Marriage Allowance

[jonny777]

They don't.  The purpose of Child Benefit is to ensure each child has food and clothing. 

 

I don't understand this.

 

Surely, having a child is not some mysterious surprise which affects couples.  There is a modicum of forward planning.

 

I would have thought that in this day and age, if a couple cannot feed or clothe a baby they should not be having one in the first place.

[teaky]

I don't understand this.

 

Surely, having a child is not some mysterious surprise which affects couples.  There is a modicum of forward planning.

 

I would have thought that in this day and age, if a couple cannot feed or clothe a baby they should not be having one in the first place.

It is a basic minimum only.  Just a fraction of the actual cost of raising a child.

 

You shouldn't think of it as a benefit paid to the parent(s), but as a benefit paid to the child.  Does that help?

 

 

btw I agree completely about not having a child if you can't afford it.  A difficult decision but not the best thing for the child.

 

 

A common misconception (no pun intended) is that you pay into the system to get something out of it (e.g. pension) later.  It doesn't work that way.  The current tax payers support the current pensioners.  Children born today will be the ones paying the pensions of people retiring/retired in a couple of decades time.

[APOLLO]

No one thinks these days Jonnt triple 7, no one.

 

Earlier today I went through the full pallava. It went like this. I earn, missus doesn't, so I registered a few months ago

 

Today I received an email with a personal logon link. Have passports / driving licence and national insurance numbers at hand it said.

 

So I log onto given link. First of all, I learn it is my wife who needs to register on the government verify thingy. I didn't apparently need to, as it was wife transferring unused tax allowance to me. This is explained clearly in the link.

 

Here is an overview https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introducing-govuk-verify

 

Anyway the link in the email takes you through the above. You have a choice of verifiers, I chose Experian. You (or the applicant) needs bank / credit card statements and mobile phone handy.

 

You set up an account in the usual manner, though they want 5 answerable questions (name of first school etc type). Couple of personal bank / credit card account questions follow (have your recent paperwork handy), then you give mobile number, they send you a text immediately, some random letters that you type in and BINGO you (or your wife in my case) has a Government account !!. Next step, simple is to put in the persons name and Nat Insurance number who you want your unused allowance transferred to (me in this case) - and that's it - done.

 

I now await to see the dramatic increase in my pension (about a tenner a month I reckon) !!!!!!!!!

 

Now if the system chucks you out - don't ask me, probably lucky this time !!

 

Brit15

[Jim Martin]

Presumably by the same paradox by which they can be well aware of your address for purposes of sending you a Council Tax Bill, by deny your very existence when it comes to the Electoral Roll.

HMRC isn't responsible for either of those things

 

Jim

[Oldddudders]

HMRC isn't responsible for either of those things

 

Jim

But in 2015 isn't it about time Government - and no, not the elected members - had all those things joined up? I wonder which collection of individual fiefdoms benefits from keeping their data separate? Not those who pay their wages!

[alastairq]

 

 

Marriage Allowance

 

 

Shouldn't be allowed!!!

[PhilJ W]

Shouldn't be allowed!!!

Actually the married mans allowance was done away with during Maggie Thatchers term as Prime Minister. Men, and only men, could claim the marriage allowance and they received it irrespective of whether their wives were working or not. If their wives were working they could claim the single persons allowance on their own behalf. This was alright when the majority of married women stayed at home as 'housewives' but increasingly from the late 50's onwards married women started seeking and finding work. The ones who lost out were the by then less than 10% of married couples where the wife was not employed. In subsequent years there has been a trend for many more married women to work part time (and some couples where the male partner works part time but his partner is full time) where the part timer does not earn enough to use all their tax allowance. In this instance it was a simple matter of informing the respective tax offices who would then transfer all or part of the allowance to the partner. This was the system up until I retired seven years ago and it appears from the above posts that the system has become more complicated, what happened to 'If it aint broke don't fix it'.

[Horsetan]

 

...., if a couple cannot feed or clothe a baby they should not be having one in the first place.

  Accidents happen. In fact, quite a few in society wouldn't be here if everything was planned and accidents avoided at all cost

Remember: 90% of people are caused by accidents.

