Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

...to still be sooooo angry at the UNFAIR way the Government has decided who does and doesn't get Child Benefit!

(321 Posts)
candyandyoga Sat 27-Apr-13 22:09:26

I know it's done and dusted but I'm so fucking annoyed. How can they get away with their bonkers policy that if two people in a relationship earn just under the threshold they keep their CB but if one person earns over the threshold they lose it!?!

MeNeedShoes Sun 28-Apr-13 00:01:20

Pisses me off. YANBU.

candyandyoga Sun 28-Apr-13 00:03:37

ssd big fat lol, your bitter rants make me howl with laughter

Anyone with an ounce of comprehension can see I am talking about the fact it is an unfair way to decide who and who doesn't as two can be earning just under and keep their cb (so they have more overall income) but one may be a sahm with a partner who earns just over and loses it. There is no sense in that, but there is fuck all anyone can do and this shitarse government can do what the fuck it likes and we have to just accept it even though it is an unfair and unequal policy!

Fuckers!

expatinscotland Sun 28-Apr-13 00:04:48

'Yanbu. Funny how means testing universal age related benefits would not be worth it but this is.'

This.

WFA, link it to those claiming Pension Credit and cut it for everyone else.

YANBU.

candyandyoga Sun 28-Apr-13 00:05:25

seesenseeople - my condolences on the loss of your husband xxxx

seesensepeople Sun 28-Apr-13 00:07:51

Thank you candyandyoga

ProphetOfDoom Sun 28-Apr-13 00:16:07

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seesensepeople Sun 28-Apr-13 00:20:01

Thank you Schmatltzing Matilda - I guess the point is that it is a badly worked out (and thought out) policy.

So OP YANBU for being annoyed at this policy.

ihategeorgeosborne Sun 28-Apr-13 08:50:23

YADNBU. It is a nasty policy that probably won't save what they hope it will. I suspect it will end up being their downfall in 2015 too. I'm sure they will live to regret this.

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 09:18:47

YAsooooooNBU

Waves at Georgesmile

George and I could rant for hours over this.grin

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 09:21:27

Yep wouldn't even consider voting Tory whilst this is in place(however shit the other options are).

Would rather vote for the Monster Raving Loony party instead(probably not a lot in it common sense wise).

VinegarDrinker Sun 28-Apr-13 09:27:11

I think it is stupid to just look at a single income.

However, if you are earning 60k is £80 a month really going to make or break you? I guess if you have 4 or 5 kids then it adds up but most people don't.

Or is it just the principle that annoys people?

MaryMotherOfCheeses Sun 28-Apr-13 09:36:31

It's the principle. It's making a change and doing a very bad job of it.

Yadnbu.

ihategeorgeosborne Sun 28-Apr-13 09:37:01

The principles and the practice annoys me vinegar. As someone further up said, they're trying to show that the 'rich' are shouldering the burden while cutting other benefits for the poor. However, the real rich are getting a 5% tax cut. In many cases, particularly single mothers, without additional earning capacity will be hit very hard by this cut. £80 a month isn't a massive amount to lose for a family on 60k vinegar, but if you have 3 or more dc, it becomes considerably more than that. In fact a single earner on 60k with 3 dc will lose around 50k in their life time from this policy. This is 50k that a family with two earners each below the threshold will get to keep. Waves to pebbles smile

StormyBrid Sun 28-Apr-13 09:37:12

I'm far too poor to be affected but it still annoys me. If you're going to means-test something, then means-test it properly! All the other means-tested benefits are done by household income, why should child benefit be different?

ssd Sun 28-Apr-13 09:44:11

candyandyoga:

"ssd big fat lol, your bitter rants make me howl with laughter

Anyone with an ounce of comprehension can see I am talking about the fact it is an unfair way to decide who and who doesn't as two can be earning just under and keep their cb (so they have more overall income) but one may be a sahm with a partner who earns just over and loses it. There is no sense in that, but there is fuck all anyone can do and this shitarse government can do what the fuck it likes and we have to just accept it even though it is an unfair and unequal policy!

Fuckers!"

