Child Benefit

[mudskipper]

Given that other income related benefits are based on household income, it would make sense for CB (and tax) to be the same.

[AtW]

The top 1% of earners on £150k+ does not equate to squeezing the middle classes. They are a special class of their own.

That 1% is probably responsible for most of private jobs.

[d000hg]

I'd estimate the ones owning the companies is more like the top .1%

[DodgyAgent]

That 1% is probably responsible for most of private jobs.

And there are simply not enough of us

[Old Hack]

Given that other income related benefits are based on household income, it would make sense for CB (and tax) to be the same.

I couldn't agree more.

[rootsnall]

It's about increasing marginal tax rate.

This was politically easier than slapping 2% on the upper tax rate.

It's soak the rich.

UK Budget 2012: Top 1% of earners contribute almost a third of all the income tax | This is Money.

What the tax the rich sob stories don't mention when saying they pay a third of tax is that income tax is only half of it. NI ( the politcally acceptable tax rise because people are thick - and that rich people and contractors don't pay ) and VAT are taken from just about the first pound you earn.

If these stats are to be believed ( UK tax receipts since 1963: full data | UK news | guardian.co.uk ) the tax take and public spending figures are actually converging quite sharply !? Perhaps the Tories aren't as useless as they first appear, but then again I'm sure they are.

[d000hg]

VAT is only a tax on spending. NI is more insidious although you do get a pension back, although has anyone ever worked out approximately what a typical person contributes over their working life against what they would get back after retirement if they live to average age?

[formant]

Given that other income related benefits are based on household income, it would make sense for CB (and tax) to be the same.

Yep.

However it also made sense for it to be universal. A welfare system should benefit everyone - in other countries the equivalent to Jobseeker's allowance is actually livable and based on the claimant's previous income for a limited period of time, meaning it's a safetynet for everyone unfortunate enough to lose their job.
Nobody can live off 71 quid a week (contributions based JSA).
So since UK benefits generally only actually benefit those at the very bottom (where the entire household is on a very low or no income), scrapping child benefit for higher earners is like taking the last bit away that was giving something back to those who pay in the most (well assuming they have kids). :-/

[cailin maith]

Given that other income related benefits are based on household income, it would make sense for CB (and tax) to be the same.

WSS

How they can think it's fair for a family with one earner just over the threshold to lose it while 2 earners just under don't, is beyond me.

Yep.

However it also made sense for it to be universal. A welfare system should benefit everyone - in other countries the equivalent to Jobseeker's allowance is actually livable and based on the claimant's previous income for a limited period of time, meaning it's a safetynet for everyone unfortunate enough to lose their job.
Nobody can live off 71 quid a week (contributions based JSA).
So since UK benefits generally only actually benefit those at the very bottom (where the entire household is on a very low or no income), scrapping child benefit for higher earners is like taking the last bit away that was giving something back to those who pay in the most (well assuming they have kids). :-/

+ 1

[d000hg]

Nobody can live off 71 quid a week (contributions based JSA).

Lots of people can live of £71/wk if they're also getting housing benefit.