrounger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 So you're against the Child benefit cut, so that's another billion you need to find from somewhere.Will this billion be targeted at 40% tax payers, or people on the lower rate? Do you really think that the Govt and all the treasury advisers weren't aware of the anomlies in the system, that Osborne and he's advisors, not to forget masses of civil servants are so simple that they didn't see what was obvious to everyone. What they were guilty of was bad politics. I've no doubt that their reasoning was that if affects very few families and that to means test it would cost millions of the billion they were saving, defeating the object. What they've done is simple, cheap and painless (dont tell me people on £40,000 need this benefit to survive).Personally I would abolish child benefit but acknowledge children in the tax and benefit system. If the Govt believe I need an extra £1,000 , then tax me £1,000 less.The beauty of this is that the tax and benefit system is means tested anyway, so it can really be targeted at the people who need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 I'll quickly make 2 points Lord D. 1. To many people living in London and the South East, £40K isn't much to raise a family on. Not when a half-decent 3 bed semi costs upwards of £300K. Even rent for such a house would be just shy of £900 a month. I know it's cheaper in Southampton and this is reflected int salaries there. But it doesn't get away from the salient point that most people use regional variations in wages to deal with regional variations in costs. Remember, these families may have already committed to this in the expectation that the child benefit wouldn't be cut (as indicated by the Conservatives pre-election). 2. It's the government itself that has stated that means testing is too expensive to administer and that the cost of such administration would wipe out a lot of the 'gains' of the cuts in Child Benefit. If they did this, having thought it through, then it shows just how dumb and out of touch with the real world they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 I'll quickly make 2 points Lord D. 1. To many people living in London and the South East, £40K isn't much to raise a family on. Not when a half-decent 3 bed semi costs upwards of £300K. Even rent for such a house would be just shy of £900 a month. I know it's cheaper in Southampton and this is reflected int salaries there. But it doesn't get away from the salient point that most people use regional variations in wages to deal with regional variations in costs. Remember, these families may have already committed to this in the expectation that the child benefit wouldn't be cut (as indicated by the Conservatives pre-election). 2. It's the government itself that has stated that means testing is too expensive to administer and that the cost of such administration would wipe out a lot of the 'gains' of the cuts in Child Benefit. If they did this, having thought it through, then it shows just how dumb and out of touch with the real world they really are. I dont agree with what they've done, I dont think it goes far enough. There should be no Family benefit in families with a higher rated tax payer in it. However they have thought it through, they have just not laid it out in the correct way. Instead of spinning it to conference, they should have announced it in Parliament (something they critisised Labour for), but they should have laid out the costs for all to see. Ie, "This is not perfect and there are anomalies in the system, however it affects very few familes and would cost Xmillion to sort out".The problem with it was it was announced whilst every Tory and his dog was going on about "fairness". The fact that the lefties are complaining that this is unfair on families that on the whole are pretty wealthy, just shows how badly they've handled the whole thing. At the end of the day you either believe in universal welfare or you dont. I dont, because we can't afford it and I dont believe the state should be dishing out money to people like myself, however much it's welcome and helps towards our family holiday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 (edited) I dont agree with what they've done, I dont think it goes far enough. There should be no Family benefit in families with a higher rated tax payer in it. However they have thought it through, they have just not laid it out in the correct way. Instead of spinning it to conference, they should have announced it in Parliament (something they critisised Labour for), but they should have laid out the costs for all to see. Ie, "This is not perfect and there are anomalies in the system, however it affects very few familes and would cost Xmillion to sort out".The problem with it was it was announced whilst every Tory and his dog was going on about "fairness". The fact that the lefties are complaining that this is unfair on families that on the whole are pretty wealthy, just shows how badly they've handled the whole thing. This leftie is complaining that it's unfair on some families that are 'pretty wealthy' because other families that are 'very wealthy' are getting a benefit that the 'pretty wealthy' ones aren't. At the end of the day you either believe in universal welfare or you dont. I dont, because we can't afford it and I dont believe the state should be dishing out money to people like myself, however much it's welcome and helps towards our family holiday So presumably you think state pensions shouldn't be dished out to everybody as well? How would you overcome the problem of a mother / father staying at home to look after the children, but no longer receiving Child Benefit, thereby losing a lot of their state pension because their caring role would no longer be