Do you need to opt out of Child Benefit?

[-Ralph-]

Just a reminder that if you need to opt out you need to do it today.

If you don't do it today you'll still receive CHB, but if you or your partner earn over £50k, then you'll be taxed extra. If over £60k you'll be taxed the full amount of the CHB payment, hence cancelling it out.

My neighbour says being over the earnings threshold and not opting out today means you'll need to do self assessment but I haven't had this confirmed myself. Anyway, I didn't want to get into that, PAYE suits me so I've just opted out.

It will usually be the lady of the household who claims it and is the one who claims who needs to be one to opt out. The online form is here...

https://online.hmrc.gov.uk/shortforms/form/CBOptOut?dept-name=&sub-dept-name=&location=43&origin=http://www.hmrc.gov. uk

[Bri w]

You're right about the need to do a self-assessment if you're still claiming AND earning over the threshold - confirmed by one of the senior HMRC officers on b'fast tv this morning. And yet another (backdoor) method of getting people onto self-assessment.

[FG1]

Oh the joys of not earning loads ............

[Stenno]

According to the http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ website:-

Option 1: KEEP getting Child Benefit payments



Choosing this option means you:

would have to pay a tax charge on the Child Benefit you or your partner get
will have to declare the Child Benefit by completing a tax return
Option 2: STOP getting Child Benefit payments


Choosing this option means that:

you will not have to pay the tax charge
you will not have to complete a tax return - unless you need to for other reasons
any entitlement to Child Benefit will still carry on - providing you or your partner still qualify for it


It still works out in your benefit to claim if either of you is earning between £50-60K mind.

I don't really understand the point of it all though in terms of the 50-60 threshold. Anyone below 50k still gets it no questions asked. Anyone over 60k might as well opt out as they get taxed the full amount. So why have this weird 50-60k bit in the middle where people have to fill out a tax return? Surely even the HMRC don't need the hassle. Why not just create a single 60k threshold, all or nothing.

[Specialone]

Oh the joys of not earning loads ............

As notorious BIG once said 'Mo money, mo problems' :)

[-Ralph-]

Thanks Bri & Stenno

£50k is the starting threshold and £60k is where you loose it completely so you may as well opt out.

£50k isn't loads nowadays, especially with a family to support. Average wage is £26,500 and so two working parents on average wage earn more than that. Where only one member of the family is working and earning £50k they are having a harder time of it. Paying a percentage of that at 40% income tax too, whereas the two working parents on average wage both pay the lower tax rate.

Most people with a household income around the £50k level aren't exactly on the poverty line, but they wouldn't tell you they've got loads of money to spare either.

The fact Child Benefit is being done on individuals income, not household income, is totally unfair.

[Stenno]

Oh the joys of not earning loads ............

Oh the joys of not having kids!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark_h]

And if you are a couple with one earning over £60k and one not earning you don't get the benefit. But two people earning £40k each do. Not quite fair but guess there are bigger problems in the world than middle class folks losing a bit of ski lift pass money!

[NTECUK]

Were do people get figures that high .
I know some get eleventy millions in bonuses . But round hear average wage is more 16k.
IF your on the boarder line why not put the £16,50 + £11 each additional child in a savings fund.
Then if you have to give it back its there ready to go but earns interest.

[carpet monster]

Average wage is £26,500

I wish mine was :(

[-Ralph-]

Were do people get figures that high... But round hear average wage is more 16k.

Office of National Statistics

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666

Professions with a few years experience that get around £25-30k include:
Qualified teachers
Police Officers
Fire fighters
Nurses
Truck drivers
Car Salesman
Skilled office workers (such as Accountants, Personnel, Marketing)
etc, etc...

Tube drivers and train drivers get over £40k.

£16k is about £8 an hour, and the minimum wage for over 21's is £6.19 an hour.

Unskilled work won't get the average wage, but get a skill/qualification of some sort (for instance get your HGV license) and stick in a few years hard graft and the average wage is within reach of anybody.

[NTECUK]

None of our car sales "executives" get any were close to that .
What I do is regarded as a skill and given I haven't had any pay rises in the last 5 years I'm now close to the minimum wage.
I'm sure I'm not unique .

[thefallenangel]

My wage as a tradesman is below that bearing in mind the danger compared to no risk city pen pushers getting big bucks for nothing

[-Ralph-]

I'm sure your not unique, but it doesn't change the fact that £26k is the 'national average'.

[thefallenangel]

An average job pays £12.5k a year for minimum wage. So for each person earning £100k that average can have 6 people on minimum wage. And for people to have a home outside of the big cities in an ok area with them being able to borrow 4 times their wage they must earn £32k. The cost of living to wages ratio is massively out of scale.

[Spank86]

An average job doesn't pay minimum wage. I can't remember the last time I met someone in their twenties or older who was only on that.

Even as a shop assistant 10 years ago I was on more than that.

[The Idle Biker]

My wage as a tradesman is below that bearing in mind the danger compared to no risk city pen pushers getting big bucks for nothing

Ahem, you called? I'll have you know the Waterloo to City line is a minefield of bad breath, BO, Colds and BS most days. Hardly no risk, don't get me started about the overheating of the carriages on South West Trains some days :rolleyes:

What is this child benefit of which you speak?

