The Child Benefit fiasco has raised objections. But not the right objection.
Yes it is ridiculous and unfair that a couple on shared income of £87,000 might keep child benefit, whereas a couple on combined income of £45,000 may lose it.
The Tories say it's fair that the middle classes take a hit too. Which is true. But, why should someone on £45,000 lose out on about £1,500 a year, but someone on £2 million or £20 million a year lose no more? This is not a way of making the better off pay their fair share.
The really fair way of hitting the better off would have been to raise the top rate of tax. But of course that would make the super rich pay more, wouldn't it? You know, people like George Osborne's banker friends.
When even this small change is such a balls-up, it doesn't inspire much confidence that Osborne knows what he's doing.
Comments
he problem is they were only introduced to offset the fact that more money was going to the tax man in the first place - give with one hand and take away with the other. It was teh government not trusting parents to spend their money on their kids, and creating a load of unnecessary admin positions to handle it.
Do away with the lot, give tax breaks to those with children, and increased tax allowance when one partner is home to look after the kids. It's not hard.
And as to whether that should apply to everybody, of course! Why shouldn't it? If you base your economic policies on the fact that a growing population is good for the economy (a fantastically short sighted plan as far as I can see, but one that pretty much all countries seem to subscribe to) then it does need to be universal benefits.
And I've never understood why somebody should be punished with higher taxes for being rich (and no, I''m not rich by a long shot! Besides, I live in socialist Sweden).
Plus, is there not a 50% top tax rate for the super rich already? or do you propose we resurrect the old Harold Wilson rates of up to 95%?
Beatles - Taxman
----------------
Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
(if you drive a car, car;) - I’ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit;) - I’ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold;) - I’ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet.
Taxman!
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Don't ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
And you're working for no one but me.
Taxman!
No it's 40% whether you are on £45k pa or £20 million (though if you are in latter category you have probably found ways of paying almost nothing).
(1a) The population of the UK is at such a point that it is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain a happy environment for the residents.
(1b) The world is overpopulated. We should be doing our bit and shrinking the local birth rate so that we can accommodate some of the others from elsewhere.
(2) Children whose parents are not prepared to give up something substantial for them are not showing sufficient commitment. To encourage continued good parenting maybe parents should get a rebate if their offspring make it to 21 without a criminal record.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8604215.stm
There is no reason why any parent should receive any money, or any child should rely on the income of the caretakers.
The Truth is that each CHILD should receive any funding required for good health and education.
Mind you what has the 50p rate got to with the point I was making: that cutting child benefit is not a fair way of raising revenue comparing to, say, raising the rate on 44K plus slightly to raise the same amount?
Then there's an economic case for recompensing mothers for the earnings loss associated with having kids. In which case, child benefit should be available to all, rich or poor.
Just sayin'!
How do you define "fair share"?