Depends how you define "wealthy". Sure the ultra-wealthy would find them irrelevant (but they are very few in number). The comfortably off do value them from what I have seen - especially state pension, NHS and bus passes.

Depends how you define a high earner I suppose.

I used £60k as that is the level family allowance is reduced to zero under the current scheme.

There is no supposing at all. HMRC define a "high earner" for the purposes of self assessment as someone earning in excess of £100k

Yes, but that isn't sacrosanct.



My point was simply that the tax system should be capable of establishing a cut off point for "universal" benefits without incurring huge cost. Its a different matter as to where, morally, that cut off point should be.

Dally is right on this and Chuka Umunna has made the same argument for Labour.



However harsh the Tories want to be, if they started really attacking the poor now there would be some disquiet from paternalistic middle England that would say 'thats not on chaps'.



But by removing entitlement to 'universal' benefits from better off sections of society now and ignoring their grumbles, they can be sure that when they do start on the poorest, middle England will just look on in grudging acceptance saying "we lost our child benefit spending money so the poor can suffer their bit too"



But I agree with the posters on here that say it is simplest to just allow universal entitlement and use the tax system to neutralise the benefit for the better off. I would however be a bit more creative with the tax system and not just focus on taxing income, but look to put lump sum taxes on things like property, which are harder to avoid and also non distortionary in terms of work incentives.

But then you get the farce we have at the moment where a couple earning £49k each keep the benefit when a single earner household on £50k loses it.



You'd need to have both single self assessment and household self assessment, or even better have a transferable tax allowance between couples, it all adds to the bureaucracy and that costs money.



No government has the balls (or the brains) for a full root and branch reform of taxation that we really need.

Whilst I have expressed support for universal benefits earlier in the thread, I have to say I've enjoyed a wry chuckle at some of the indignation that has come out of the people on £50k a year losing their child benefit. There was even an article in the London Evening Standard yesterday saying "why should those with children be punished whilst their childless counterparts get off scot free?"



Their childless counterparts have not been getting this benefit for the past few years either!



And for people that earn over £50k a year the benefit is essentially one of extra spending money. The problem is a lot of the time Middle England is keen to moralise about people 'living within their means' and say that people on council estates shouldn't be paid just to produce children if they can't afford them. But they furiously deny that the child benefit for those over £50k is just extra spending money and will tell you that just because they are on over £50k they are NOT rich, and they have 2 cars and a mortgage to run and private school fees to pay and once you take that out there is nothing left, so they need to have the child benefit or their 'children will suffer'.



Maybe they should have thought of this before they opened their legs and popped kids out? Have they not heard of contraception? The state should not pay people to have kids if they can't afford to bring them up. But also if they really need that income what is wrong with taking a second job? Being an entrepreneur on the side? You can create your own jobs. Middle England gives this advice to the poor so surely they could be able to do these things to provide for their hungry children, rather than rely on taxing wealth creators out of the country in order to subsidise them for getting pregnant.



I remember after the last election Ken Clarke causing a bit of rumpus for saying in the middle of all the Tory populist claims about "we're on the side of the workers not the shirkers" that Middle England has not understood how much it is subsidised and how much it will stand to lose with the cuts. He was right and this is the start of the complaining.

What has any of that got to do with the debate of whether Universality or means testing is the way to go?



Also if you are really serious when you say "The state should not pay people to have kids if they can't afford to bring them up." then you represent a victory for the governments deliberately divisive policies. If you ask that question surely you must be also asking "Why do I pay toward the NHS when I am not ill?" or perhaps you should advocating people don't "pop" kids out unless they themselves are prepared to pay for their education in its entirety?



I would also suggest the indignation of those losing the benefit isn't because they are losing it but because other households earning twice as much are keeping it.

Says who? It is a philosophical stance pretty much in the same way someone of a right wing persuasion might argue for the scrapping of all but the bare minimum of benefits and the implementation of a very low taxation because they believe that is an incentive to people to work. It is far from irrelevant in the wider context.







That is a complete generalisation and an opinion whereas what I have said about this is in fact one of the accepted cornerstones behind the concept of universal benefits. It is not what they get but the fact they have to pay in so others get it that becomes the problem. You often see on here statements along the lines of "Why should I pay for....." when it comes to paying taxes toward something they do not directly benefit from.







Well its not capable as the current farce over child benefits shows. The benefit is paid to the mother so that immediately makes it a more complicated system to administer as they have to find out the fathers tax position assuming they are still together that is.



Even if they sort this out using taxation is far from flawless anyway. For example if you do a salary sacrifice for anything such as pension payments then HMRC sees you have a lower tax bill and if that takes you below the threshold you won't lose the benefit. (Eligibility for University subsistence loans is similarly affected).



So if you can reduce your personal taxation liability this way or if you are not on PAYE as many self employed are not you can arrange things so you are missed from the net.



There are so many anomalies in the removal of child benefit through the tax system it is a complete joke.



Also regarding self assessment, many high earners are not self assessed. You will only be self assessed if your tax situation demands it such as if you receive a benefit on kind from your employer which they notify HMRC of. If you just take a salary then your tax affairs are simple from their point of view and HMRC leave you alone. This is what happened to me when I gave up the company car for a car allowance. They were only too pleased to have one less self assessment to deal with.

Is this 2013 or 1973?