Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Stripping child benefit from high taxpayers will cost £370 million watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Stripping middle class families of child benefit payments will cost taxpayers £370 million, the Government has admitted.


    George Osborne, the Chancellor, was heavily criticised when he announced plans to remove the payments from households with a high rate taxpayer during Conservative conference earlier this year.




    In more than nine out of 10 families, payments are made to the mother, but the benefit will be removed if anyone in a household is a high earner.




    Critics describe the move as unfair, because a stay-a-home mother whose partner earns just above the tax threshold of £44,000 will be penalised, while a couple with a combined income of £80,000 where both parents are low rate taxpayers will keep the benefit.




    The child benefit changes, which will hit an estimated 1.5 million parents, are designed to save taxpayers around £1 billion a year.




    But the Government has now admitted that the cost to the taxpayer of creating the complicated new system of clawing back benefits from those on higher rates will be £130 million.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...0-million.html


    Oh for... come on...

    This is ridiculous... the political actions of this government are really annoying me.... they do things for political reasons even when the economics are against them... it's the same as keeping the bloody 50p tax band. It cost the Treasury £4.5bn :facepalm2:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    You do realise those will be one off costs or for a couple of years when we're in transition but after that we'll be saving money year on year?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Meh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    You do realise those will be one off costs or for a couple of years when we're in transition but after that we'll be saving money year on year?
    Exactly. If it's, according to Osbourne, going to save £2.5 billion, how are the 'economics against them'?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hang on, doesn't that article claim that the government will pay out £370 million less, and thus save £1 billion? This seems somehow not quite right...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So a one-off cost of £130 million, to save £1 billion a year... seems good to me. This is just a telegraph article to make it's high-income readership feel like they're being picked on
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Master Roshi)
    So a one-off cost of £130 million, to save £1 billion a year... seems good to me. This is just a telegraph article to make it's high-income readership feel like they're being picked on
    Yep, fair enough. Though with regards with the child benefit thing, it should be revised so despite combined incomes and the like, all those who don't need it shouldn't receive it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This sort of thing isnt new. In order for the UK's debt to decrease, cuts have to be made. Even if it means a fair few injustices to society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is a policy I agree with. The savings of £1bn outweigh the cost of £130m and so is economically efficient.


    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Critics describe the move as unfair, because a stay-a-home mother whose partner earns just above the tax threshold of £44,000 will be penalised, while a couple with a combined income of £80,000 where both parents are low rate taxpayers will keep the benefit.
    Sure, the scheme isn't ideal because of what this quote says. BUT, it would cost way way way way more to do this method because the whole household income would need to be means tested. Osborne's method isn't ideal but it is so much cheaper than this method mentioned above. The Telegraph is completely contradicting itself - it has complained about the cost of Osborne's method and then it goes on to support a method which would cost even more!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't running short term losses in the hope of (potentially) making long term gains what Labour did to get us into this deficit though? Slightly hypocritical of the Tories imo
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Who cares where the Chancellor loses or makes money, overall he'll tax as much as he wants to tax. Just because he loses money here, doesn't mean he isn't getting more somewhere else. His objective is not to make the maximum amount of money possible.

    Politically, I totally support the government on this. Benfits shouldn't be paid to everyone, because mothers whose husbands earn £50,000+ don't need any free money. Just like they don't need uni bursaries when their kids grow up. Giving a benefit to everyone is just as unfair as taxing everyone a flat rate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jono404)
    Isn't running short term losses in the hope of (potentially) making long term gains what Labour did to get us into this deficit though? Slightly hypocritical of the Tories imo
    Why is it hypocritical?

    Major and Thatcher ran deficits too.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 31, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.