So child benefit to go for higher rate taxpayers

(1017 Posts)
foxinsocks Mon 04-Oct-10 07:22:32

So says George osbourne on breakfast telly. Missed the details but sounds like it comes in from 2013!

alfiesmadmother Tue 05-Oct-10 13:55:54

Not sure the government should be giving child benefit to help people with massive mortgages really!!

mike1May Tue 05-Oct-10 13:56:09

If you have a Tory MP then email them. They're currently at the party conference and will hopefully come back to a huge inbox, stuffed with complaints about this proposal.

I just did, beginning my letter with:

I wish to seek your support in overturnng the proposals on child benefit. Coupled with the abolition of the Child Trust Fund this seems to be very much an anti-family agenda.

KBarns39 Tue 05-Oct-10 13:56:30

Strix, so agree.

Unbelievable, yet again! It makes you wonder why they aren't encouraging more people to find work, instead of paying some to sit at home...while us higher earning tax payers substitute this!

I work with many parents that choose NOT to work BUT claim everything going and they often are able to afford a lot more than I can.

SO FRUSTRATING!

poopedmum Tue 05-Oct-10 13:56:32

Some people seem to be missing the point here. Most people appreciate the need for us all to contribute, but if they are going to do it via child benefit then it needs to be fair...ie taking into consideration COMBINED household income and number of children etc. To say that it is too difficult to administer does not alter the UNFAIRNESS of it!

luciemule Tue 05-Oct-10 13:56:59

I agree in principle with the cuts but I thik most people don't agree with the unfairness of how they've worked it out.

Hopefully though, after everyones' complaints, they've realised that the way they described the cuts is unfair.

How is it fair to allow 2 peeps earning 86000 between them but who are separately under the threshold to still have CB, yet disallow those with a combined income/one income of just over the 44000 threshold? Bonkers.

FreddoBaggyMac Tue 05-Oct-10 13:58:44

CINNAMONTOAST: '"DC was on the radio this morning saying that only 15 per cent of taxpayers are on the higher rate. Just want to point out that this is actually a distortion of the situation, as the remaining 85 per cent will include many many people who don't have families."

This is an excellent point imo. DC is pointing out at every opportunity that this is only affecting "the top 15%" but surely he's including teenagers with paper rounds and Saturday jobs in the grand total. I would guess that if you look at the percentage of families it is affecting it would be much, much higher.

dreamingofsun Tue 05-Oct-10 13:59:09

reading these comments i think part of the issue is that in some areas of the country 40k is a lot of money and others not - depending on your cost of living.

fothergill Tue 05-Oct-10 13:59:16

You will find that many earning not much more than you are supporting mortgages of £1000+ in the south east generally. If I had a spare 3 or 400 I would be coping well too.

LyingMachiavellianTrollop1 Tue 05-Oct-10 14:00:05

How about "Fight for Families", or "Mothers in Arms" or "Child Benefit Benefits Children" (CBBC)

angiemoggs Tue 05-Oct-10 14:01:14

I feel SO robbed!!! My parents always told me that you couldnt trust the Conservatives. This is just a sneaky way to raise taxes even more. Whats the point of going to University or working your socks off for a better life, just so that the Conservatives can take so much of it away in tax. Maybe David Cameron should have mentioned this prior to the general election.

earthlymother Tue 05-Oct-10 14:01:45

The proposed Child Benefit cuts are ridiculous! David Cameron says they are fair. Here is the reason that makes my blood boil as to why they are NOT fair:

A one-income family earning £44k or over won't get the Benefit paid. A two-income family with two earners bringing in £40k (or less!) each, could have a joint income of £80,000 and yet they will STILL get the Benefit paid because neither is actually earning over the £44k meaning they pay the higher-tax-rate. So a family on £44,000 won't get the benefit, but a family on £80,000 will.

HOW on earth can that be FAIR???? Means Testing is the only way this sort of cut can be deemed fair, but the Government obviously cannot be bothered to expend the energy and time needed to put that into operation.

David Cameron should know the meaning of the "fair" with his Eton education!!! But I am beginning to doubt he does.

beabea81 Tue 05-Oct-10 14:03:39

I've been a loyal Tory voter since I was 18 - well they've now lost my vote in future elections! What they are doing is anything but fair, I wish they would just shut up about this being a "tough but fair" decision because it is not! It would only be fair if based on total household income NOT whether there is one high rate taxpayer in the house.

So theoretically my better off neighbours, bringing in double what we are but both earning just under the higher tax rate, will still get CB, whilst next door we lose it because my husband earns £47k - £3,500 of which goes on his train commute each year.

