Child Benefit ........2013

[Fuschia]

Tee hee

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/middle-class-to-sell-their-children-201010043135/

[new mother]

I would like to see people who buy mega houses costing eg 5,10, 20mm, paying stamp duty instead of buying via off shore companies and avoiding it completely. That really makes me mad as the stamp duty requried to move in London often eats up the savings people have put aside to use towards the move!

[Sonners]

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would like to see people who buy mega houses

> costing eg 5,10, 20mm, paying stamp duty instead

> of buying via off shore companies and avoiding it

> completely. That really makes me mad as the stamp

> duty requried to move in London often eats up the

> savings people have put aside to use towards the

> move!

I am not sure that this is correct - it is my understanding that Stamp Duty Land Tax applies to all UK property, regardless of the residence of the purchaser so it is payable by offshore companies, trusts and individuals just like any other purchaser. And of course the rate is going up to 5% for residential properties over ?1m from 6 April 2011.

It may be true that some purchasers try to avoid it via SDLT schemes although the majority of these are ineffective nowadays due to the increased anti-avoidance legislation.

[new mother]

Sonners, the loophole - or yawning chasm - is that stamp duty is eg 5% on these mega houses but 0.5% on transfers of shares in companies. So, you don't sell a house, you transfer shares in your company. And, lo adn behold, that company owns a house.

[Sonners]

Ah, I hadn't realised that was what you meant, sorry. Then true, there is only one lot of SDLT paid when the company first buys the property.

[BB100]

Hubby told me a couple of years ago we were not having anymore children because we can't afford it. Whilst it will be good to see the same rule applied to those on benefits, I can't help but think it only punishes the children with parents that choose to have more anyway (and what about those mothers who are raped or widowed?). However I know at least three women at my school whose children have just reached their teens so have recently had babies to keep their benefits.

And I'm all for the capping of housing benefit. You can get a very decent 3-4 bed semi-detached house in SE London for ?1200 per month (capped at ?1400). I should know because whilst I pay my heavy mortgage and council tax, my benefit claiming neighbour lives for free in an identicle property next door.

[nunheadmum]

If you want to reduce your income a little to come under the limit being imposed, I understand that there are other salary sacrifice options other than just Childcare vouchers e.g. training, other benefits etc. It may be worth discussing with your employer if some of these could be feasible. I know in the past there was quite a lot of scope on what could be included - I'm not sure if it's been tightened up at all. But worth looking into if some of the costs you pay yourself could go via your employer and hence bring your income down to the required level. Or perhaps finally get that professional qualification at a net cost of nil once it's all taken into account!

[Senor Chevalier]

I've not posted much so here goes I'll put on my bullet proof jacket and get ready...

There is no perfect system. There are always anomolies. When I was at Uni, my parents were still working (not earning a great deal) so I only got a small grant. One of my best mates had parents who had retired. They were minted and so was he, but he got a full grant (and a wodge of notes everytime his parents came down to visit). Should that have been taken into account? On child benefit, what about low income families where the child has a particularly generous uncle, godfather etc etc. Surely it should be about need - how do we make it fair?

You can't. So pragmatically you make it as fair as you can but also keep it as straightforward as possible - our tax system is stupidly complex enough as it is.

Under the old system it was frankly ridiculous that families with large incomes (e.g. over ?88k) could claim child benefit.

So under the new approach:

*Families earning less than ?44k all DO get child benefit - nobody is arguing with that

*Families earning over ?88k all DO NOT get child benefit - again sounds pretty sensible

*Families earning between ?44k and 88k MAY OR MAY NOT get benefit depending on how the income is split across 2 earners - this anomoly / inequality is what people are flapping about.

Think of it as the intention being that NO families earning above ?44k should really get benefit, but a free upside is being given to a limited group of people with individual incomes below ?44k and combined incomes above (who no doubt have a higher childcare cost in any case). Given the cost of identifying the individuals (earning less than ?44k but earning more than ?44k when combined with partner) exceeds the saving in CB once you've found them - would anyone really suggest implementing a very complicated and costly system to clamp down on this group?

Most of the complaints seem to be the injustice of one group of people seeming to do better than another - that's just life I'm afraid. The important question is whether a family income of ?44k is sufficient to be able to cope without CB (probably about right - must be enough to raise a child, nobody said it would be fun) rather than being miffed / jealous that others seem to have better luck.

Reminds me of the parable of the workers in the vineyard from my Sunday School Days.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard)

I'm not religeous but it makes the point. I also don't have any kids so this probably isn't really any of my business...

[EDZ]

Why should anyone who can afford things like owning a TV, going out for a coffee daily, multiple pairs of shoes or car in the city get money from the government? I am not from this country and I find the sense of entitlement is astonishing. The government should be there to protect and support the most needy. People will be able to cope with the reduction in income by consuming less and buying less expensive options. It's not a disaster. Other societies have faced much worse! Let us all remember where this money comes from which we receive every month. From our own pocket. And frankly looking at how much the government feels entitled to take I would rather that it simply left more in my pocket!

[pk]

Senor Chevalier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Think of it as the intention being that NO

> families earning above ?44k should really get

> benefit, but a free upside is being given to a

> limited group of people with individual incomes

> below ?44k and combined incomes above

that's pretty much how i see it

[Telegraph]

Hi

I am just looking for some guidance! Childminders seem to vary wildly in their charging! I;ve done some research and realise that those listed good/outstanding tend to charge more. I've been quoted anything from ?5 per hour to ?6.50 per hour. What is the general price. Also - can anyone tell me what really happens in the childminder meet up groups? Are the children just left to their own devices ( as I've heard) while the childmimders just have a coffee?

Would appreciate any advice.

Thanks.