Child Benefit Cap

[Freakbro]

Well £2500 per year that I get for my three kids (equivalent to £3500 before tax) is nothing to be sniffed at.

True, but was that an influencing factor for you to have 3 children?

ie: would you not have had them if there was no CB?

 

[Muffin`]

+1. Should be done on total household income rather than the single highest income.

That's how it works in France and how Mr Hollande came unstuck with his millionaire tax as it targeted individual income.

Poll tax was going to work this way too, makes far more sense then our current Council Tax system.

 

[cymatty]

Some 200,000 parents have already opted out of receiving child benefit, ahead of changes coming into force on Monday.

Rough fag packet maths gives me (£200,000 * £20) * 52 = £208m, not bad, not bad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20919325

Also I think this guy needs a whaaaaambulance

"My family will be affected by this because my salary is just above £50,000............I just find it so unfair

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20920332

Here is a suggestion, why not use your huge salary to buy a brain and figure a way around it, like I dont know, put it in a pension so you are at £49,999 if that is worthwhile.

Income here is "adjusted net income" - all taxable income for the tax year in question. The "net" is because pension contributions and payments to charities can be deducted.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

That's how it works in France and how Mr Hollande came unstuck with his millionaire tax as it targeted individual income.

Poll tax was going to work this way too, makes far more sense then our current Council Tax system.

Poll tax was a flat rate, everyone paid the same.

It was hated by those who like to cram 6 people into a small mid terrace, loved by singles and couples who had a larger house.

TBH there are issues with the current method and the poll tax. Why they don't switch to a local income based tax I don't know.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

£1.70 a meal, 3 meals a day, 7 days a week, £35 a week before you start on clothes, trips etc. So you've doubled the amount of money you need to pay out.

Think £1.70 is a bit steep for all 3 don't you?
I mean some cereal or toast for breakfast, £1.70?

Should easily be able to provide good food for £20 per head a week with the purchasing power this requirement would yield. Thats the same as the current child benefit.

School clothes etc, currently a rip off, again some standards here (like not allowing schools to pick silly colours etc that are not easily available on the high street cheaply) would again via purchasing power not really cost that much.

I would rather pay a little more as a tax payer but know that genuinely the kids are getting the benefit than the scroungers are living off it and feeding the kids ****.

Plus other benefits come from learned eating habits, eg its much easier to ensure a balanced diet, would hopefully mean less fatties etc about. Schools could easily help to use the resource they have (ie the kids) to help prepare the meals, domestic science anyone?

 

[Bear]

Poll tax was a flat rate, everyone paid the same.

It was hated by those who like to cram 6 people into a small mid terrace, loved by singles and couples who had a larger house.

TBH there are issues with the current method and the poll tax. Why they don't switch to a local income based tax I don't know.

Because the services you are supplied locally shouldn't be dependant on income. Why should some people be charged more for the same service?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Because the services you are supplied locally shouldn't be dependant on income. Why should some people be charged more for the same service?

Huh, do you live in the UK and understand council tax?

The current system of council tax charges many various rates to people living for example across boundaries (due to council tax being in fact a grouping of various different stakeholders), in different size houses etc

Mr A living in a band d property on his own pays £1000, the bloggs family living in a band b property pays £600.
A pays £1000, the two adults in property B pay £600/2 = £300 each.
Even worse if bloggs family are in fact all in work (say 2 children are early 20s and yet to leave home) £600/4 = £150 each for the local services. Chances are they will in fact use far more lacal services than A, more rubbish, more time on roads etc

The poll tax was exactly to get round this, everyone who was liable paid the same rate within areas.

 

[Bear]

Huh, do you live in the UK and understand council tax?

The current system of council tax charges many various rates to people living for example across boundaries (due to council tax being in fact a grouping of various different stakeholders), in different size houses etc

Mr A living in a band d property on his own pays £1000, the bloggs family living in a band b property pays £600.
A pays £1000, the two adults in property B pay £600/2 = £300 each.
Even worse if bloggs family are in fact all in work (say 2 children are early 20s and yet to leave home) £600/4 = £150 each for the local services. Chances are they will in fact use far more lacal services than A, more rubbish, more time on roads etc

The poll tax was exactly to get round this, everyone who was liable paid the same rate within areas.

I'm well aware of how it works, under your local income tax idea, someone that earns a high salary but chooses to live in a small home will have to pay more than their neighbour next door in the same sized home that earns less. As you say, the poll tax was the fairest option as everyone paid for the services they received.

 

[Bear]

That obviously depends on your interpretation of fairness. For example, it'd be 'fair' for everyone to be taxed 30% on ALL of their income, with no tax free allowance or benefits, and charging everyone the same for basic council services. Many would deem that unfair, though, given how it'd affect one person on £15k/year and another on £150k/year.

Income tax already allows for income redistribution which I am perfectly happy with, council tax should be payment for local services so should cost the same.

I hate the BS arguement that people that are wealthy should pay more for services, yet as soon as you ask if it is ok to charge more for the wealthy to have premium services above and beyond that then it is a two teir system so shouldn't be allowed. It's a case of fairness is you pay more but no matter what you shouldn't get more than me, it's bull ****

 

[Westyfield2]

Poll tax was a flat rate, everyone paid the same.

