Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
08:0873590#1
Our George announced this morning all those earnng over £44,000 in the family will no longer get child benefit
interesting, wonder how many other such claims will go.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
08:1273593#2
PAUL B/HOWARD
Why dd ths come out twce? can you delete one?
keith
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
4 October 2010
08:1573594#3
will do keith, this cancelling of child benefit to high earners is not coming into play for another 3 years.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
08:1873595#4
howard
doesn't always mean high earners could be a family with income £44,000 ie
combination like £22,000 each
could be affected not clear as yet.
It Is a radical move which Iapplaud if those on lower incomes are not affected still to see all the details
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
4 October 2010
08:2873596#5
It also removes the right to that income from the Mothers, to whom it is usually paid, and may impact on those in difficult relationships.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
08:3373597#6
Like said BERN lot more detail required
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 October 2010
13:0173651#7
Allow me to correct you.
Child Benefit will be lost by any family that has a higher rate taxpayer in it.
So a family with two people earning £22,000 will not lose it.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
13:0373652#8
thnk It wll be interesting to see if thats correct
I'v seen baz's view before
lets see the detail
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 October 2010
13:0573654#9
Not a view - a fact, there is a big difference.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
13:1173655#10
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 October 2010
13:4173663#11
Perhaps you should have some lessons in English comprehension Keith!!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
4 October 2010
13:4873665#12
I don't want to tread too far out in deep water here, but would it be acceptable to make a cross examination between the subject of this thread and that of Ken Tranter on Bulgaria/Romania and our money going there in the guise of e.u. spending?
My question would be: why do we have to cut back drastically on child-benefit here but keep up with public spending there?
Just a question, mind!
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
4 October 2010
13:5973668#13
Barry is right in everything he's posted as the report from MSN below shows.
Keith - with respect - you really should read the reports and not just keep making nasty comments at anyone you disagree with. As Barry is in finance I'm sure he knows a lot more than most of us concerning money.
Personally I think it's a good thing to stop the benefits to higher wage earners - and I thought that when I was getting chilld benefit myself. Most benefits these days are means tested anyway.
Child benefit is to be stopped for all higher-rate taxpayers from 2013 to help pay for a massive overhaul of the welfare system, Chancellor George Osborne has announced.
The move will hit 15 per cent of UK households - around three million families - and will result in middle-class parents losing out to the tune of £1,055 a year if they have one child and almost £2,500 for three.
Announcing the plan ahead of his keynote speech to the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, Mr Osborne said the measure was "difficult but fair" and would raise around £1 billion a year.
Mr Osborne told BBC1's Breakfast: "It is very difficult to justify taxing people on much lower incomes in order to pay the child benefit to some of the better-off in our society.
"It is not a decision we have taken lightly but given the scale of the debts that Labour's left us with... we think this is fair and it means we are all in this together."
Aides confirmed that child benefit will be removed from families where either parent earns enough to pay 40 per cent income tax - currently around £44,000. But two-earner households where neither parent's income is above this threshold will continue to receive the benefit - worth £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 for each additional one.
In some cases, this could result in families with an income of almost £88,000 receiving child benefit, while others on little more than half this sum lose out because one of the parents stays at home to look after the children.
Mr Osborne acknowledged that his plan would produce "anomalies" of this kind, but said the only alternative would be a "very complicated means tests" of every household in the country, which would fundamentally change the nature of child benefit.
Money saved from the change will go towards paying the upfront costs of a new universal credit scheme, due to replace a range of other welfare payments over the coming 10 years, which Mr Osborne claims would cut fraud and make it clear to all claimants that it is "worth going to work".
He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "I looked at a way of doing this as simply as possible - and removing it from higher-rate taxpayers' households was the simplest way of doing it."
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
14:0073669#14
Oh dear Baz, or the mistakes you make on grammar wouldn't dream of correctiing you.
Sad realy.,
l
We are startng to lose the Idea of this forum.
Encouraging everyone to participate
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 October 2010
14:1073671#15
You prove my point Keith -
Comprehension is about understanding what is written and is nothing directly to do with spelling or grammar.... though poor spelling and grammar can result in no-one understanding what you write.
I do indeed make the odd error in spelling or grammar myself, particularly when in a hurry. But as a rule I do try to be courteous enough to spell and write properly using capitals and lower case where appropriate. It does take a little effort but it is right to do so. I do not normally critisise those, though, who do not. Comprehension is another matter and seeing that I mostly do express myself in reasonable English poor spelling and grammar does not excuse you from not understanding what I say.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 October 2010
14:1173672#16
But then perhaps it suits Keith not to understand what is said
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
4 October 2010
15:3573686#17
getting away from the personal stuff the first thought i had on the pronouncement was that it could end up with the same problems as the present tax credit system.
for example what if a person was expecting to earn 30,000 p.a at the start of the tax year and ended up earning more through promotion or bonus?
would they have to pay back all the child credit they were paid?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
15:3873689#18
BAZ;
Me old chum
n the interests of the forum I will ignore your silly personal comments
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 October 2010
15:5173698#19
Silly Keith?
Howard - the whole point of it is to simplify the system making errors less likely.
The big problem we face with tax credits and the myriad of benefits is the sheer complexity leading to errors. This announcement must be placed in the context over the overall benefit reform package. One reason the Citizens Advice Bureau are backing the reforms is this very reason.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
4 October 2010
16:2373704#20
Barryw
You wll find we are closer than you think on the benefits system
shame you have to go down the road of personal comments
that's life though I suppose
JACQUI
Wth regard to the postng, I don't disagree with the proposal the hgher earners should pay more.
Nor am I aganst a serious reform of the benefits system.
You wll find jacqui I have never made nasty comments, i'v disagreed, but that hopefully is what this forum is all about.
As to barryw and fnance, he may work in that field, but would I trust him with my money? that's another issue.
I do brng humour to the forum, and tried to fnd at least 2 new postings where barryw and I at least partly agree.
But i'm afraid jacqui the forum is about debate, and view points, and wth respect you should maybe look closer at barryw or others postngs if you feel there are some posters who make nasty remarks.
I have no problem anyone beng critical of me, I'm used to it, but those same critical comments should be posted when others on here when they make comments that can be seen as nasty.
I realise Jacqui you may not want to do this as your leaning are in favour of this govt, and thats superb and fine.
All ask is that your fair across the board.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