[polybear]

What p***es me off (and apologies if rule changes have made the current situation different) are people receiving child benefit who blatantly don't need it. As an example (and I'm going back six years or more now) there was a guy in our office that was on a very nice little salary, thank you very much. He drove a nice Porsche, purchased new. He only sold that when he couln't get a baby seat to fit it. And purchased a very nice new Audi instead (I'm not talking A1 here.....) for the baby seat. Once "junior" was out of baby seat mode he flogged the Audi...for another (new) Porsche. And said guy was happily telling everyone in the office about receiving Child Allowance/Benefit (or whatever the correct term was/is).

 

Hence why I was p***ed off.....

 

Rant over

 

polybear

[Oldddudders]

What p***es me off (and apologies if rule changes have made the current situation different) are people receiving child benefit who blatantly don't need it. As an example (and I'm going back six years or more now) there was a guy in our office that was on a very nice little salary, thank you very much. He drove a nice Porsche, purchased new. He only sold that when he couln't get a baby seat to fit it. And purchased a very nice new Audi instead (I'm not talking A1 here.....) for the baby seat. Once "junior" was out of baby seat mode he flogged the Audi...for another (new) Porsche. And said guy was happily telling everyone in the office about receiving Child Allowance/Benefit (or whatever the correct term was/is).

 

 

I tend to agree - but any political party withdrawing child benefit would lose the next election. And the PC crowd find means-testing to be demeaning, so there is no likely change in sight, I don't suppose.

 

Some of us would prefer to see a tax on children, doubling with each additional child....

[Ron Ron Ron]

What p***es me off (and apologies if rule changes have made the current situation different) are people receiving child benefit who blatantly don't need it......

 

 

Polybear, In the mid 90's, the government with the blue hats proposed a change to a system that would only provide Child Benefit below a certain family income.

The party in the red hats were totally opposed on the basis that it would stigmatise families on lower incomes.

 

In the later years of the red hatted party's time in power, under Gordon the Big Brown Engine, the proposal was raised again, but rejected by the red hats for the same dogmatic reasons.

A very prominent lady MP in the red hat party (the one who put all her kids through private school, has private healthcare and owns expensive properties in London) stated that such a policy would be "dangerously divisive for British society".

 

Being a high earning family, I was never really comfortable with receiving Child Benefit (well Mrs Ron got it), but in the interests of Social cohesiveness, we reluctantly banked it all and put it towards family holidays.

After all, I had paid for it in the first place and probably at a rate 10 times more than the average Joe.

 

In summary, I agree with you, but it's the left wing who want it this way.

.

[Fenman]

But in 2015 isn't it about time Government - and no, not the elected members - had all those things joined up? I wonder which collection of individual fiefdoms benefits from keeping their data separate? Not those who pay their wages!

 

Not sure I agree with you. A single, monolithic state apparatus is not something I would want to encourage: I much prefer the organs of the state divided up - so local government really is independent of central government rather than being just a local administrative office.

 

It's for the same reason that I don't want a single national police force, or even multi-county forces. I want my constabulary local and accountable, thanks. And that should help them to engage in their communities and reinforce policing by consent, which may even give them "better" results.

 

Of course it may theoretically be more "economically efficient" to have a single structure; but then, that's an argument for a single world government, isn't it, and who would want that?

 

Having written that, I was impressed recently with the joining-up that's clearly gone on between the passport office and DVLA.

 

Paul

[chris p bacon]

It's for the same reason that I don't want a single national police force, or even multi-county forces. I want my constabulary local and accountable, thanks. And that should help them to engage in their communities and reinforce policing by consent, which may even give them "better" results.

 

Off topic a bit.......

 

You ought to come to Bedfordshire, we'd be more than happy to join with any force at the moment. On election day we had a Police commissioner referendum to increase the Police budget by an average of 48p per week per household as we are one of the lowest funded forces in the country. The result was 'No'

So now the smallest shire county with 2 motorways, 2 main lines and an international airport and one of the 'Terrorist hotspots' of the country..........Luton....is losing 130 more Police officers.