[MisterTommyH]

An average job pays £12.5k a year for minimum wage. So for each person earning £100k that average can have 6 people on minimum wage. And for people to have a home outside of the big cities in an ok area with them being able to borrow 4 times their wage they must earn £32k. The cost of living to wages ratio is massively out of scale.

yes the cost of living has risen out of line with the rise in wages, but you do not have to earn £32k to buy in an out of city area.

I brought, whilst earning less than that, in an ok out of city area, without any help from the government or anything like that.

[leebex]

I wish mine was :(

me too, im very much under average

[NTECUK]

You would not want to be on £30 k and commute into London for a job as your loose 6k in travel expenses

[Balky001]

Just checking statements and it appears our CB stopped in 2010! Hmmm, bet you can't claim those missed payments back. Wife needs to check her statements once in a while..... grrrrrr

[leebex]

You would not want to be on £30 k and commute into London for a job as your loose 6k in travel expenses

couldnt be bothered with it anyway TBH, 4 miles across town, finish at 4 pm. my money is crap for electrical qualified, but offset but superb hours, and a very easy job.

[-Ralph-]

An average job pays £12.5k a year for minimum wage

Lol, maybe we need to go back to school and relearn what average, maximum, minimum, median, etc means.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[NTECUK]

It just shows how out of touch the policy makers are with the real world .
People are struggling to pay rent .heat there homes etc .
Will this savings help reduce the government debt by much though?

[MisterTommyH]

Really?

People with one wage over £50k are struggling to heat their home and pay their rent?

While people will always miss money like this if someone earns that much and is struggling to that extent then you really have to ask how they are earning that much...

[Wideboy]

Shows how out of touch the entire country is, 50k a year and collecting child benefits? Wtf

No wonder its so difficult to do something simple like buy a house for people living in the real world.

[Sir Trev]

YouAnd yet another (backdoor) method of getting people onto self-assessment.


HMRC don't want people on self assessment if possible - it costs them more to process them.

My wage as a tradesman is below that bearing in mind the danger compared to no risk city pen pushers getting big bucks for nothing

Simplification alert. A Sparkie wires something wrong and trips a breaker - results in rework taking fifteen minutes. A "no risk city pen pusher" makes a mistake in a multi-billion Pound trade - results in corporate bankruptcy and loss of jobs for hundreds of people. The perception that people who work in offices don't earn their salary is a joke.

[NTECUK]

I can't belive any one on 30 k is struggling to heat and eat .
But maybe the org knows better ???
If the tax loop holes were closed up and industry was encouraged to make things would this not help more.

[NTECUK]

HMRC don't want people on self assessment if possible - it costs them more to process them.



Simplification alert. A Sparkie wires something wrong and trips a breaker - results in rework taking fifteen minutes. A "no risk city pen pusher" makes a mistake in a multi-billion Pound trade - results in corporate bankruptcy and loss of jobs for hundreds of people. The perception that people who work in offices don't earn their salary is a joke.

But they would likey keep there job . And get a big bonus for it ;)

[Wideboy]

Not necessarily. A sparky does something wrong causes a fire and kills a few people. A bricky builds a wall wrong it collapses and kills someone. A truck driver falls asleep at the wheel after being overworked.... the list goes on. They make the money for their company and are at the bottom of the company pay scale.

A proper craftsman will still be learning developing skills at aged 60

[timwilky]

OK, I am one of those who earn above the thresholds. But my kids have grown up so we have not seen child allowance for 10 years. This thread is getting stupid.

I am sorry to have to say this but if you do not like what you earn, get qualified and change your job.

I took my lad to Aldi to do his shopping the other day as he is skint having been laid off. As a tiler he is earning about £28,000, but the construction industry has closed down locally. I noticed on the wall an advert for a shop assistant, starting at £7.50 rising to £9.75 after 4 years. So todays school leaver could be earning £20,000 per year by the time they are 20 just working in a shop.

The standard rate for an electrician is £13.43 (http://www.jib.org.uk/handbook.aspx?cid=13) or £27,500 per annum.

In other words, "average salaries" are there for anyone who has completed an apprenticeship etc.


Oh and I work in the power industry. Nuclear, and conventional. Something goes wrong with my input to these billion pound projects and thousands could be impacted.

[Sir Trev]

Not necessarily. A sparky does something wrong causes a fire and kills a few people. A bricky builds a wall wrong it collapses and kills someone. A truck driver falls asleep at the wheel after being overworked.... the list goes on.

I'm not suggesting otherwise Gav, that's why I mentioned it was a simplification. I do however wish people would stop blindly believing propaganda and see for themselves what office workers do for their pay. Most of us don't get bonuses at all and have had no pay rises for years - the people that get big bucks take big risks, are under a lot of pressure, with a lot of stress, and are paid accordingly.

Back on topic - for a simple life I have opted out of the benefit. I do not want to back to self assessment forms. Mildly irritating that we have to alter what comes out of which account to allow for the changes but all in all not a problem.

[Wideboy]

I don't think anyone is really complaining about what they earn. I'm certainly not, we claim no benefits and probably never will. What I am complaining about is I think its a sorry state of affairs when someone earning 50k is eligible to claim any sort of benefits.

Nothing personal to people doing it as their not legally doing anything wrong.

[Wideboy]

I'm not suggesting otherwise Gav, that's why I mentioned it was a simplification. I do however wish people would stop blindly believing propaganda and see for themselves what office workers do for their pay. Most of us don't get bonuses at all and have had no pay rises for years - the people that get big bucks take big risks, are under a lot of pressure, with a lot of stress, and are paid accordingly.

