Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

What's the forum view


Tosh

Recommended Posts

The higher rate of tax though is arbitrary and it's likely to be possible for a marginally lower income couple both paying the standard rate to receive a greater income than someone who just makes it into the top rate bracket because they will be receiving child benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutting every single piece of benefits to high earners is a no brainer, not just child benefit.

 

And I include in that people who receive pensions yet have substantial wealth.

 

you really haven't thought this through

 

oh and rather than cutting benefits which are all of a standard size how about increasing taxes on the higher earners more closely related to their ability to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to look at child benefit and say that 'wealthy' people shouldn;t receive it. There are several problems with this approach though. The first is that the welfare state is a universal thing, it doesn't exist just to protect 'the poor', it exists for all of us, we all pay in and we use it when we need it, or we get common provision. Once you remove the principle of common provision, you can remove one of the key elements of mutual interest that we all have in it.

 

There are precious few prepared to make the case for a strong welfare state as it is, and it is crucial that we defend it. Especially in the face of what is an ideological attack, under the cover of a current 'necessity'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to look at child benefit and say that 'wealthy' people shouldn;t receive it. There are several problems with this approach though. The first is that the welfare state is a universal thing, it doesn't exist just to protect 'the poor', it exists for all of us, we all pay in and we use it when we need it, or we get common provision. Once you remove the principle of common provision, you can remove one of the key elements of mutual interest that we all have in it.

 

There are precious few prepared to make the case for a strong welfare state as it is, and it is crucial that we defend it. Especially in the face of what is an ideological attack, under the cover of a current 'necessity'.

Couldn't agree more with that - it's chipping away at the purpose, philosophy and principle of the Universality of provision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When looking at a £44k watermark for this, do you not have to consider the relative costs of living darn sarf as well?

 

I know, in essence, the economy may average itself out a tad in geographical terms of salaries and living costs but I can imagine many people earning £44k and not necessarilly being 'well off'.

 

The top % of earners should carry more of a burden as Swan said. Furthermore, there is a greater likelihood, through clever accounting, that they don't pay the % that they should do anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to look at child benefit and say that 'wealthy' people shouldn;t receive it. There are several problems with this approach though. The first is that the welfare state is a universal thing, it doesn't exist just to protect 'the poor', it exists for all of us, we all pay in and we use it when we need it, or we get common provision. Once you remove the principle of common provision, you can remove one of the key elements of mutual interest that we all have in it.

 

There are precious few prepared to make the case for a strong welfare state as it is, and it is crucial that we defend it. Especially in the face of what is an ideological attack, under the cover of a current 'necessity'.

 

I know that is what is behind the reasoning of child benefit over here in the Swedens. It is an ideological stance that there are some things that you don't have to ask the government for (which would be the case if the benefit was provisional ). And another thing, don't know how relevant it is, having a universal benefit saves some administrations costs necessary for investigations etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that is what is behind the reasoning of child benefit over here in the Swedens. It is an ideological stance that there are some things that you don't have to ask the government for (which would be the case if the benefit was provisional ). And another thing, don't know how relevant it is, having a universal benefit saves some administrations costs necessary for investigations etc...

Exactly right, mate.

 

And once you've started to reduce the availability of a benefit, the salami-slicing begins....next it's a 40k limit, then 35, then 30 etc etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to look at child benefit and say that 'wealthy' people shouldn;t receive it. There are several problems with this approach though. The first is that the welfare state is a universal thing, it doesn't exist just to protect 'the poor', it exists for all of us, we all pay in and we use it when we need it, or we get common provision. Once you remove the principle of common provision, you can remove one of the key elements of mutual interest that we all have in it.

 

There are precious few prepared to make the case for a strong welfare state as it is, and it is crucial that we defend it. Especially in the face of what is an ideological attack, under the cover of a current 'necessity'.

 

what he said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other aspect of it - and someone was telling me that Osborne said exactly this on the radio earlier today that these are the scenarios:

 

One parent total earnings under £44k - gets the benefit

Two parents total earnings under £44k - gets the benefit

Two parents individuallay earning £43k (i.e. £86k total) - gets the benefit

Any single parent earning £44k or more - no benefit.

Any one of two parents earning £44k or more - no benefit.

 

That third option just looks mad to me. One or two of the others look questionable....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely, where cash is not unlimited, it makes little sense to give money to people who don't need it and aim it at people who do?

 

Sure, the universality principle is a good one - in particular as those with the biggest tax "take" might perhaps like to see something in return that's "theirs" rather than "societal" but I can see no logic for giving, oh I dunno, Chris Evans, £20 a week.

 

As the line has to be drawn somewhere, one they can "police" through the tax system makes more sense than, say, "household income of £60k" which would require and army of people to check and police.

 

Odd this. The Govt is reducing benefits for the "rich" and not the poor yet there's unhappiness.... :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely, where cash is not unlimited, it makes little sense to give money to people who don't need it and aim it at people who do?

 

Sure, the universality principle is a good one - in particular as those with the biggest tax "take" might perhaps like to see something in return that's "theirs" rather than "societal" but I can see no logic for giving, oh I dunno, Chris Evans, £20 a week.

 

As the line has to be drawn somewhere, one they can "police" through the tax system makes more sense than, say, "household income of £60k" which would require and army of people to check and police.

 

Odd this. The Govt is reducing benefits for the "rich" and not the poor yet there's unhappiness.... :wacko:

 

Not really, it wouldn't take much to improve the equity of income tax so that those such as Chris Evans who clearly doesn't need it is taxed more rather than inequitably penalise those that earn over an arbitrary figure. Anything that can result in the scenario above where a double income household on 86k get it and a single income household on 44k doesn't can't be right?

Edited by Swan Red
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's why I questioned the family provison. Sure the talk this morning was of a household threshold.

 

No the breakdown is as described by Charlie Clown. It's horrificly unfair. The justification is that it's "too complicated and expensive" to measure household income, because the tax system doesn't recognise the family unit.

 

But miraculously they'll find a way to apply the proposed £26k cap on benefits per household.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutting every single piece of benefits to high earners is a no brainer, not just child benefit.

 

And I include in that people who receive pensions yet have substantial wealth.

What other benifits do high earners get out of interest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, it wouldn't take much to improve the equity of income tax so that those such as Chris Evans who clearly doesn't need it is taxed more rather than inequitably penalise those that earn over an arbitrary figure. Anything that can result in the scenario above where a double income household on 86k get it and a single income household on 44k doesn't can't be right?

Exactly, let Chris Evans pay 1% more tax and give him his £20 a week benefit I say.

 

I can see the next step in this process, the removal of the state pension for those with a private pension over X per annum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...