recognised if their entitlement to Child Benefit was abolished? Edited 9 October, 2010 by bridge too far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 You're missing the point, and maybe that's Georgie's problem - he just doesn't understand. If you are used to a certain income and then, suddenly and without warning, some of it is removed at a stroke (and it could be as much as 5%) you'd be unhappy, particularly if, in the expectation you would continue to receive that income, you rely on it to support your family. Yes I know, I know - this can happen when people are made redundant but it doesn't make it any more right or acceptable. I agree that the most vulnerable in society should be protected. That is why I could not understand why Gordon removed the 10% tax rate, hitting those that could least afford it and those who depended on it the most. Maybe the worm has turned, Labour hitting the worst off and the torries hitting the better off. Who'd have thought it eh? I agree with the cut in child benefit for the better off (and I know you do too, you're just gutted that this was brought in by the tories). I know scores of peope that don't need it, so why give it to them? So in essence it is a good idea, however the execution could have been better. Perhaps they should have introduced it at the 50% tax band level where the main earner gets £100k+. This would be easy to measure and implement and avoid the scenarios that you have put forward. It might not save as much, but it would still be better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 I agree that the most vulnerable in society should be protected. That is why I could not understand why Gordon removed the 10% tax rate, hitting those that could least afford it and those who depended on it the most. Maybe the worm has turned, Labour hitting the worst off and the torries hitting the better off. Who'd have thought it eh? I agree with the cut in child benefit for the better off (and I know you do too, you're just gutted that this was brought in by the tories). I know scores of peope that don't need it, so why give it to them? So in essence it is a good idea, however the execution could have been better. Perhaps they should have introduced it at the 50% tax band level where the main earner gets £100k+. This would be easy to measure and implement and avoid the scenarios that you have put forward. It might not save as much, but it would still be better than nothing. You know what? Sometimes I think either my ability to express myself is waning or other people only read half a post these days. I've never said that I think it's wrong to cut Child Benefit for the super wealthy. It's the anomalies I dislike so much. How can it be right to get Child Benefit if your family receives c £80K via two earners but to lose it if your family earns £43K via one earner? How can it be right for a parent's caring responsibilites no longer to be recognised for future state pension entitlement. How can it be right for a man, paying maintenance to his first family, to cause his new partner to lose out on Child Benefit for the children from her first family for whom he has no legal or fiscal responsibility. It's the illogicality of it all that gets my goat. I don't know why it was never taken further, but in a link to the history of Child Benefit that I provided a few pages ago, it was recorded that Gordon Brown did indeed look at reintroducing tax allowances for families with children and then adding the income from Child Benefit for taable purposes. I don't know why it didn't happen. I think this whole business could be addressed better through taxation - another stealth tax if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 cripes, this is getting heavy. tbh i really am lost in all of the arguments above but can't help confessing that i think that most right minded people do not need to understand the standpoints to know right from wrong and that lust and greed for money is wrong. No matter how you dress it up and no matter how you form an argument, priviledge of the level that some receive is just ridiculous and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. ffs we are talking about people here, what is there not to get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 So you're against the Child benefit cut, so that's another billion you need to find from somewhere.Will this billion be targeted at 40% tax payers, or people on the lower rate? How about the £8billion overseas aid money, some of which goes to China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 So you're against the Child benefit cut, so that's another billion you need to find from somewhere.Will this billion be targeted at 40% tax payers, or people on the lower rate? You'd raise a hell of a lot more if you just increased the top rate from 40% to 41%. This would affect all top rate payers proportionately - a cut in child benefit impacts someone earning £45k much much more than someone on £100k Personally I would abolish child benefit but acknowledge children in the tax and benefit system. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Child Benefit is already the means of acknowledging children in the tax and benefit system. It acts as benefit for those who don't pay tax and as tax relief for those that already pay tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 October, 2010 Share Posted 9 October, 2010 You'd raise a hell of a lot more if you just increased the top rate from 40% to 41%. This would affect all top rate payers proportionately - a cut in child benefit impacts someone earning £45k much much more than someone on £100k That would have ben the sensible move. I can't help feeling that there's a lot more pain to come in a couple of weeks time, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now