Back on topic - for a simple life I have opted out of the benefit. I do not want to back to self assessment forms. Mildly irritating that we have to alter what comes out of which account to allow for the changes but all in all not a problem.

I agree. Its not just job specific I think there's to much job snobbery all round.

[timwilky]

Then the issue is that things changed We used to have child allowance that was paid for the second and subsequent children.

This then became child benefit paid for all kids. If the word benefit was changed would the payment of this allowance be any more palatable.

To be honest 50k is not a lot in the real world. Earners are probably viewed as being "successful" but actual take home is far less. It amounts to £35,700 assuming you are not contributing to any pensions etc. or £3,000 / month.

So assuming you are paying £1,000/month for your mortgage and probably £500 for the car (loan/insurance/maintenance), £200 rates, £100 gas/electric. So to feed, cloth your family you are left with £1,200 or £300/week. Start adding in the family holiday and the car for the wife to do the school run etc. and a 50k salary does not cut it for a modern family. So the wife has to then go out to work, which in many cases means every penny she earns then goes in childcare.

[Sir Trev]

I agree. Its not just job specific I think there's to much job snobbery all round.

A lot of inverse snobbery too, unfortunately.

[NTECUK]

T So the wife has to then go out to work, which in many cases means every penny she earns then goes in childcare.
Or send her to work nights .
:razz:

[-Ralph-]

Really?

People with one wage over £50k are struggling to heat their home and pay their rent?

Who suggested that like?

[MisterTommyH]

Who suggested that like?

It just shows how out of touch the policy makers are with the real world .
People are struggling to pay rent .heat there homes etc .
Will this savings help reduce the government debt by much though?

At least that was the inference I got from this ^

I've got to say I've not heard one person who is affected by this stating that it is going to mean real financial hardship, just that they'd rather have the money, which I can completely understand.

I did spend my car ride into work this morning listening to some politician suggest that this was affecting people on a low to moderate wage.... which made me laugh. If £26K is the average, then it's quite a stretch to suggest that £50k is moderate. Maybe not huge, but certainly not moderate.

[NTECUK]

Dint say what income people are struggling to pay the bills Tommy.
And the £50k is house hold income not single

[dizzyblonde]

To someone who asked, this cut will save the gov 2bn a year, or 1% of the deficit bill.


As for a woman working nights to bring in money? It doesn't work. I gave up working nights, you still need to cover for your Kidd whilst you are in bed, then you find, you are still only paying for childcare. What would you prefer, the slave at the kitchen sink able to wash yer grots and socks capably, or have her work nights, wash yer grots and socks.......and be in an even more nasty mood than she is when she's got pmt?

[Spank86]

So assuming you are paying £1,000/month for your mortgage and probably £500 for the car (loan/insurance/maintenance), £200 rates, £100 gas/electric. So to feed, cloth your family you are left with £1,200 or £300/week. Start adding in the family holiday and the car for the wife to do the school run etc. and a 50k salary does not cut it for a modern family. So the wife has to then go out to work, which in many cases means every penny she earns then goes in childcare.

Then perhaps your idea of a modern family has rather high expectations?

[minimorecambe]

Then the issue is that things changed We used to have child allowance that was paid for the second and subsequent children.

This then became child benefit paid for all kids. If the word benefit was changed would the payment of this allowance be any more palatable.

To be honest 50k is not a lot in the real world. Earners are probably viewed as being "successful" but actual take home is far less. It amounts to £35,700 assuming you are not contributing to any pensions etc. or £3,000 / month.

So assuming you are paying £1,000/month for your mortgage and probably £500 for the car (loan/insurance/maintenance), £200 rates, £100 gas/electric. So to feed, cloth your family you are left with £1,200 or £300/week. Start adding in the family holiday and the car for the wife to do the school run etc. and a 50k salary does not cut it for a modern family. So the wife has to then go out to work, which in many cases means every penny she earns then goes in childcare.

I am not going to say how much me and WB earn a s a collective but it isn't as much as £50,000 a year.
We pay monthly rent which is quite high and probably higher than a mortgage.
We have 2 cars and 3 motorbikes that all need mots, tax and petrol.
I Food shopping is usually £60 a week and we are careful with electricity, gas and water.

We can still afford luxuries at the end of the month and neither of us claim any kind of benefits and wouldn't feel the need to even with a child.

I'm not saying this will be the same if we had a child but then the luxuries would take a hit i.e the 3 motorbikes.

[dizzyblonde]

The average child costs 20k a year to provide for.....apparently.

Wish I had 300 quid a week to play with....more like 30p! Our earnings are modest, I'm afraid a lot of these 50k earners would be astounded how we survive, eat well and pay the bills. I'll just say I am a dasmn good acountant ;)

[Spank86]

I do think they're going the wrong way about this.

I think they should simply end child benefit for new children from 9 months time.

Job done, nobody has something taken away that they were expecting and the cost of it begins to fall fairly rapidly.

[yorkie_chris]

As for a woman working nights to bring in money? It doesn't work.

My Mom did it for 5 years or more, started off at 2 nights a week (she was a special care midwife). Reason being she wanted to be able to afford a car to go get the shopping and take us kids out.

Worked bloody well for us kids too as we got plenty trips to local parks and bolton abbey and anywhere else there was water and picnics and stuff.

