parliamentary information office: many reasons these cuts are wrong, first of which is because they're not based on joint income. Secondly, self-employed have far more wriggle room and can avoid it more easily. Further, there is no recognition that £50k is not the same everywhere. In a country where so much of the market is London (a shame, I think) a high proportion of the jobs are here and £50k doesn't go as far as it does in other places.
For those who say the tax payer should not be 'funding the wealthy', please consider that taxpayers pay for the wealthy's medical care, education in state schools, roads, etc. Don't take such a narrow view on one item and remember that if you want to restrict child benefit to the less well off, that does not remove any incentive for them to have more children, it only removes the incentive for those families who have one earner over £50k.
For a much better way to reduce government spending, have a look at the number of politicians representing a relatively small population. We need fewer politicians which would result in fewer special projects.
parliamentary information office: I entirely agree with Mr. Gauke on cutting these kinds of benefits for middle class families and upwards. If anything, I think the limit of £60,000 (is that individual or family income?) is not low enough.
However on personal allowance cuts for pensioners, I think there are very good reasons for maintaining the age-related scaling. Here are a few for you Mr. Gauke:
1. Pensioners by their nature are no longer accumulating wealth (for the most part) and changes in the tax system has a proportionately greater effect on their income, particularly as this is likely to be significantly lower than when they were earning. This might be offset to some extent by lower expenditure as age increases but that, in my opinion, is about personal choice.
2. Pensioners who have a pension income that will be impacted by the changes are going to be those who have spent their life contributing to the system , do not depend on benefits and have accumulated their pension rights through savings and/ or company benefits. If anyone deserves a break to enjoy a little bit more of the fruit of their labors it is pensioners. It's all very well to talk of sharing the pain but in the latter part of your life it is quite literally a life sentence because there is no guarantee you will be around for the long term gain after the short term pain.
3. Changes of this nature to the tax code always hit the lower middle income earners the hardest; those at the margin of the threshold. Again at this time of life, when you might already be struggling to get by.
parliamentary information office: There is another injustice in the system that I think has not been aired sufficiently. Both my wife and I work full time, pay for childcare, have a couple of hours with the kids in the evening and spend the week juggling priorities between work and home. It was my choice to have kids and because our joint income is 'comfortable' I agree with child benefit being taken away from me as part of being 'all in this together'. What I do object to however are couples who make the decision for one partner (usually the female partner) to stay at home with the kids and then qualify for further tax credits or other benefits. If one parent chooses not to work then they should stand on their own two feet financially. I am not happy to subsidise their lifestyle juggling my work and family so that they can enjoy the benefits of spending more time with their kids.
parliamentary information office
For those who say the tax payer should not be 'funding the wealthy', please consider that taxpayers pay for the wealthy's medical care, education in state schools, roads, etc. Don't take such a narrow view on one item and remember that if you want to restrict child benefit to the less well off, that does not remove any incentive for them to have more children, it only removes the incentive for those families who have one earner over £50k.
For a much better way to reduce government spending, have a look at the number of politicians representing a relatively small population. We need fewer politicians which would result in fewer special projects.
parliamentary information office: I entirely agree with Mr. Gauke on cutting these kinds of benefits for middle class families and upwards. If anything, I think the limit of £60,000 (is that individual or family income?) is not low enough.
However on personal allowance cuts for pensioners, I think there are very good reasons for maintaining the age-related scaling. Here are a few for you Mr. Gauke:
1. Pensioners by their nature are no longer accumulating wealth (for the most part) and changes in the tax system has a proportionately greater effect on their income, particularly as this is likely to be significantly lower than when they were earning. This might be offset to some extent by lower expenditure as age increases but that, in my opinion, is about personal choice.
2. Pensioners who have a pension income that will be impacted by the changes are going to be those who have spent their life contributing to the system , do not depend on benefits and have accumulated their pension rights through savings and/ or company benefits. If anyone deserves a break to enjoy a little bit more of the fruit of their labors it is pensioners. It's all very well to talk of sharing the pain but in the latter part of your life it is quite literally a life sentence because there is no guarantee you will be around for the long term gain after the short term pain.
3. Changes of this nature to the tax code always hit the lower middle income earners the hardest; those at the margin of the threshold. Again at this time of life, when you might already be struggling to get by.
parliamentary information office: There is another injustice in the system that I think has not been aired sufficiently. Both my wife and I work full time, pay for childcare, have a couple of hours with the kids in the evening and spend the week juggling priorities between work and home. It was my choice to have kids and because our joint income is 'comfortable' I agree with child benefit being taken away from me as part of being 'all in this together'. What I do object to however are couples who make the decision for one partner (usually the female partner) to stay at home with the kids and then qualify for further tax credits or other benefits. If one parent chooses not to work then they should stand on their own two feet financially. I am not happy to subsidise their lifestyle juggling my work and family so that they can enjoy the benefits of spending more time with their kids.
parliamentary information office
No comments:
Post a Comment