WOW and you call me bitter, have you read your own post??

of course the policy is crazy and unfair, anyone can see that....BUT after reading so many posts on here from people really struggling with money and living with real hardship, its hard to read another poster complaining about this when her/his partner earns over 60k a year......but if people want to see this as bitterness on my part go ahead, I've got nothing to be bitter about, mortgage paid off, both working, kids doing well, would like somethings to change but know I cant complain.

StanleyLambchop Sun 28-Apr-13 09:48:17

Would rather vote for the Monster Raving Loony party instead(probably not a lot in it common sense wise).

At least Lord Such had a natty range of hats to wear (sorry, not helpful, as you were)

YANBU- it is a bummer for us as well.

Binkybix Sun 28-Apr-13 09:52:56

I'm sorry seseeople.

I agree that the implementation has been done really shoddily. I heard someone once (can't remember who) saying that the ideal had been a sink cut off for a set amount of earnings per family unit, but that they could not do this because of IT and looking at 2 people's earnings. But that doesn't make sense to me because surely that's exactly what they're doing for universal credit?

NoWayPedro Sun 28-Apr-13 09:53:42

YANBU

The point is (as I understand it) two people could be earning £55k each, still qualify and what's worse - still claim. That is what is unfair about it. Whatever if someone in the OPs household earns £60k - her neighbours could be earning up to £119 and still qualify? Stopped policy

sashh Sun 28-Apr-13 09:53:47

Yanbu at all. It really pisses me off that we lose it all yet if I earned £10k more and DH earned £10k less we'd get it in full.

Maybe it will do something about the inequalities in pay for men and women.

NoWayPedro Sun 28-Apr-13 09:54:29

*stoooopid

LittleBearPad Sun 28-Apr-13 09:55:27

OP, given you admit this is done and dusted, why are you cross today about it?

The approach the government has taken is absurd because there are holes in the policy (1 higher rate taxpayer losses it: 2 basic rate taxpayers earning more together keep it etc) and the fudge they came up with re tapering to £60k etc is even more stupid. However we can't afford universal benefits any more (including WFA for pensioners), it might have been better to scrap it completely and add it to child tax credits instead.

BarbarianMum Sun 28-Apr-13 09:59:37

Well it isn't fair but an income over 40k is still a great blessing. Dh is (just) over the threshold and I rarely earn enough to pay tax on but really we are damn lucky. Hate filling in the Self Assessment forms tho, and this hasn't helped.

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:04:52

I think it should just be given to 2 children for everybody(I have 3 ).

Easy to administer,would save a lot more and not reward people for having lots of children.

The way it has been done shows utter lack of thought,logic and is quite worrying to be frank particularly when you consider the unfairness in the way pensioners keep their universal benefits.

Basically they're saying we don't value fairness,pensioners are more of a priority and we want to discourage sahp.

Ashoething Sun 28-Apr-13 10:07:40

ssd-you are aware that someone earning 60 grand doesn't actually take that amount home aren't you?-what with them having to pay 40% tax?

We were going to lose our cb until they amended it-dh earns 45 grand-not his take home pay ssd-I really rely on the cb.Its the only money I have in my name.

Its very unfair but it wont change under labour-government are determined to force mothers back into the work place whether that is what they want or not.

LittlePeaPod Sun 28-Apr-13 10:07:50

I can sympathise with your position and my note is not intended to annoy although I suspect it may do that But what are people's thought for couples or single people with no children that get taxed to heaven and get no tax breaks of any sort? Nothing, zilch not unless I missed something! The forgotten voters as my boss refers to them!

My OH and I are in this position. We are ttc (1mc) but before we considered it we took account of affordability (childcare, ML etc. I am sure there will also be unaccounted for expendeture) before starting. If all works out (fingers crossed) I will be going back to work. But we took into account I may not be able to leave the baby. It's taken us years to now get to a position where we feel confident that we can afford to start ttc. We never took any form of benefit support into account. I understand things can change and we may find ourselves in hard times unexpectedly but that's when I would expect support from the government and not before. The line has to be drawn somewhere and those on the threshold will always be unhappy about it.

I guess if the government gave everyone everything they wanted we would be in a very untenable position as a country.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now