Yes a black labrador can tow an inflatable dinghy with 2 kids in it. I have very fond memories of my childhood and I think it would have been very different if my Mom hadn't worked. So I think saying it doesn't work does a lot of people a disservice.

[NTECUK]

To someone who asked, this cut will save the gov 2bn a year, or 1% of the deficit bill.


As for a woman working nights to bring in money? It doesn't work. I gave up working nights, you still need to cover for your Kidd whilst you are in bed, then you find, you are still only paying for childcare. What would you prefer, the slave at the kitchen sink able to wash yer grots and socks capably, or have her work nights, wash yer grots and socks.......and be in an even more nasty mood than she is when she's got pmt?

Mrs Ntec works nights .in at 6.30 am
I set him up for school .
Son at school she's in bed .
3 pm up looks after him till 6 pm .
Then she might stay up or catch more sleep
I do my own grotes and can iron thanks .
I know what end of a hover is too.
Ok I did miss a black sock Friday and the whites are grey.

[yorkie_chris]

I know what end of a hover is too.

My experience with model aircraft clearly proves the end of a hover is a crash :-P

[Wideboy]

My experience with model aircraft clearly proves the end of a hover is a crash :-P

Pfft you're doing it wrong. Power, smoke and torqe rolls yeeeaahhh!


;)

[dizzyblonde]

When your mum worked nights, were you already of school age? Or of nursery age? Did she have people she could rely on to assist whilst she worked?

Bearing in mind my youngest is 2 yrs old and full time nursery costs double my mortgage.......you can see why its not appropriate for me to work at the moment. Its certainly not going to be of any financial benefit for the household pot.

Working nights did me fine for five years, as a single parent, but my eldest was of school age, and I had help from his grandparents, who had him every weekend for those five years.

[yorkie_chris]

When your mum worked nights, were you already of school age? Or of nursery age? Did she have people she could rely on to assist whilst she worked?

Bearing in mind my youngest is 2 yrs old and full time nursery costs double my mortgage.......you can see why its not appropriate for me to work at the moment. Its certainly not going to be of any financial benefit for the household pot.

Both (just) at school when she went back to work. Regarding people to assist, well my Dad would be at home while she was out and used to give us our tea the nights she'd gone out to work.

School holidays and weekends, I just remember having to be quiet around the house when she was in bed, or our dad would take us out somewhere.

I don't honestly care about your situation and what's appropriate for you as it's not germane to the discussion, and neither am I trying to tell you what is, other than to question you boldly claiming something "doesn't work" when it clearly and demonstrably does for a large number of people.

I'm sure she'd have loved to be able to afford to run a range rover just on my Dad's income but alas! :-P

[dizzyblonde]

I was curious is all. I prefer quality time with my children tbh. Something which lacked severely when my eldest was growing up, due to work.


And.....I don't own a flippin range rover!

As you don't have children nor discuss children often, you may not talk to rather a lot of folk finding it more and more appropriate for the mother to stay at home. It's something which is growing more and more common, whereas for quite a few years women were majorly likely to go back to work after having children. My.mum had three of us, and for a few years did the same as your mum.
My example or situation is relevant. It happens regardless of wether you are on a small income or a much larger one. I have a friend who is just about to lose her child benefit because of her partner's income, but its not appropriate for her to work either, as like me, childcare fees are so extortionate her wage wouldn't cover them. She gets bit in the bum twice.
If we had an income of 50k though..........I think I could run a range rover quite easily ;)

[dizzyblonde]

Right. Now I'm near a proper screen I shall write my thoughts on Child Benefit.

Child Benefit, was introduced iirc around 1946, as Family Allowance. It may or may not have been brought about to encourage people to have children. It was never a 'means tested benefit'. Open encouragement then, has now turned to reducing the people on the planet(which ain't such a bad thing), but we're human, we pro create.

Now, it is 'means tested'. Let me get this straight, I do believe that people who earn beyond a certain threshold shouldn't insist its theirs from entitlement, thus receiving it. Although I'm not entirely convinced this £49,999 for a couple on a single earning for some parts of the country is entirely an appropriate amount. Up here in the North, thats quite a nice sum for a couple with kids to live on(be nice to have more than 20k but that might seem greedy), whereas down South with a whole raft of things adding to the cost of living, £49,999 may not be too great.

What I feel the government is doing again is dictating a personal choice upon human beings. if you earn beyond, £35k? you get taxed 40%, if you earn beyond £49,999 you don't get child benefit, if you have three children(which was the golden quantity in years gone by) you get a benefit capped, if both of you go to work AND COUGH UP TAX fine, they MAKE MONEY OUT OF YOU, if one of you stays at home THEY DON'T MAKE AS MUCH MONEY OUT OF YOU etc etc.

Touching on my personal(and many others)circumstances, it seems those fat cats with big ideas strive to keep the honest working man(or woman) and their families as little people. At every angle, a family pays for it. You can get all the skills you like for a better tomorrow, but some git in Whitehall will always hang you by your bootstraps when you earn it, when they think up yet another way to get your money. The rich always get richer, the poorer always poorer.

The whole system is cracked, and the more they try fixing it, the more it fails, for those who do need it. Child Benefit is just a small needle in a very large haystack.

[Stenno]

Woman on £100K dual income thinks it's a moral outrage... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20915213

[Spank86]

If they are giving money then they have a right to dictate.

Which is why I'd scrap it entirely from now on, that removes any form of government dictation, encouragement or otherwise.