 

Beds Police are actually doing work for other forces to earn money as they can do it cheaper .

[chris p bacon]

What p***es me off (and apologies if rule changes have made the current situation different) are people receiving child benefit who blatantly don't need it. As an example (and I'm going back six years or more now) there was a guy in our office that was on a very nice little salary, thank you very much. He drove a nice Porsche, purchased new. He only sold that when he couln't get a baby seat to fit it. And purchased a very nice new Audi instead (I'm not talking A1 here.....) for the baby seat. Once "junior" was out of baby seat mode he flogged the Audi...for another (new) Porsche. And said guy was happily telling everyone in the office about receiving Child Allowance/Benefit (or whatever the correct term was/is).

 

Hence why I was p***ed off.....

 

Rant over

 

polybear

Polybear

 

I read a very good article a few years ago that explained the thinking behind it being a universal benefit, in summary it was because it was for the child not the adult and that even if the family that received it didn't need it, it meant that they felt part of the welfare state and not just a contributer. 

I think another part of the article raised the point that if you started to target child benefit then why did we give free bus passes and TV licenses to rich pensioners. . . . .

[PhilJ W]

I tend to agree - but any political party withdrawing child benefit would lose the next election. And the PC crowd find means-testing to be demeaning, so there is no likely change in sight, I don't suppose.

 

 

The problem is that benefits were introduced into a very different society to what we have today. Child benefit was introduced to counter malnutrition which was a considerable problem at the time and as I stated in my previous post many married women did not work and many of those who did were part timers working for pin money. As aspirations and the standard of living rose and more women went to work the situation changed that pin money became an essential part of a families income, paying for Mediterranean holidays and other luxuries. The benefits system failed to keep up with the changes in society and today is completely out of sync with it. All political parties, whatever their colour were afraid to touch it, even Margaret Thatcher ("There is no such thing as society.") dared not go further than was forced by changes in society, such as doing away with the married mens allowance. Despite the headlines in the largely right wing media and programs such as 'Benefits Street' only a very small percentage of those receiving benefits are scroungers or on long term benefits, in fact the average time a recipient spends on benefits is less than one month.

[The Lurker]

Intrigued by all this.

 

As a widower, living in another European state, I am taxed there as per EU law, despite my pensions being paid in the UK. Fair enough - I probably pay less than those who live here in France but still illegally get taxed in the UK. But I intend to marry again - RMwebber Ashcombe is my intended victim - and she has a flat in Torbay, is rightly taxed as a UK citizen. If I claim her here as a new spouse, her tax affairs will come under French law, where the female gets crap conditions. So we expect to say nothing, continue to be taxed in separate countries, and will, indeed, not live together continuously to keep things going as we see best.

 

This is the inverse of "We're staying together for the sake of the dog!"

Under the UK- France, double tax treaty, pensions relating to employment in one state (in your case, the UK) get taxed in that state and not in the state where you reside. So although you are resident of France (and in theory taxable on your worldwide income in France), the treaty overrides domestic law and you are legally taxed on your pension in the UK.

The UK taxes people (essentially) on the basis of residence, not on the basis of citizenship (which is what the US does, which in convoluted way is why they wanted to tax Boris Johnson on the sale of his main home in the UK - he was regarded as being a US citizen because he happened to have been born there). If Sherry remains resident in the UK under domestic law, as well resident under French law the double tax treaty has tiebreaker provisions, which sort out who gets to finally tax her income and who has to give her relief. (and the UK would probably get the ultimate taxing rights.....)

 

Or you could do as planned and (probably) have the same result with a lot less brain-ache!

[jonny777]

Polybear

 

I read a very good article a few years ago that explained the thinking behind it being a universal benefit, in summary it was because it was for the child not the adult and that even if the family that received it didn't need it, it meant that they felt part of the welfare state and not just a contributer. 

I think another part of the article raised the point that if you started to target child benefit then why did we give free bus passes and TV licenses to rich pensioners. . . . .

 

Free tv licences are not available until one's 75th birthday. Free bus passes are being put back incrementally in line with the state pension age for women.

