Child Benefit Cap

[Freakbro]

A family with 4 kids and 2 parents with a 50k income is likely to be less well off than a single mother with 1 kid earning 20k a year.

A test for expendable income and potential expendable should be the measure, actual income isn't valid because it doesn't take into account how far that has to stretch.

Err yes it is, it is the main factor, how far it has to stretch is your choice.

How many kids you have, where you want to live, how big your house is, what car you drive - all your choices and have nothing to do with how much state benefit you are entitled too.

It's called living within your means....

 

[Kenai]

Is that really true though though? It may be correct in principle but not in effect.

Well, i'm not aware of NI and Income Tax being lumped into one big pot - seems a massive waste of administration if so, why bother collecting two separate things if they're not separate?

As far as I was aware NI is still 'ringfenced' so to speak for funding particular things.

 

[Bear]

Well, i'm not aware of NI and Income Tax being lumped into one big pot - seems a massive waste of administration if so, why bother collecting two separate things if they're not separate?

As far as I was aware NI is still 'ringfenced' so to speak for funding particular things.

No NI is income tax by another name. People are more likely to approve a tax increase via NI because they believe it goes to pensions and the NHS and thats why they keep it but it doesn't. It all goes into the tax pot.

 

[Freakbro]

No NI is income tax by another name. People are more likely to approve a tax increase via NI because they believe it goes to pensions and the NHS and thats why they keep it but it doesn't. It all goes into the tax pot.

Actually, even though I said the same thing a few posts back, I just looked it up and ...

NI What it is used for?

The system has changed over the years.

National Insurance is now used to pay for:

The NHS
Unemployment benefit
Sickness and disability allowances
The state pension

NI is supposed to be "ring fenced" - meaning the money raised is only used for these areas and won't be spent on things like building schools or employing police officers.

However, the government can borrow from the National Insurance fund to help pay for other projects.

 

[Kenai]

No NI is income tax by another name. People are more likely to approve a tax increase via NI because they believe it goes to pensions and the NHS and thats why they keep it but it doesn't. It all goes into the tax pot.

I'd be interested if you have some sort of source to verify that NI just gets lumped into the general taxation pot as everything i've been able to find suggests it is still ring fenced. Obviously if it's not, then it would completely change the argument that estebanrey was making.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Why should the state pay for anyone's children? Pay for your own. If you can't afford them, don't have them.

My first is on the way. We can afford to pay for it without government handouts. We've waited until we could afford it.

So your saying no child benefit at all, including the families living on benefits?

What happens if you lose your jobm you would expect help from the state to bring up your kid wouldn't you?

Why penalise those in work for the benefit of those out of work?

People on benefits with kids are less likely to want to work imo from the evidence I have seen, unless they will earn good money.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

That is exactly my point. £25k is a fairly average salary and yet they get 2x personal allowances, don't have to pay any tax at the 40% rate AND get to keep their child benefits. Surely that isn't fair when there is a single working parent on £50k getting taxed a lot more and losing their benefits.

French system afaik is based on household income vs household dependancy

So a couple with 3 kids gets a higher tax free allowance than a single person.
The couple would pay the same tax earning £100k from one or two incomes.

Makes complete sense to me, about the only thing the French get right imo

 

[Dabbles]

So your saying no child benefit at all, including the families living on benefits?

Yes.

What happens if you lose your jobm you would expect help from the state to bring up your kid wouldn't you?

For the short term yes.

For the longer term - get another job. The benefits system is meant to catch those who do lose their jobs, for a limited time. Anyone can get another job in 6 months if they really are trying to find work.

Why penalise those in work for the benefit of those out of work?

That's not what I'm saying. Why should those who work put money into the pockets of those people (working and otherwise) who choose to have children?

People on benefits with kids are less likely to want to work imo from the evidence I have seen, unless they will earn good money.

If they can't be bothered to work then they shouldn't get any money. Why should I bankroll them due to their own laziness? They should do what lots of other people do and work, starting at the bottom if need be and work their way up to the big money. This is what I did and now earn decent money, but I had to start on very poor money before the 'big' money arrived.

 

[SDK^]

I'm getting my info from the report in the OP (did you listen to it?). I was comparing the current situation not what would happen under the proposal.

My argument isn't invalid because I proving that only looking at the CB system I am subsidising his children. The fact I don't have any is what contributes to that fact sure but it doesn't invalidated the statement I'm making.

The proposal goes live on Monday so it is current.

You don't have children so can't claim the benefit - get over it.
You also subsidising everything else in this country which you might not be using. Nothing new here

 

[Destination]

TBQH in your original figures you seemed to suggest that
% of income tax spent on child benefit: 8.4%
I find that an incredible amount of money, absolutely astounding if we actually spend close to 10% of what income tax brings in on child benefit. Now I know you muddied the waters by excluding corporation tax, any other sort of income, VAT, and played a blinder by excluding NI contributions for an arbitary reason saying they do not go directly to source.

But it is still a massive %.
What is child benefit as a % of overall government spending? I'd like to know that figure.

 

[Kenai]

The proposal goes live on Monday so it is current.

You don't have children so can't claim the benefit - get over it.
You also subsidising everything else in this country which you might not be using. Nothing new here

His point, which you seem to be repeatedly missing is not just that he subsidises child benefit, which is a given for anyone not claiming but that under the system we have been operating he has been subsiding people who already earn 4 times more than he does making a 'profit' via child benefit.

 

[Bear]

Actually, even though I said the same thing a few posts back, I just looked it up and ...