It seems the government is allowed to dictate things by encouragement when it suits us and gives us money but not allowed to discourage when it simply doesn't give money (not even removing just not giving in the first place!)

When did we all get a right to free money with no strings attached?

[MisterTommyH]

1997?

[Spank86]

Dammit, I missed that memo.

Wonder what they should be giving me free money for

[NTECUK]

I used to have free milk to Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher came along ;)

[thefallenangel]

I'm not suggesting otherwise Gav, that's why I mentioned it was a simplification. I do however wish people would stop blindly believing propaganda and see for themselves what office workers do for their pay. Most of us don't get bonuses at all and have had no pay rises for years - the people that get big bucks take big risks, are under a lot of pressure, with a lot of stress, and are paid accordingly.

Back on topic - for a simple life I have opted out of the benefit. I do not want to back to self assessment forms. Mildly irritating that we have to alter what comes out of which account to allow for the changes but all in all not a problem.


I'll put your "simplification" another way. Is someone who works on high voltage systems where problems occur and the risk involved leworthss than the person planning the work? . And as you've said believing propaganda? The woman sticking overtime in the office is on same money as the bloke stood in front of equipment which if wrongly operated could kill himself and others with ease. Office people should come into heavy industrial environments for just one day and see that perhaps we should pay these people more, even more so with specialist equipment as people aren't ten a penny in that world compared to office staff which can easily be contracted out.

[Sir Trev]

Office people should come into heavy industrial environments for just one day and see that perhaps we should pay these people more, even more so with specialist equipment as people aren't ten a penny in that world compared to office staff which can easily be contracted out.

Why do you assume that we don't know anything about non-office work?

There are specialists in all levels of work, no matter what colour their "collar". That's why I made a simplified comment. Picking holes in that with an exceptional case doesn't alter my comment's validity.

This thread is about benefits and if they are still relevant in today's world. In the early post-war era diet and health were not as good so free milk made sense to help kids develop - not so now as a better variety of nutrition is available. Just as child benefit was available to all originally does not mean it should be available to all now. Money (or milk) for nothing makes no economic sense if they are not needed or if you earn enough not to need it.

[NTECUK]

Money for nothing.
Maybe get a blister on your little finger ,maybe get a blister on your thumb.;)

[Wideboy]

Woman on £100K dual income thinks it's a moral outrage... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20915213

She quite frankly should be shot. Why the **** do people in this country think they're entitled to something for nothing. I agree with spank scrap it.

[MisterTommyH]

Why the **** do people in this country think they're entitled to something for nothing.

This!

Why can't the government give me a job,
why can't the government give me something to do so I don't have to hang out on street corners,
why can't the government cook my tea, spoon feed it into my mouth and then wipe my a*se after I've **** it out!

[-Ralph-]

Who on this thread thinks they are entitled to free healthcare? What if next time you booked an appointment at the doctor they presented you with a £200 bill?

I think I'm entitled to free healthcare, I also think I'm entitled to some help if I find myself out of work, or when I retire, because I've paid very handsomely into the welfare state for many many years.

I dont think families over 49,000 household income should recieve child benefit at this point in time, but I do think there it is morally incorrect that families with household incomes of 98,000 are still receiving it, when families with incomes of 50,000 are not. Thats the main point that the woman in the interview is trying to get across. I dont agree with some of what she has said, but its her opinion and shes entitled to it.

[Wideboy]

But its not free health care, You've paid in. It's only free to those that dont contribute.

[yorkie_chris]

What is the sprog payment anyway?

People on £50k are paying something like £14,000 a year in income tax anyway. I bet it's absolutely piddling compared to the amount they pay in to the pot.


It's hardly "giving free money away" when the state already takes that amount off you.

I think it's bollox, if you can't feed em don't breed em. If the tax system was more fair in first place they could save the money of administering all this and everyone would be better off.

[NTECUK]

But its not free health care, You've paid in. It's only free to those that dont contribute.

And that's why the wheels fell off the welfare state .
Things were very different back in the 40/50 's

[NTECUK]

What is the sprog payment anyway?

People on £50k are paying something like £14,000 a year in income tax anyway. I bet it's absolutely piddling compared to the amount they pay in to the pot.


It's hardly "giving free money away" when the state already takes that amount off you.

I think it's bollox, if you can't feed em don't breed em. If the tax system was more fair in first place they could save the money of administering all this and everyone would be better off.

The government has reduced the top rate of tax. So they in the long run are better off.
Most of them employ accountants who can work round high taxes with loop holes

[yorkie_chris]

The government has reduced the top rate of tax. So they in the long run are better off.
Most of them employ accountants who can work round high taxes with loop holes

Care to share? I know a few people who earn up to 50k and talking to them they pay a shedload of tax.

[Dicky Ticker]

Life was much simpler when it was a family allowance book.
Would it not be simpler and fairer to get x for the first child x for the second and then in reducing increments as the size of the family increased.
Linking it to gross earnings of both partners with a ceiling.

When I had kids I worked to support them not depend on the state, apart from the additional tax allowance for a dependent which increased my income before tax.

[NTECUK]

Was think more top wage earners not the average Chris
150k +

[dizzyblonde]

Who on this thread thinks they are entitled to free healthcare? What if next time you booked an appointment at the doctor they presented you with a £200 bill?

I think I'm entitled to free healthcare, I also think I'm entitled to some help if I find myself out of work, or when I retire, because I've paid very handsomely into the welfare state for many many years.