It was hated by those who like to cram 6 people into a small mid terrace, loved by singles and couples who had a larger house.

TBH there are issues with the current method and the poll tax. Why they don't switch to a local income based tax I don't know.

The whole point of Poll Tax was pretty sensbile, you pay based on the number on adults living in the house. Whether they're a rich adult, poor adult, white adult, black adult, gay adult... it's just the number of adults, makes soo much sense.

Because the services you are supplied locally shouldn't be dependant on income. Why should some people be charged more for the same service?

And this is the key point with "equality" that people don't get. Why should some people be charged more for the same service? Poll Tax was correct as it was a single flat-rate per-capita tax on every adult.

 

[hurfdurf]

And this is the key point with "equality" that people don't get. Why should some people be charged more for the same service? Poll Tax was correct as it was a single flat-rate per-capita tax on every adult.

How is it equal when one person is earning £100k a year and the other earning £20k a year? The person earning £100k a year has a lot more to lose so should be thanking his lucky stars for the society around him allows this gross inequality and be grateful to pay the percentage of his tax lest his salary be taken by the person earning £20k a year.

 

[godinman]

How is it equal when one person is earning £100k a year and the other earning £20k a year? The person earning £100k a year has a lot more to lose so should be thanking his lucky stars for the society around him allows this gross inequality and be grateful to pay the percentage of his tax lest his salary be taken by the person earning £20k a year.

I saw this thread title and your username in the 'last post' field and came for the lols, I wasn't disappointed!

Some people are just better at life than others. Just because some people are abject failures in life why should the good, successful, better evolved, most likely better looking, rich people be taxed more than required?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

And this is the key point with "equality" that people don't get. Why should some people be charged more for the same service? Poll Tax was correct as it was a single flat-rate per-capita tax on every adult.

My idea of fairness (note I don't state equality) is "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs".

Poll tax didn't meet that criteria.

 

[Bear]

How is it equal when one person is earning £100k a year and the other earning £20k a year? The person earning £100k a year has a lot more to lose so should be thanking his lucky stars for the society around him allows this gross inequality and be grateful to pay the percentage of his tax lest his salary be taken by the person earning £20k a year.

Because the person has had the redistribution of income taken already by paying the 40% tax. As already said, I don't have a problem with this, what I do have a problem with is paying more for local services because I earn more because you shouldn't have to pay more for the same thing because you earn more.

 

[Bear]

My idea of fairness (note I don't state equality) is "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs".

Poll tax didn't meet that criteria.

Yes it does, income tax already takes care of your idea of fairness. Goods and services which are the same shouldn't be charged according to your income.

 

[m4cc45]

So, essentially, me and my wife are not planning on having children, ever. It's our choice as is the choice to have kids.

Should we not have a tax discount because we are not going to be clogging up doctors, removing money via child benefit, using 'free' educational services, etc.

It's an interesting argument and I don't see any discounts for just married couples it's all about families (i.e. child benefits, working families tax credit, etc).


M.

 

[Destination]

Where's £1.70/meal coming from? Eg. our submariners get fed on a budget of £2.32/day (so ~77p a meal).

Edit :: and they're adults, of course.

Quite possibly overestimated by me, I did simply take the lunchtime meal costing as a UK average currently for school dinners, and multiply by three, assuming breakfast would be cheaper, some healthy midmorning fruit snack, and an evening meal more expensive than that of breakfast.

Conceptually, feeding all the kids in the country similar food, healthy food, regularly I think would be a wonderful health initiative, as one can adress the fat turds from a young age, and attempt to stop the issues developing later. But as I said I think there should be some form of national service, and additionally morning exercise for all kids every day too, as part of their school program, the way SE Asian countries did for generations.

 

[Destination]

How is it equal when one person is earning £100k a year and the other earning £20k a year? The person earning £100k a year has a lot more to lose so should be thanking his lucky stars for the society around him allows this gross inequality and be grateful to pay the percentage of his tax lest his salary be taken by the person earning £20k a year.

He should be thanking his lucky stars the govt only takes 34000 of his hard earned pounds? Really promotes the idea of working your ass off in education and then in your employment to then have to thank your lucky stars for it?
Seriously?
Did I miss the sarcasm in your post or are you firing a troll cannon across the thread?

 

[Muffin`]

He should be thanking his lucky stars the govt only takes 34000 of his hard earned pounds? Really promotes the idea of working your ass off in education and then in your employment to then have to thank your lucky stars for it?
Seriously?
Did I miss the sarcasm in your post or are you firing a troll cannon across the thread?

No he's deadly serious, I'm sure he was nodding in agreement at Ed Balls recently announcing a pensions raid on the of the harder workers to pay for the unemployed to be employed. This makes a nice sound bite but ironically runs the risk of putting people out of work who are being replaced by state wages and probably just voted him in. It also goes further to hammer home the point that if you work for something in this life you're expected to support those who chose not to.

I have no doubt in Ed's ability to get the money he said he would from pensions, he has a proven track record of managing it swimmingly.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Yes it does, income tax already takes care of your idea of fairness. Goods and services which are the same shouldn't be charged according to your income.

BUT council tax charges you more or less locally based on the house you live in, it doesnt even attempt to look at ability to pay

So you should be more opposed to council tax than a local income tax surely?