It's one big slap in the face from the party I now wish I hadn't voted in in May.

bb100 Tue 05-Oct-10 14:08:19

The Tax Credit system seems to work pretty well as it fairly considers both earners income. Can someone explain why this change cannot be incorporated into something similar to the tax credit system?

I used to work front-line in the benefit system and know how it works but this makes no sense to me.

They keep talking about avoiding forms but you will have to fill in a form to tell them you have a child and who you are living with so they can give you it in the first place.

And how much will it cost to police the thing?

MumtoIslagrace Tue 05-Oct-10 14:08:41

Just saw ITV lunchtime news and am gutted DC says this issue is not up for discussion :-( I voted for him as I thought he was a decent bloke who would do a lot of good for families but how wrong was I? I feel totally, totally lied to at every turn by the Conservatives and would never have voted for them in a million years if I thought they were going to take something this important to me away from me. I am a SAHM and my DH is just under the threshold. He hasn't had a pay rise for 2 years, not even inflationary - where is his motivation to work now? His employer must be laughing to know they are off the hook for any future pay rises as we simply couldn't afford to take one plus I simply cannot see how discouraging my DH to work harder and better himself is good for the economy? We have seen all our bills go up and up and up and CB really is the difference between us sinking or swimming each month. We live in the SE where everything is expensive. We don't have holidays, we moved house last year so that we could go down to only one car (and paid a huge amount in SD at the time - grr!), we don't have debts other than our mortgage and we don't drink, smoke, eat out or fritter our money away irresponsibly. The CB is neither put in a savings account nor spent on ballet lessons. I have a 4 yo, a 2 yo and another on the way. It worries me that I might not be able to buy my children properly fitting shoes when they need them - yes for many families it will come down to the essentials.

Also no one has mentioned what is going to happen to my NI contributions and future state pension provision???

Children123 Tue 05-Oct-10 14:18:09

I agree with Nicky. I work full time and earn more than 44k but know many people who manage on a lot less. If those of us who can probably afford not to receive this benefit don't support the government in trying to reduce the deficit, then the future of our Children in this country will be very very bleak. However I think Mr Osborne needs to rethink this plan as it is extremely unfair to cut CB for a single earner on 44k+ but a couple earning 80k will continue to receive the benefit....how about including the benefit in the tax code (for working mums) and paying it directly to those not working...come on Mr Osborne you are a clever guy, think of a more fairer way!

karanga Tue 05-Oct-10 14:24:14

As many people on here have already said, this is a totally discriminatory policy and not about sharing the burden but about taking an easy shot at modest earners who already pay plenty of tax both directly and indirectly. Why should a dual income family on over £80k receive a benefit that a single income family on £50k don't? They either need to take it away from everyone or come up with a way that means tests income so it is fair for all. Incidently, if any family on benefits will get the average salary then is there a need for anyone to get it? Are they really so poor that they need it more than anyone else? Surely it would be better to scrap it first for over 16's across the board and for those people who receive it when their children do not even live in this country?? There is a big difference in income for those of us whose partners earn just over the threshold and those whose partners are at the top of the threshold. I am disgusted that they have backtracked on an election pledge and whilst I agree cuts do need to be made, there are many other benefits given out willy nilly (particularly to people who have never contributed to the system, not to mention winter fuel for those living abroad??, bus passes for the entire country rather than the local area?). I am never voting for these idiots again.

Pozza Tue 05-Oct-10 14:26:41

I totally agree with everything Rantyknickers says. I think that hard working, middle income families are being hit really hard. Today is my last day at work as I'm being made redundant. As I have 2 small children, this is an opportunity for me to have a bit more time off with them, however we need every penny we can get. My DH has just got a much-needed payrise which will take him to approx. £41k. He also has bonus potential on top of that, but there will be a point where it is not worth him getting the bonus due to then going into HRT and now also losing child benefit.

The idea that we are a wealthy family is ridiculous! We live in an ok area in an average 3 bed semi. My son has just started school but I only got my 3rd choice which is a school only rated as 'satisfactory' by ofsted. I would love to move to try and get him into a better school but can't afford it.

My parents couldn't afford to fund me through university so I did it myself. I wanted to be able to save for my children's future and thought that by earning a reasonable salary we would be able to do this but just seem to be getting punished for it.

The government say that this is far simpler than means-testing. However, surely they are going to have to check every year what everybody earns to see who is eligible for CB. If their process for doing that is as inefficient as it is for claiming tax credits, then surely that will cost a huge amount of money? Will this be the same as tax credits where they make overpayments and then have to claim it back? I really think that if they tackled the inefficiencies of these systems they would save far more money!

BTW - I live in the north of England and know a lot of HRT payers!

This thread is not accepting new messages.