I dont think families over 49,000 household income should recieve child benefit at this point in time, but I do think there it is morally incorrect that families with household incomes of 98,000 are still receiving it, when families with incomes of 50,000 are not. Thats the main point that the woman in the interview is trying to get across. I dont agree with some of what she has said, but its her opinion and shes entitled to it.

+1.

As for YC......may we all point and laugh when he is suddenly faced with having kids, or in 20 years and he's a dad, repeating the same things parents do now.
I don't like the statement ' if you can't feed. Don't breed'. Families lives change up and down. What you going to do when faced with children, flush it down a bog or euthanize, split it up for parts on eBay like a bike?
Sorry, really gets my back up those sort of phrases. :offtopic:

[dizzyblonde]

Life was much simpler when it was a family allowance book.
Would it not be simpler and fairer to get x for the first child x for the second and then in reducing increments as the size of the family increased.
Linking it to gross earnings of both partners with a ceiling.

When I had kids I worked to support them not depend on the state, apart from the additional tax allowance for a dependent which increased my income before tax.

We said this last night. Like the married couple allowances/ benefit/ tax. Makes far more sense to me.

[NTECUK]

Lets remember Child bennifit was for people in Poverty.
Poverty isn't not being able to get a I Phone 5 ,Sky Tv or a pony!!!
+1 for Scrap it

[dizzyblonde]

Lets remember Child bennifit was for people in Poverty.
Poverty isn't not being able to get a I Phone 5 ,Sky Tv or a pony!!!
+1 for Scrap it

Indeed. I always thought CB was there for your child ie, shoes, clothing, nappies.....well that's what I use it for anyway!

[Sir Trev]

Was think more top wage earners not the average Chris
150k +

This is about right. It's true a good financial advisor can help with tax efficiencies but the cost is not worth it in savings until you are well into six digits of salary.

[Spank86]

Who on this thread thinks they are entitled to free healthcare? What if next time you booked an appointment at the doctor they presented you with a £200 bill?

I would but only because I've already paid once. I'd be equally peeved if my private healthcare billed me when I've got insurance there too.

I think I'm entitled to free healthcare,
you should tell the government then, if they agree they've massively overcharged you on social security.

WHo do you beleive should be paying for your healthcare BTW?

I also think I'm entitled to some help if I find myself out of work, or when I retire, because I've paid very handsomely into the welfare state for many many years.

no problem there, thats just insurance government run instead of private.

I dont think families over 49,000 household income should recieve child benefit at this point in time, but I do think there it is morally incorrect that families with household incomes of 98,000 are still receiving it, when families with incomes of 50,000 are not. Thats the main point that the woman in the interview is trying to get across. I dont agree with some of what she has said, but its her opinion and shes entitled to it.

I'm not sure anyone has a moral right to it anyway but yes the skew in payments isn't ideal. Thats why it should be scrapped altogether.

[nikon70]

if only one person owns over £50k yes opt out, if two married people earn £49,999 each then no :)
it is only if one person earns over £50k.... i had to check too.

[Bri w]

What is the sprog payment anyway?



£20 + pennies a week for the first child, and £13 + pennies a week for subsequent children. 3 kids = £2.5k

I know a few people who earn up to 50k and talking to them they pay a shedload of tax.

Don't forget, they only pay the 40% on what they get over £36k(?) but they also pay a shed load of NI. 12% NI of £50k = £6k + the tax bill of about... somewhere around £18k in total.

[Biker Biggles]

I thought there was a ceiling for NI contributions,set at a fair bit below the threshold for 40% tax.So your marginal tax rate is actually lower on that portion of salary that falls above the NI ceiling but below the 40% level.Also,while 40% is a lot more than the basic rate(20%)your marginal rate there is only 8% higher than basic because you actually dont pay the 12% NI.
Im beginning to sound like an accountant now.

[-Ralph-]

Hahahaha! What a load of crap trying to quantify whether the healthcare is free or not! That's a cracker, not heard something that daft all week!

Was my healthcare free when I was a student and hadn't yet paid tax? Or did my father pay for it with his tax? Or maybe it was just a loan and I paid it back when I started working? Maybe the doctor who treated me felt sorry for me and decided his tax would pay for it as a gift! LOL. How much did my healthcare cost? Can we measure whether any of those possible contributors paid in enough to cover my costs? What about when my son gets ill in France and gets treated under his E111, did his French grandad pay that bit??

It's free for gods sakes. Before I started paying tax it was free, and if I stop paying tax tomorrow it'll still be free! Those who are able to contribute to the welfare state do, and in return EVERYBODY gets certain free services.

If you want to go live in a society where you don't get anything unless you pay for it, go ahead. There's places in Africa and South America that will suit you perfectly, but when your mum, kid or girlfriend gets kidnapped and the police don't give a feck because your not paying them and the kidnappers are, let me know if you want to come back to the UK and get services for free. ;-)

[Spank86]

It's an insurance scheme.

We all pay into the scheme and we are all covered as are our kids.

It just includes a few others as well because the government pays for them on the basis that its cheaper not to have pools of disease infecting the healthy and wealthy.

The E111 (as was) is a reciprocal scheme because we're part of the EU, an added benefit of the insurance.

Note that its easier to see in Canada since the government there actually directly employs private companies to provide he insurance in a monopsony, we on the other hand cut out the middle man.


