to think that child benefit changes to those on over 60k is genius?(235 Posts)
And a bloody good idea? I mean those on under this aren't going to have sympathy and the REALLY rich and powerful? Well, it's nothing to them.
It's also really funny to hear stories of couples trying to think of ways to say they're not a family. So you're living with a man who is the father of your child but you're not a family? Riii-ght...
I think people should just forget subterfuge and suck it up. I earn 100k a year and losing it will mean nothing to me. Rather it went to feed some REALLY poor kid myself.
OK, so I agree that the whole tax/benefit system is an almighty mess and there are all sorts of flaws in the details of this change, but I want to disagree with:
'No-one could possibly claim that a total household income of £98k should keep a benefit denied to another with a total income of £60k'
Single parent families aside, I think that a household with a single earner on 60K probably is roughly as 'well off' in a broader sense as one with two earners on a combined income of 98K. It's certainly MUCH better off than one with two earners on a combined income of 60K. All those SAHMs who like to quote figures saying how large the value of their services as nanny/housekeeper/cook/cleaner/garderer/decorator etc is - well add that amount in to your household income then!!!
Most (OK, not all) partners of someone earning £60K could earn £38K themselves. Or could have done, if they hadn't already taken years out of the labour market. Yes it would have been difficult, tiring, stressful. Yes they would have needed childcare and it would be expensive. And by the time they'd paid tax and travel too, maybe it would have been hardly worthwhile. But guess what? That's what these two earner couples receiving child benefit are dealing with too! These 60K SAHMs could have worked if they had chosen to, but they preferred not to. They feel their family is better off with them not working. Better off than on a combined income of £98k. So that's why I think it's quite reasonable for them not to receive the same benefits.
ABC angel = if you're working you should be paying NI so it's not a problem. It's for non-workers (ha! you know what I mean) for whom claiming CB maintains their NI.
I think that there is a danger that women will stop claiming it if their family falls into the higher income bracket. If those women are not working then claiming CB is what keeps up their National Insurance, and consequently their state pension requirement. This fact does not seem to be well known - many people think it is too much bother to claim it and then get it taken away and they might as well stop claiming at all. I would urge all women, especially those who are not working in order to look after their children, to continue to claim CB and make sure the claim is in their name.
It's not genius. And this is coming from a single mum who earns £9k.
The administrative side will be a nightmare and it will take money off women whose husbands control the purse strings and don't let them have any money of their own.
Other things should be cut before taking money off mums / stay at home parents / children.
If this was on household income, then at least the unfair threshold wouldn't apply, and independent taxation would not be undermined.
But this isn't a proposal based on household income, so pointing out that others are is a total irrelevancy.
Smug be-atch alert eh?
For us we lose it as dh is above the bracket. I'm sahm. I was made redundant. I don't see why 2 should still get it. We struggle to keep heads above water and cope but on we go as that's what u do. I'm not badly of compared to some but we r in the squeezed middle and its extremely hard.
"But WearingGreen, poor people on benefits have had to have their spouse's/partner's income taken into account for years. Sorry, NO sympathy from me"
And also their own income, hence a household earning 98K would be entitled to less than a family earning 50K, not more.
If the cost of administering a form of means-testing minimises the money saved, why go down this route in the first place? It's resulting in an unfair system and resentment.
For a family with two children and one 60K earner the proposals represent a 5% cut in household income.
Many can afford to manage without CB. That is exactly why the proposals have been set out this way. It's so HRT payers are made to feel bad about complaining and the majority of people think they are being greedy and have no sympathy. Don't fall for it. When the principle has been accepted the cut off points will keep dropping until nobody remembers that CB was once a universal benefit and a key part of the Welfare State
I'm open mouthed at the idea that "most" SAHMs "could" earn £38k themselves. Surely it's more realistic to say that "some" could.
Many SAHMs, whether they're capable of earning anything - £10k, £38k or more - are currently SAHM because ..... errrr .... there are hardly any jobs around. So to suggest that had they put themselves out a bit in the past "most" SAHMs could be earning £38k (or more I presume) is naiive ..... unless I'm looking in all the wrong places I certainly haven't noticed a plethora of vacancies offering at least £38k.
It also misses the point that many many individuals earning a LOT less than £38k have also struggled - and continue to struggle - with difficult, tiring, stressful training and employment, and childcare, and are still unable to earn anywhere near that figure despite the fact they're doing useful worthwhile jobs. After all, £38k is significantly higher than the so called average wage. So to suggest that SAHM who've "chosen" to forego that mythical £38k have, in effect, no-one but themselves to blame is just ridiculous.
I'm also not so sure a 2 adult household with 1 SAHM and 1 £60k is broadly speaking as well off as 2 adults both working with combined £98k. That's a very sweeping statement and takes no account of no of kids, or amount of childcare needed, or proximity to work. It's quite possible for example that the £98k household gets free childcare from family, or that kids are 12 plus and parents are happy to have them at home on their own, and that parents work from home or very close by meaning their expenditure is significantly reduced. But of course I accept that to hand out CB - or not - on the basis of means testing such as housing expenses, childcare, commuting costs and so on would be impossible to administer ..... but that's why, IMO, it's unfair to retain CB for combined household income where individuals earn less than £50k each but where it might, feasibly, add up to a lot more than £60k, as people's individual circumstances do vary so hugely.
