A couple of weeks ago, Adam Collyer summarised thusly:
You will remember that George Osborne announced some time ago that child benefit would be scrapped for higher rate taxpayers. That was later clarified to mean that any family with at least one higher rate taxpayer would lose the benefit. And that means all of the benefit. If you go over the higher rate tax threshold by a single pound you lose all your child benefit – which for a family with three children is £2,500 per year. In other words, this would create a massive benefit trap with a huge spike in effective marginal tax rates to 2500%...
... my especial contempt on this is reserved for George Osborne. This is, as I said, a ridiculous proposal in the first place. But even if you accept what he wants to do, there is a much better way to do it. The tax credit system is an appalling mess. But it exists. So if Mr Osborne wants to means test child benefit, all he has to do is scrap it and add the same amount to the child tax credit.
Tax credits are already means tested, so no new bureaucracy to add. In fact, it would remove the small amount of bureaucracy that is currently needed to administer the child benefit system. Tax credits are already based on household income rather than individual income, so no anomalies about two-earner versus one-earner households. Tax credits are not cut off bang when you go above some arbitrary threshold. They are tapered, so as you earn more, the credits are gradually removed. So no benefit trap.
From the BBC today:
The IFS criticises the government's plans to withdraw child benefit from households with a higher-rate taxpayer from 2013, on the grounds that it would create a "cliff-edge" that would mean 170,000 families could increase their income by earning less. The think tank suggests that the government should instead gradually reduce child benefit as household income rises, using the existing means-testing system that is used to pay child tax credit.
Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 42:18-28
23 minutes ago
14 comments:
on the grounds that it would create a "cliff-edge" that would mean 170,000 families could increase their income by earning less
And your opinion?
So it would be an increase in the tax credit for working familys with kids. An increase in that has not been on the political agenda or the subject of debate. It would be an unintended consequence.
How about the fact that a family with a total income split evenly between a husband and wife of over £80,000, if they make the maximum pension contributions can get working families tax credit? That surely beggars belief and screws the taxpayers.
"Far better to scrap it and reduce the overall tax rate."
But it benefits an influential section of the economy, the pensions industry and it encourages people to have a private pension, which politicians like, as it saves the taxpayer money/gives them (the pols) more money to spend on fun things, depending on how you lokk at it.
JH, my opinion is that benefits should be flat rate, non-means tested and universal or not at all. The second rule is that bureaucracy and admin should be kept to a minimum, so as awful as income-related withdrawal of Tax Credits is, it's still not as bad as having a parallel bureaucracy to impose a complete cut-off at an arbitrary threshold.
Den, Adam didn't say that this was a good idea; he merely explained that it would not be quite as daft as what they are actually proposing. By the way, I trust that you are aware than "working families" get f- all in the way of Tax Credits? It's mathematically impossible, in reality, Tax Credits boil down to massive bungs for unemployed 'single parents'.
UKF, that's because tax relief for pension contributions is complete and utter madness on any level. Far better to scrap it and reduce the overall tax rate.
B: "it benefits an influential section of the economy, the pensions industry"
Agreed.
"it saves the taxpayer money/gives them (the pols) more money to spend on fun things"
No it doesn't! That's the whole point - the entire value of the tax breaks is swallowed by the pensions industry and is borne by non-pension savers who have to pay extra tax to subsidise them. The pol's don't get an extra penny to spend - because they've already spent it all on their mates in the 'pensions industry'. It's basic maths, go and look it up.
I wasn't thinking of that, I was thinking that if you have more people who have private pensions, then you have fewer pensioners who are entitled to the sort of goodies that you are only entitled to if you are broke.
Well it's certainly nice to get some support from the IFS. What a shame I slagged them off on my blog today!
Politically this is a ticking time-bomb for Osborne.
How about child-free tax credit? Less rental pressure, less road congestion etc.
I think enough for a speedboat should be adequate. It would create loads of jobs.
AC1
B, you've fallen straight into their trap, that's how they justify it, but having looked at the numbers, it is a Big Fat Lie. If alleviating pensioner poverty is your thing, it is far far cheaper giving money to pensioners when they need it, than it is giving money to working age people with spare income to pass onto the pensions industry.
AC, the IFS are pretty good, all things considered.
AC1, OK, repay the Child Benefit you got when you were small and we'll pay it back to you as Child-Free-Credit.
I wasn't suggesting that "pensioner poverty" would be alleviated, I was suggesting that the amount given in state handouts to pensioners would be reduced and yes. of course it's a big fat lie; I'm not suggesting that it's te truth, merely that the pols can pretend it is.
B: "I was suggesting that the amount given in state handouts to pensioners would be reduced"
At best, every £10 thrown at the pensions industry saves £1 in means tested benefits; but means testing of benefits in itself discourages people from saving. Means testing is an entirely man made and unnatural idea dreamed up by bureaucrats which costs the taxpayer an awful lot of money; as is the idea that by transferring money from poor people to rich people money you can make poor people less poor.
"At best, every £10 thrown at the pensions industry saves £1 in means tested benefits"
Win - win: £9 for those sterling chaps in the pensions industry and £1 more for the pols to play with.
"as is the idea that by transferring money from poor people to rich people money you can make poor people less poor".
Ah, but you can make some poor people less poor (the deserving poor) whilst making the rest poorer (the undeserving poor) and some of the rich richer (the rich are always deserving).
Alternative post title "They have Sex, Give them Money".
AC1
Post a Comment