The UK over complicated personal taxation system.....

“By shifting the emphasis away from Welfare at the same time enforcing REAL living wages, the Govt could slash the welfare budget.”

Just the slight technical problem that of the £122 billion budget - £100 billion is spent on old age pensions. Benefits could be slashed but no party has the courage to do it. Not where it would make a difference anyway.

Politicians, and a large proportion of the public, seem to think we’re still living in 1955 and pensioners are surviving on 2 shillings and sixpence.

 

A lot of them still feel as though they are at the minute. Crazy, isnt it?

 

Crazy isn’t it

 

I assume it’s because tax is personal and not linked (unless you claim the tax element of marriage). Basically they couldn’t check so just thought **** it we can’t be arsed we will just keep it simple.

I don’t even think the tax man cares if tax is 100% correct as long as some tax is being paid

 

They could always base benefits on total household income? Just a thought! If the claims form had a section where you declare other household members they could cross reference.

 

I can't imagine a scenario where a couple with children have a combined income just under 100k and are getting 14k in benefits, I'd like see this theoretical scenario in detail.

 

Didn't Cameron scrap it for the 3rd (and above) child unless it was a multiple birth? Although the scrapping may have been scrapped by one of the more recent failures in No 10.

 

No you still get to claim for each additional child at £14.45 a week.

 

It’s the trick of the psychological language change.
When we were kids it was family allowance, ergo a tax allowance to be paid to the mother, as a safety net for all families to ensure no matter the male behaviour there’d be money for the kids.
Changing the name to child benefit changed the public attitude.
That then enables them to raise questions about ‘universal benefits’, which led to a quick and dirty effort at means testing based on tax rate of either parent. CHB is completely removed from the rest of the benefit system for fundamental reasons and should never have been means tested at all. Most truly wealthy people never claimed it, despite being eligible

So can anyone think why the government might want to open discussions about universality?

 

What happens when they separate?
And who decides whether another household member is or should be responsible for the child?

means testing is by necessity complex

 

I have an 18 year old who lives with us and works, should she be included in the calculations?

 

If she Is in full time employment and not a student and contributes to the running of the house then why not?

 

She’s part time and a student and doesn’t contribute to the house but would still count towards income for the house as you described.
What if she was full time but we didn’t take a penny would she count then?

Just trying to point out too many scenarios to have as simple as that*.

*Caveat we don’t get any benefits and I know very little about the benefit system.

 

Because she’s not a parent.

 

What has that got to do with It? Benefits are to enable a family to meet cost and assist with making ends meet. The roles of each member of the household are somewhere, of not entirely, irrelevant. I am not attempting or qualified to rewrite tu he benefit rules and certainly not on the fly. My OP was a starting point to discuss addressing the clear anomoly of multiple vs single earners in a household.

 

See my earlier post CHB is not a ‘benefit’ it’s an automatic entitlement that was paid to everyone and called an ‘allowance’ when you and I were kids.

And upon its introduction; whilst it was designed as a tax ‘allowance’, sensible people decided that rather than give it as a tax allowance to the main wage earner, paying it to the ‘mother’ ensured that children didn’t suffer in households where there was a risk of financial abuse.

 

Not getting into a protracted debate over this. The Devil Is in the detail. As I said I believe the current methodology is massively flawed and whilst no system will satisfy everyone and there will always be winners and losers there must be a better way to ensure an equitable distribution of 'benefits', 'automatic entitlements' ( call them whatever you like) reaches the people who need it.

 

I’m afraid you’re getting a bit ‘boomer pulls up the ladder’ here.
Your mum got family allowance, no questions asked about hers or your dads income.
You’ve fallen into a rabbit hole judging whether it’s right for other people.
And you don’t think the detail happens only in your head?

 

There you go again.. making it about me not the OP which was about the Welfare budget subsidising businesses. As a generalisation I was merely commenting that somehow redressing the balance by making all employment provider a living wage and reducing the Welfare budget seemed logical. I also acknowledged there are many obstacles to overcome.
Talking 'Rabbit holes'and 'boomers' Is totally irrelevant and unlike many contributors to this thread adds nothing to the discussion. I appear to occupy a space in tour head as you seem to enjoy confrontation. Bye!