And I go back to the issue of financial abuse. Just because your dad earns £60k or more doesn't automatically mean kids get everything they need. They should of course but we all know not all families are perfect. Just how difficult is it going to be for women in that situation to continue claiming CB for NI purposes if they fear their husband's reaction when invariably it's going to get clawed back out of "his" money ? How many women like that are going to be told they'll have to "eke out" what (probably paltry) housekeeping they're "allowed" because he doesn't see why he should lose out ?
Pastara the difference between 60 and 100 K is huge.I'm utterly fed up with those in the middle being lumped in with rich people over 100K.
I gave up my career when we had dc and we put everything into dp's career(including a year out for his Masters which we funded ourselves).We had 3 dc v close and childcare bills met it would have been pointless for me to work.
I have worked my entire life bar the years off with my dc and I'm now being penalised for it.
A couple on exactly the same(let alone more) pay less tax than us and with us now losing CB will be £500 a month better off than us simply because I am a SAHP.£500 a month for nothing!!!!!
A couple earning £50K each ie 100K will get to keep it too!!!!
Dp is in the unfortunate position of hovering between 50 and 60K.If he works hard he gets a bonus and will bring us up to 60K.There is now no incentive to work hard and to be frank his new job with more stress and people to manage was probably not a sensible move when you factor in the CB cut ie he might as well have stayed where he was with less stress and CB.
We live in an expensive area with a big mortgage for not a lot.We can only afford to run 1 old car and dp half kills himself cycling 16 miles a day(on top of a stressful day of work) so I can have said car. We need that CB and I'm bloody sick of rich people like the op saying because they won't even notice it those of us that are the squeezed middle should suck it up.If I was on 100 K(like many people keeping CB) I'd gladly suck it up.
I also think those wealthy pensioners with zero mortgage or dependents who have maseeeeeeve private pensions and accounts they can shuffle money around in to avoid paying tax should lose their benefits and WFA and suck it up but then the Tories tend to look after wealthy pensioners and would far rather hammer the squeezed families and kids in the middle.
'Many SAHMs, whether they're capable of earning anything - £10k, £38k or more - are currently SAHM because ..... errrr .... there are hardly any jobs around. So to suggest that had they put themselves out a bit in the past "most" SAHMs could be earning £38k (or more I presume) is naiive ..... unless I'm looking in all the wrong places I certainly haven't noticed a plethora of vacancies offering at least £38k'
If you are unemployed, that is entirely different from being a SAHM. That means actively looking for working, signing on, applying for jobs...that's not what I see the stay at home spouses of 60K+ earning fathers doing.
38K is pretty normal salary for a graduate with a few years work experience. Most spouses of men earning 60K will be in that category.
38K is not normal in my profession for a graduate with a few years work experience. 28K would be doing well.
Irregular utter tosh-I'm looking and if there was work like that I'd be doing it.You forget those of us that have had a few years off aren't exactly top of the queue re work atm and anyhow graduates don't just walk into 38K,that was la la land before the recession.
Also wives/partners can't sign on because their partners are employed(and paying shed loads of tax).
Jins it wasn't normal in dp's with a Masters and a shed load of other qualifications on top.
We will lose it but are lucky that it's not a make or break. It's the glee and almost spite that many folk are showing against those who they see as either high earners/greedy entitled well off folk etc losing this benefit that seems off. It's creating bad feeling and turning folk against each other so maybe people won't care when other people start getting benefits taken away or cut lower down the scale.
I think it's genius too. I for one am massively lookinging forward to the repercussions resulting in domestic violence that WILL happen, fabulous. Especially with SureStart centres closing and Womens Centres closing.
And yes all the money will be redirected to the people who need it like the poor and disabled .....oh wait, they are receiving cuts too.
Well it's still ok because it will pay of the deficit, what sorry what was that? We have to give 12 billion in foriegn aid first? Oh ok.
Ach, well as long as YOU are happy op. Someone fucking should be. Most of us, however, aren't.
I think it is fair if you take in to account the fact that both parents in work have childcare to consider - for under 5's it's £5-10k a year per child - so yes a family with 2 children where both earn £30k so combined income of £60K could have £10-20k coming out - so £50- £40k is left after childcare which is a lot less.
Oooo and let's not forget the bill of administering this utterly unfair farce and the money lost from the system to the rich families who can afford to just up their pension contributions in order to save themselves from losing CB.
Those of us that need it are losing it for nothing.
Maddening not all have childcare,many are part time and are creative/have flexitime/friends etc.Older dc in secondary don't need childcare.
I have several friends and family with both parents working,none with school age children have childcare bills.
With under school age children many of my friends now do CMing swaps ie they look after each others dc on opposite days.
Well yes. The richer you are the more tax breaks you should get. When you are obscenely rich you should of course pay as little tax as possible.
People who only just scrape the 40% tax bracket however should be bent over and rogered until every last penny has fallen out their pockets. They deserve it the bastards.
It's only fair.
Or use grandparents.
Also couples with 2 parents working will both have pensions.A couple with just one working and a SAHP should really be paying for the second pension out of the 1 income which is another reduction on top of paying more tax and losing CB.
I agree it would be genius if families on over £60,000 lost it but some families on way more than that will get to keep it.
That is Stupid and not fair!
I think that salary sacrifice for spousal pensions will be investigated. Not sure it's possible.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.