If I lived in South Africa (like my grandad) I'd pay for private healthcare instead of social security.

[Bri w]

Hahahaha! What a load of crap trying to quantify whether the healthcare is free or not! That's a cracker, not heard something that daft all week!

Was my healthcare free when I was a student and hadn't yet paid tax? Or did my father pay for it with his tax? Or maybe it was just a loan and I paid it back when I started working? Maybe the doctor who treated me felt sorry for me and decided his tax would pay for it as a gift! LOL. How much did my healthcare cost? Can we measure whether any of those possible contributors paid in enough to cover my costs? What about when my son gets ill in France and gets treated under his E111, did his French grandad pay that bit??

It's free for gods sakes. Before I started paying tax it was free, and if I stop paying tax tomorrow it'll still be free! Those who are able to contribute to the welfare state do, and in return EVERYBODY gets certain free services.



So does that mean benefits are free? And if they're all free can I stop paying tax and NI?

Its only 'free' if you can't pay for it thro' the tax and NI system. Its a national insurance...

As for healthcare in another EU country, c'mon Ralph you know its a reciprocal agreement. We pay for EU visitors and they pay for us when we're visiting their country.

[-Ralph-]

So does that mean benefits are free?

Yes, The Oxford definition of the word "Free" is

"given or available without charge"

and even uses the specific example of...

"free healthcare"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/free

If you can show me that it wasn't available to you without charge, and give me a receipt to show what your last doctors appointment cost out your your 'national insurance' pot, then I'll agree that it wasn't free. Under a private health insurance scheme then somebody for sure will hold those details.

And if they're all free can I stop paying tax and NI?

Of course you can, just hand in your notice to your employer, or retire. Your free healthcare will still be available.

Its only 'free' if

Make up your mind Bri, is it free or not?

As for healthcare in another EU country, c'mon Ralph you know its a reciprocal agreement.

Indeed I do know its a reciprocal agreement, but it still available without charge, and is therefore free!

We can argue all day about no such thing as a free lunch, but our healthcare system is no more tied down than that expression suggests. Just like when a supplier takes you to lunch, they recoup that in the cost of the goods they supply you, but you pay for the goods not the lunch! You pay NI contributions (which cover a lot more than just healthcare) and in return we all get free healthcare. You've got a receipt in the form of your payslip that says you paid an NI contribution, you don't have a receipt that says you paid for your doctors appt last Tuesday.

[Spank86]

If you can show me that it wasn't available to you without charge, and give me a receipt to show what your last doctors appointment cost out your your 'national insurance' pot, then I'll agree that it wasn't free. Under a private health insurance scheme then somebody for sure will hold those details..

So because we don't get told the cost its free but because we DO get told in private care it's not?

So if private insurers refused to give out costs it would be free. After all the government clearly do KNOW the costs of treatments and also what people pay in NI etc, its just they don't break it down for us usually. I dare say you could find out though with a few judicious FOI requests.

[-Ralph-]

So because we don't get told the cost its free but because we DO get told in private care it's not?

So if private insurers refused to give out costs it would be free. After all the government clearly do KNOW the costs of treatments and also what people pay in NI etc, its just they don't break it down for us usually. I dare say you could find out though with a few judicious FOI requests.

Spank, don't be ridiculous.

Free = 'Available without charge'

Private care is not available without charge. If next year you don't pay your policy, you won't get the care.

If next year you don't pay any NI contributions, NHS care will still be available.

You can't compare one with the other, and say that one makes the other "Free"

[Spank86]

So sometimes YOU don't pay but someone pays.

It's simply parcelled up in a larger welfare scheme. I've lost track of why were discussing this to be honest, I really don't think it equates to child benefit in any way since looking after the health of the non payers benefits the health of the payers, whereas child benefit doesn't really do much either way.

[-Ralph-]

So sometimes YOU don't pay but someone pays.

Absolutely, but by the true definition of the word 'Free' then it is free.

I think we got onto it because people were saying things along the lines of 'why should anyone be given something for free'?

Free = 'Given or available without charge'

I raised the question of free healthcare to draw a parallel, because child benefit is Given. It is paid out of the welfare system, just as is healthcare, pensions, policing, job seekers allowance, disability benefit, roads and infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.

The reason why someone should be given something for free, is because we have chosen to create a civilised society in which we have chosen not to allow people to suffer as a result of not being in a position to fend for themselves.

It's a much better situation to be in, than in a country where a civilised system doesn't exist.

[Spank86]

Ah I see, well healthcare and sanitation should be given free because it is better for everyone that we don't all get cholera.

Child benefit on the other hand doesn't really do the same thing, I don't agree with it being withdrawn from people that rely on it but I DO believe it should be stopped and also that its very existence gives the government a right to interfere in your affairs, whereas its absence would not be dictating who can have children but quite the opposite, it would be absolute non dictation.

[-Ralph-]

Child benefit on the other hand doesn't really do the same thing, I don't agree with it being withdrawn from people that rely on it but I DO believe it should be stopped and also that its very existence gives the government a right to interfere in your affairs, whereas its absence would not be dictating who can have children but quite the opposite, it would be absolute non dictation.

Whooosh, you'll need to say that second bit again.

[Spank86]

Taking away child benefit would not e the government telling people what they can and can't do.

Child benefit IS, it is directly encouraging children.

Taking it away would be maintaining a neutral stance on it, not saying have children or not have them, simply letting people make their own decision.

