Newest Review: ... of benefits which works out at 26K - However, this taxpayer is subsidizing them and does not qualify for the child-benefit allowance. On pa... more
Something About Mary Poppins...
Parental Support in general
Member Name: 1st2thebar
Parental Support in general
Advantages: Has unearthed a political agenda namely a poisoned chalice
Disadvantages: Grotesquely unfair measures that doesn't aid anyone, except for political gain
Child benefit cuts - is it fair?
A staggering 72% (ComRes Poll) of us feel that welfare funding should be either increased or frozen. A stark message to an administration that is hell-bent on dividing the UK into a 'shirker' or 'striver' nation via political media hype, while slashing welfare by 23 billion in eighteen months of governance. This is a poisoned debate which ever means you look at it. I advocate a sharper tax system that'll defrag tax avoidance schemes, targeting multi-international corps who trade in UK yet pay "zero corporate tax." Develop stringent programs that'll track IP addresses of eBay businesses / power-sellers, money-making websites and Avon representatives, who rarely declare their earnings to Her Majesty's tax and revenues via the SA (Self-Assessment) system. I know of seven affluent families whose main earnings are via online businesses and Avon Sales. The problem is; these families pose to be in need of benefits yet break the 60K salary. Defrauding the tax office by not relaying their true earnings therefore will continue receiving child benefit - causing the law-abiding strivers who work for legitimately registered businesses, only to get stung with the copiously unfair child benefit cut - this is profoundly unfair - iniquitous, to single parents, their logistics and their 'cost of living.'
A single parent taxpayer who earns 61K in London yet pays child-care fees is no better off than a family on the full entitlement of benefits which works out at 26K - However, this taxpayer is subsidizing them and does not qualify for the child-benefit allowance. On paper, she looks comfortable, a 42,000 take home pay packet - although take away 1,100.00 GBP for London average monthly child-care fees - 450.00 weekly rent for a standard three bedroom house which she could easily afford with a partner, already this is a different story. This equates to 35K per annum; leaving her 7K for fuel and living costs - all forced on her due to her marriage break-up (Forced Poverty); her quality of life has diminished substantially; our governance has shredded organizations such as the (Child Support Agency) that would've once protected her from this financial plight - remarkably, she has worked all her life without any hand-outs from the state, and through unforeseen circumstances has worked hard to become a hard-up 'hand to mouth' taxpayer. At the top of her manager pay-scale and no chance of a pay rise she is locked into an unfair system whose caricature tabloid message claims to 'protect', 'worship', and is known as a 'striver.'. Odious political rhetoric! Alas, on a dual income you can earn 98K and still qualify for the child tax benefit. For me, this denotes gross unfairness; and is on par with Lord Myner's (the 2009 Financial Services Secretary) RBS botch-up in not claiming back the banking fiend's Fred Goodwin's golden handshake - 'an annual pension pot of 700,000 GBP'; another feather for the wealthy 'Barnes hostie hat,' earmarked for Royal Ascot 2013 and thereafter.
The defining point of the child benefit debate is: child-care costs which equates to over two thirds of a monthly wage on average - therefore any salary below 20K, is not viable in real-terms, if you've a family to support. I would understand the child benefit cut more-so if our innate coalition had capped child-care fees - or even successfully capped monthly rental for generic housing - instead the coalition panders to the private landlords / housing associations and professional child-minders - in-turn this may escalate into a humanitarian issue by the end of the year; partly due to another benefit cut whammy. In April 2013 Housing benefit cuts come into fruition, causing a potential 700 thousand tenants to go into (temporary?) B&B orientated homelessness - and a high proportion of these benefit claimants have children. Bang goes the thirteen year Labour policy of taking 'children out of poverty' - they're now back in poverty - the amiable vision from the last administration will be totally reversed within three years of the coalition governance - now that is a tragic achievement. This de facto scenario brought on by a flat-lining economy and no fiscal stimulus plan - How do you explain this to a cold and hungry child? A 'fistful stimulus' is a plausible plan, thumping on the doors of Downing Street. One thing to note though; statistics announced by politicians are seldom correct and are politically laced with rhetoric leaning towards their allegiance. The 'wolf in sheep clothing' is the additional Income Tax Charge - aimed at individuals earning over 60K, who continue to get child benefit into February 2013 and beyond, thinking they've been means tested and passed with flying colours. The system is designed to claw back 7 billion by 2017; if it doesn't, a heavier ITC burden will be introduced on 15% of the working population. No single-parent family should be taxed at 50 pence! Instead the coalition is forcing people to stay in passively aggressive, unhappy marriages; in real-terms; the children are undeniably vulnerable in this situation.
The banana skin if you're a parent earning over £50,000 and having child benefit, there is an additional Income Tax charge on your take-home pay - it is equivalent to 1% of out every 100.00 GBP of earnings over the 50K threshold. Basically, an additional tax on the tax you've already paid out of your salary - the amounts nevertheless depends on the taxman though, ambiguous styled means testing directly from the tax office itself. Therefore the unfairness goes beyond the actual welfare cut as the tax office predominantly have the last say of what you're entitlements should or should not be - this isn't necessarily a cul-de-sac. Take a leaf out of the 'politician handbook of expenses' instead: Turn to the chapter called: 'exploiting taxation's loopholes.' (1) Set-up a private limited business - (2) Pay yourself a livable wage - (3) Then pump-up your annual income as a dividend. This is legal and will entitle a single-parent to reap a full child benefit too. UK taxpayers should wise-up to ITC style taxes - this isn't mere hyperbole, this is a fact.©1st2thebar 2013
Summary: Cloud Cuckoo Land