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!?!

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:10:56

Ashoe it's not just the 40% tax but the single tax allowance no top.

JenaiMorris Sun 28-Apr-13 10:14:16

It's a crude acknowledgment that families with two working parents have higher outgoings (as a rule) than families with a SAHP. It's still bollocks though.

CB should always been a universal benefit. Still, with state education and the NHS being demolished in front of our eyes with barely a grumble from most, nothing surprises me.

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:14:52

Little we were like you. I was 35 when I had my first.

Until you have a child you have no idea what sort of child/children you'll have,what it feels like to leave them,your circumstances,what it's like to balance a demanding job and a child and more importantly the cost which is above and beyond anything you plan for and is affected by prices,inflation etc.

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:16:07

Jenai I agree but not all families on two incomes have higher costs.Many don't particularly those with children over nursery age.

TiredFeet Sun 28-Apr-13 10:17:19

Two people earning 60 k in total will have a lot less take home pay once childcare costs for children and 2x commuting costs are factored in) than one person earning 60K with a stay at home parent. The only people I think it is unfair on are single parent households. But then there must be a lot of single parent households that have to cope on a lot less than 60k.

To be honest I think it should be properly means tested to take into account capital assets too. I know people in low paid jobs but with hundreds of thousands in property/the bank. They will still get child benefit but no one seems to have looked at that angle.

So yes should be properly means tested or not at all, but childcare costs should probably be fairly taken into account as part of means testing.

Babyroobs Sun 28-Apr-13 10:18:43

I agree the CB system is very unfair, it should be worked out on household income .

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:19:44

Yes this forcing women into work thing is I think dreadful.

We should be trying to facilitate choice not trying to punish families.

It's like a slapped wrist for those who want to spend some time caring for their children.

VinegarDrinker Sun 28-Apr-13 10:23:15

Square actually I disagree, this incentivises families where both parents to work part time/fewer hours as opposed to one not working at all and one in a very high paid/long hours role.

(Obviously for this to be more widely adopted would require a sea change in employment culture)

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:23:38

Tired my dc are now at school,amongst their friends most have 2 working families and very few have childcare bills.They use a variety of creative measures and older children at secondary more often than not have longer days,a bus journey and are able to wait an hour.All our neighbour kids do.

Re travel costs my dp has to cycle and car share now we're losing CB,we only have 1 car.It is possible to keep travel costs down however much you earn.

I agree re assets,utter madness.

VinegarDrinker Sun 28-Apr-13 10:24:05

Sorry that post makes very little grammatical sense. You get my drift though.

Binkybix Sun 28-Apr-13 10:25:42

But it's unlikely to be forcing women into work if the other partner makes 60k+ surely? That's a choice to work.

LittlePeaPod England Sun 28-Apr-13 10:28:09

Squares, I really can see where people are coming from. I have two very close living examples (my sister 3dc and my soon to be sister in law 1dc). Both would have loved to stay at home. But they couldnt afford it and went back to work even though Childcare is so expensive. my sister would give it all up to stay at home but she wouldnt even if she could by getting more money from the system. She thinks others need it more.

I guess we as a family just believe that staying at home is as much of a choice as going back to work. Each choice has sacrifices parents have to make.

There are so many people that need help and I think we need to prioritise. Personally I think more money should be diverted to those that need it most (disabilities, very low income, pensioners ect.). I wouldn't want my sister to get more support because of a choice she may make. I wouldnt want me to get any additional support because of a choice I may make.

I am really really sorry but I am not so sympathetic of this cause as I am for others. And there stands another challenge stay at home parents have. childless people that don't see what the problem is and maybe dont understand I guess.

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:29:26

Oh and op can moan as much as she likes.Unfairness is still unfairness however long ago it was decided upon.

Tories would love this to just die.

I've only just found out about the room tax unfairness issue too,just as cross about that.

I think this across the board lack of thought and fairness needs to collectively be acknowledged not just put to one side because it's old news.This is exactly what they want.

This particular elephant will have a very long memory come polling day.grin

ihategeorgeosborne Sun 28-Apr-13 10:32:04

I still think this is an election killer for the tories. I will certainly be giving my tory MP a piece of my mind when he knocks on my door in 2015. I don't think they've felt the full impact of this yet. Maybe the May elections next week will give them a taster of what they can expect.

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:34:24

I regard this as the tip of the iceberg.

If they act like this in a coalition gov riding roughshod over basic fairness protecting their voters above all else who knows what they'd do in another term.

Their arrogance would be immense and another full term is a looooong time.

Scary.

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:35:31

Oh George do you think they will knock on doors,would just love that.My dc would be able to give a good rant too.grin

TiredFeet Sun 28-Apr-13 10:38:13

vinegar whatever people may feel about the benefits of a stay at home parent when children are under school age, surely once they are all at school it is most certainly a lifestyle choice to have one parent still stay at home the whole time? And if you choose to then you have to accept there will be financial consequences.

ihategeorgeosborne Sun 28-Apr-13 10:39:21

I'm banking on it George. I have my spiel all lined up. Although when it boils down to it, I can feel a simple "eff off" will suffice grin

ihategeorgeosborne Sun 28-Apr-13 10:40:47

Sorry that should say, banking on it square not George. Think I was thinking about the hideousness of George Osborne while typing (shudders)

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 28-Apr-13 10:43:57

It was badly thought out, either it should have remained universal or not at all. It would have been simplier to pay for the first child only like the maternity grant. Would have been simplier paperwork wise.

The bedroom tax is a separate issue, its not a tax but a reduction in HB if you live in a house bigger than your needs. You can still choose to have a bigger house but your income must be able to afford it. Which is the same whether you rent or mortgage so a better equal policy for all.

Cloverer Sun 28-Apr-13 10:47:08

Happy - most people can't choose to move to a smaller house, for example disabled people living in specially adapted houses or families with a disabled child who needs their own room. Plus of course, there aren't enough smaller houses for people to move to. The bedroom tax disproportionately affects disabled people and is totally discriminatory - like everything else this government does, badly thought out.

Tailtwister Sun 28-Apr-13 10:47:56

The blatant unfairness of how they made the changes to CB do irritate me, so YANBU OP. Whether people on incomes of over £60,000 need CB is another matter entirely.

Tailtwister Sun 28-Apr-13 10:50:08

The bedroom tax is a more serious example of their stupidity. It works in principal, but where are all these smaller properties people are supposed to move to?

Squarepebbles Sun 28-Apr-13 10:50:29

Errr except pensioners are exempt(have I got that right)?Surely you have to do the same for all or there will be a housing stock shortage for those that have to move due to reduced benefit.

I know 3 working families with children struggling to find anything to rent,having to move kids(some for the third time) from school etc.

There is buggar all to rent round here unless you can afford mega bucks.

Georgegrin

Cloverer Sun 28-Apr-13 10:57:21

I find it appalling that we are in a situation where the government thinks it is fine to charge people for the luxury of being disabled.

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