(I've said before I would put a complete stop to child benefit for new children from 9 months time)

[-Ralph-]

Not sure child benefit alone 'encourages' children TBH, getting onto income support, getting higher on the housing list, etc are probably more influential factors than an 80 quid a month payment, though it is one factor for sure.

That aside though, encouraging somebody to do something is very different to telling them what they can and cant do. Not sure how the government interferes in your choice whether or not to have children.

[dizzyblonde]

If a person is in hospital for regular operations and treatment for 12 months and because of that fails to pay sufficient NI contributions as they've not worked(self employed), benefits such as incapacity and sick are denied.
It also generates lots of nasty demands from the inland revenue to cough up your brass for NI contributions, reminding you that to benefit such treatments on the NHS for 'free', you have to pay your way.

Just to throw in that clanger ;)

It's one reason why my father has been dying on his feet for several years.

[Spank86]

That aside though, encouraging somebody to do something is very different to telling them what they can and cant do. Not sure how the government interferes in your choice whether or not to have children.

Dunno but a lot of people have been saying that taking away the benefit is government I terference when if anything I'd say its the opposite.

[-Ralph-]

(self employed)

Incapacity and Sick are contribution-based benefits

When self employed it's your responsibility to ensure your NI gets paid. If he was not in a financial position to to be able to keep up his own NI contributions and means testing would prove that, then he could have claimed ESA, which would have kept his NI up to date. I'm sure there are individual circumstances that can cause an issue, but no system is perfect.

You may get letters, but the NHS will never refuse treatment at the point of use. It's only if expensive treatment is planned for an ongoing problem, and you haven't met your obligation to ensure it is kept up to date (and that's not necessarily an obligation to contribute yourself) that you may have a problem.

[Specialone]

The basic NI contribution for self employed is ~£12 a month, hardly breaking the bank.

I think they pay it for you if there are problems with you making them due to sickness etc.

Personally, I don't think families should be able to have kids if they can't support them themselves, I'm not talking about families hitting on hard times due to redundancy or whatever, I'm on about the ones who arent working, on income support or equivalent and they carry on breeding with no way of self financing it, it's wrong to expect the state to fund it.

[dizzyblonde]

My point was......... You have to pay.....somehow. Regardless of the amount, you still contribute, even when on job seekers the government pay your contributions on your behalf. Somebody is always paying for it, that free service.

The other point was, he's paid every day of his working life in tax and NI. He gets a kidney disease so rare, he's a guinea pig for the NHS. If he paid his lump of NI that was missing he may qualify for benefit. So he did, then was told nahhhh, not on the list, you get squat. Even with specialist backing, and every doctor in this land saying he should get it, the list said no. You aren't automatically entitled to squat.

As soon as he was remotely capable he went back to work. Walking time bomb, ready to drop dead. He shouldn't be working!

Sp1. When you are told by a surgeon you may only have six months to live, that 12 quid a month when you've paid your dues for half your life, would you want to carry on paying 12 quid, or a lump sum?

[-Ralph-]

My point was......... You have to pay.....somehow. Regardless of the amount, you still contribute, even when on job seekers the government pay your contributions on your behalf. Somebody is always paying for it, that free service

Don't think there is any debate about that, see free lunch analogy above.

[Owenski]

+1 Scrap it entirely in 9 months time for those born a new.

Problem is no one will stand up in parliament and say for fear of been torn apart, People of Britain, if you rely on the £80 then you cant afford a child, you might find this hard to swallow but suck it up accept it and move on. So your lifes been a soap story none of its your own fault but tough doo-doo. If your folks had made the responsible choice you'd not have existed either and nor would a vast chunk of the fund sucking parasites out there. So you want kids, tough 5hit I want a ferarri but I cant afford one so I don't get one, and if you're not mature enough to understand the sentiment of that statement then you seriously should be having kids.

Sounds harsh as feck but if more people were of that mentality we wouldn't have so many wasters kicking about soaking up all our governments budget. Major generalisation here but these seem to be the same folks who grow up to pop out 3 or 4 of their own fund sucking parasites so 2 become 4 becomes 8 becomes 16 and who's left paying into the pot? Yup the kids of the couples who said we can only afford to provide for a single child, who grows up with the same mentality and thus 2 become 1 becomes 0.5 becomes 0.25 see the floor in this benefits state yet? In 4 generations you've got 0.25 of the 50k+'s paying into the pot for the benefits of 16.

We've wanted kids for nearly 5 years now (maybe longer but I cant be sure) anyway we didn't have them, why should we when we wouldn't be able to care for them how we think we'd like to. 2 years ago we were in a position to have our first and its not unsettled us too much, yes I've sold my car and now rely on bikes but that's a sacrifice I found easy to make. Now we're considering a second but only on the basis of my been professionally qualified and the stability that offers. Too many people think kids are a right, they're not. Admittedly they're hardly a privilege either lol but people need to get a grip stop banging out kids like pop tarts. It sounds radical I know but I'd fully support a system where if you collect a budget check you also collect a neutering vaccination.

[NTECUK]

Sounds harsh as feck but if more people were of that mentality we wouldn't have so many wasters kicking about soaking up all our governments budget.
Allot of these people who are soaking up the governments Budget are the Retierd.
Whats your Thoughts ? " Carrousel"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_%28film%29.
For the over 60s.
Its also reduce Strain on the NHS