That's odd because it was Robert Peston on a BBC programme on taxation that said it was lumped into one pot. He even made a big thing about asking members of the public which tax they would choose to go up if it had to rise and everyone chose NI for the pensions and NHS reason but was then told it made no difference because it was all the same pot

 

[Kenai]

What is child benefit as a % of overall government spending? I'd like to know that figure.

Well the BBC reports 7.9m families receive it, for 13.9m children. Working out that this means 7.9m payouts at 20.30 a week and 6m at 13.40 a week, then you're looking at £240,770,000.00 per week. Over a year, that would amount to a little over £12.5 billion.

Total spend according to budget 2012 - £683billion.

It looks like child benefits probably made up roughly 1.8% of total government spending for the 2012 budget.

edit - I misread, it was 13.7m children, so it's actually a little under £12.5 billion but you're still looking around 1.8%

 

[Freakbro]

That's odd because it was Robert Peston on a BBC programme on taxation that said it was lumped into one pot. He even made a big thing about asking members of the public which tax they would choose to go up if it had to rise and everyone chose NI for the pensions and NHS reason but was then told it made no difference because it was all the same pot

Yes, that's what I always thought too...

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Yes..

I agree, just wanted to check if thats what your saying.

For the short term yes.

For the longer term - get another job. The benefits system is meant to catch those who do lose their jobs, for a limited time. Anyone can get another job in 6 months if they really are trying to find work.

But what about those who can't get a job (include those who think living on minimum means its not worth getting a job). If you remove child benefit they just get other benefits to bring them up to the minimum standard thats been put in place.

That's not what I'm saying. Why should those who work put money into the pockets of those people (working and otherwise) who choose to have children?

But at the end of the day we do need future generations. Unless we crack immortal youth we have to have children to ensure the longevity of our species. Some want to argue its a lifestyle choice, I am yet to meet someone with kids who sees it this way. What if those with kids got a tax break would that be unfair? Many would say yes.
To me I would rather subsidise future generations since they will be subsidising me when I am old, providing the healthcare and working to ensure that the UK continues to be able to provide the safe and prosperous living conditions we are all used to.
I can't think of anything worse than having to have such high immigration levels that we would need to support all the "ethnic" UK population if we did not provide most of the next generation ourselves. Imagine 40 years from now, all "ethnic" citizens are over 40 and a high percentage are unemployed. With that level of immigration the immigrants may suddenyl decide, you know what we are fed up of working and paying tax to provide for these ethnics we will actually work to create a government that provides NO support at all, much more like the places these workers would have to come from. Its far fetched but not impossible. People assume those coming here will stay, will pay all they should and will not leave, big assumptions. They will only do that whilst its better than they can get elsewhere.

If they can't be bothered to work then they shouldn't get any money. Why should I bankroll them due to their own laziness? They should do what lots of other people do and work, starting at the bottom if need be and work their way up to the big money. This is what I did and now earn decent money, but I had to start on very poor money before the 'big' money arrived.

Problem is how you do this, its difficult, you force them to crime or what?

Or we go radical, similar to China, maybe a 1 child policy. If you want more you have to put in place a guaranteed way to pay for them, be that a £100k bond or something. If you need to start claiming benefits it starts to be paid from your bond. Once the child is 18 you get back whats left of your bond.
If you have more than one child (without the bond being in place) you lose all state support, if the children need it becasue you cannot support them then they are taken away until you can, have a 2nd (again without bond) and you are forcibly sterilised. The bond value could be increased or decreased as required to support the population demand for children, ie make it more or less achieveable. Plus to ensure its not simply a case of kids for the rich have an opt in lottery monthly giving thousands of free from bond allowances for 1 child families.

 

[Dabbles]

That's odd because it was Robert Peston on a BBC programme on taxation that said it was lumped into one pot. He even made a big thing about asking members of the public which tax they would choose to go up if it had to rise and everyone chose NI for the pensions and NHS reason but was then told it made no difference because it was all the same pot

Labour got away with taxing us more without putting income tax up in 1997.

Gordon Brown said he would not put income tax up, then put 0.5p (- IIRC) on NI.

 

[Kenai]

An interesting overview from The Guardian that makes it fairly obvious why cutting benefits is a big target at the moment. Social spending is a huuuuge chunk of our outgoings.

It amazes me just how unbalanced our books are as a country, I wouldn't dream of attempting to run my personal finances whereby I spend 15% more than I earn.

 

[SDK^]

His point, which you seem to be repeatedly missing is not just that he subsidises child benefit, which is a given for anyone not claiming but that under the system we have been operating he has been subsiding people who already earn 4 times more than he does making a 'profit' via child benefit.

I understand his point.

But, is he going to go after a disabled person who earns 4x his salary because, he's subsidising them as well.
Or an elderly person on a 100k pension claiming fuel allowance.

Most general systems are unfair to some people, or it would be impossibly complicated.

 

[Freakbro]

I understand his point.

But, is he going to go after a disabled person who earns 4x his salary because, he's subsidising them as well.
Or an elderly person on a 100k pension claiming fuel allowance.

Most general systems are unfair to some people, or it would be impossibly complicated.

Which has just been brought up the other day that this could be means tested too and not a universal benefit.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Slightly old article but claims NI is not ringfenced.

Must admit i thought it was not treated as ring fenced as well, just as another tax the same as road tax, which once upon a time WAS used to fund road building.

Edit forgot to attach ^^

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1692508/What-National-Insurance-will-you-pay.html