 

In my case I might get my bus pass in about a years time, but it will benefit everyone when I do get one, because I can use the bus more often (at the moment it is £6 for a return journey of 20 miles) and use my car less when visiting my daughter and grand-daughter.

[Oldddudders]

Under the UK- France, double tax treaty, pensions relating to employment in one state (in your case, the UK) get taxed in that state and not in the state where you reside. So although you are resident of France (and in theory taxable on your worldwide income in France), the treaty overrides domestic law and you are legally taxed on your pension in the UK.

 

Er, no. My pensions, both private and state, are untaxed in the UK, and I declare all my income for taxing here. ISTR that if I had a Government - as distinct from state - pension, that would be taxed in the UK. Police and Civil Service employees come to mind. The BR Pension Scheme does not qualify.

[The Lurker]

Yes there is an exception for state pensions - they don't follow the rule that they get taxed in the state where the employment was

 

.

[Horsetan]

....A very prominent lady MP in the red hat party (the one who put all her kids through private school, has private healthcare and owns expensive properties in London) stated that such a policy would be "dangerously divisive for British society".....

.

 

This sounds like either Diane Abbott or Harriet Harperson.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...You ought to come to Bedfordshire, we'd be more than happy to join with any force at the moment. On election day we had a Police commissioner referendum to increase the Police budget by an average of 48p per week per household as we are one of the lowest funded forces in the country. The result was 'No'

So now the smallest shire county with 2 motorways, 2 main lines and an international airport and one of the 'Terrorist hotspots' of the country..........Luton....is losing 130 more Police officers...

You are not known as 'the Clangers' for nothing! The Hertfordshire Liberation Front has been thinking about a frontier wall to run between Bucks and Cambs...

[Horsetan]

....Hertfordshire Liberation Front has been thinking about a frontier wall to run between Bucks and Cambs...

Splitters! We're known as the Popular Front for Hertfordshire!

[chris p bacon]

You are not known as 'the Clangers' for nothing! The Hertfordshire Liberation Front has been thinking about a frontier wall to run between Bucks and Cambs...

Groan. . . .all courtesy of David Gunns bakery from this very town.......it's just a fake pastie you know........

[Arthur]

 

Following on from what Phil (W) said;

 

One of the difficulties is that it's very easy to introduce a 'benefit', after which it's soon considered a 'right' and woe betide any government who tries to reduce, cap, or withdraw it, no matter how strong the justification.

 

As for benefits to 'wealthy' pensioners.

We receive the winter fuel allowance, we don't need it and so donate it to various charities, but working people less well off than us (I type this from a beach in Mauritius) pay tax to fund it. Same for bus passes, we don't have them but some of our friends, who certainly don't need them, do. These benefits should go to those who need them.

 

And if we did need them, we'd be happy to be means tested to prove it.

 

 

 

 

I really, yes really, must leap to Mrs Thatchers defence, at least in this sense

 

"There's no such thing as society" is usually taken in isolation and misinterpreted. She did not mean, to paraphrase, "you're on your own mate" which is how it's pejoratively levelled at her.

 

She was making two points

 

1). She was warning of a growing, amongst some, dependency culture. One which abrogated personal responsibility because the state, society, will 'save me'.

 

2). That 'society' was not some tangible, independent, body. We, individuals, are society and should recognise our obligations to it. Society, the state, will not pay for it in some abstract sense, it will be paid for by other people, taxpayers.

 

 

Anyway, plebs, the waiter has just arrived with a rum and coke, I must away.....

[jonny777]

I think the problem with means testing, is that the cost of doing the testing to the entitlement is more expensive than just giving the benefit to everyone.

 

I have read interesting theories that everyone aged 18 and over who is a qualifying British citizen should be given £75 a week for the rest of their lives. However, there would be no other benefits whatsoever, and no extra retirement pension.

 

What people chose to do with their £75 a week would be entirely up to them. They could invest it for retirement, spend it as they received it, or put it in trust for their children, or for investment income if they lost their job.

 

But they would be made aware that there would be nothing else, and the responsibility was all theirs.

 

The savings could be vast, and would come from abolishing all benefit offices, pension departments and the beaurocracy which goes with the current system.