5.10.10

So the new coalition government are making some cuts. Nothing is safe it seems.... Not even Child benefit, which has been a universal benefit since it was bought it. Now, house holds were one of the parents earns enough to pay the top rate of tax will not be entitled to get the benefit. On principle, I agree with this. However, I disagree with the current tax bands and how they go about setting the limit... Why one parents earnings and not both of them?

Firstly, I will tackle the tax bands (stop me if you've heard this before).
1. Personal allowance will be raised to £10,000
2. Between £10,001 and £30,000 you pay tax at 10%
3. Between £30,001 and £60,000 you pay tax at 20%
4. Between £60,001 and £100,000 you pay tax at 30%
5. Between £100,001 and £150,000 you pay tax at 40%
6. Above £150,001 you pay tax at 50%

Secondly, I do believe that if your family income (ie that of both parents together) is above £60,000 it is likely, that you are not reliant on child benefit to get you through the week. So why should you get the benefit?

Why am I against what the current government is suggesting given what I am suggesting. Well, the current top rate of tax starts at £37,401. The government is proposing that only one parent needs to be paying this tax rate to stop the benefit. The simplest way of expressing my concern is this;

Family A
Parent 1 earns £43875
Parent 2 earns £43875
Total income is £87750

Family B
Parent 1 earns £50350
Parent 2 earns £37400
Total income is £87750

So both families have the same income before tax.
Family A have a take home income of £72790 paying an average joint tax of 17%.
Family B have a take home income of £71495 paying an average joint tax of 18%
Family A will get child benefit while Family B doesn't. What is fair about that?

For the first time in my life, I can say, I agree with David Davis. The government need to think carefully about how they implement this cost saving measure.