ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
HM Government Petition Child Benefit changes - to assess whole family income(39 Posts)
This is a petition about assessing the whole family income, not about whether families with 50k income should get child benefit or not. It is intrinsically unfair and absurd to take away benefit from some families and not others on the same income. Please sign if you agree.
No household with an income of £50k should get state handouts.
In general i agree with you flatpack. But the withdrawal should be gradual and fair to most.
The CB changes initially was a cliff edge which is rarely fair to anyone and only after much protest did they do this slight bodge.
Plus I still can't understand why they didn't just withdraw CB and adjust child tax credits to take it into account for lower earners. All the systems are there. Surely it would have been easier and fairer than this current crock of shit?
Did you ever wonder why Child Benefit came from HMRS not DWP? It's because it is essentially a TAX ALLOWANCE. ie - not a benefit, it is from tax you have paid, but because you have greater calls on your salary, you are allowed to keep more of it. They changed it to make it payable to women, not just the main breadwinner, but then they changed the perception of it, to make it seem like a benefit, that could be taken away.
Seen as a tax allowance, it is far more reasonable to say it should be universal, because all children incur costs.
And why should families WITH CHILDREN suffer more than couples/individuals WITHOUT CHILDREN? Would have made MUCH more sense to slap a penny or two on the HRT bracket, so everyone in that salary contributed, not target children.
(sorry that should be HMRC not HMRS - Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - ie the TAX OFFICE, not the DWP - Department of work and pensions, where all other benefits come from).
Tax Credits are handled by HMRC aren't they? They're a benefit rather than a tax allowance. In spite of the misleading name.
Family income for everything please!!!
DH has paid far more tax over the years than if we had earned 1/2 each.
Ok no child care so overall it cancels out, bit no incentive at all for couples to stay together.
I've paid far more tax over the years as a single person than a couple earning 50% of my salary each ... The only way to make that one fair is to ditch the personal allowance completely.
Assessing whole family income would eliminate the biggest unfairness introduced in the currently shambolic arrangements.
There's certainly a case for scrapping CB all together, rowing it into the the CTC calculation (or the UC calculation as it will become) and making slightly bigger payments to families with a household income less than the current threshold. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the long-term future because making two income-related payments to households with children is a pretty indefensible duplication.
Agreed Cogito. Especially when one of the selling points of UC is to slim down the number of different benefits people have to make and therefore save money in the admin.
Devil's advocate here, what about the idea that parents who both work should keep it because they will have childcare costs that families where only one parent works won't have?
Disclaimer - also thinks it's unfair but have heard this argument from working couples who are keeping benefit.
belleat - they also have 2 personal allowances, so already benefit in that way, which helps to offset some of the childcare.
Its not only children though, if one partner does not engage in paid work then she/he is either enjoying leisure - in which case the family is better off then if two people were working to get the same income - OR she/he is doing stuff, cooking cleaning, look after children, shopping around for bargains that either reduces the cost of living for that family or makes them better off (tastier food, less stress with homework etc). If a family is working 40 hours a week in total to bring in a total of 400 pounds there are much much better off than if a family was working for 80 hours a week for the same money.
I think the change is mad but assessing it on family rather than individual income is equally so
no I would definitely dispute that, it MUST be done on family income. Personally I think childcare should be a pre-tax allowance in the same way that other work expenses are, up to an agreed limit, but it is wrong to give money to families who have a higher income than others who don't get it. The childcare element just shouldn't be factored in, because some families will have grandparents nearby, some will choose different types of provider, some will have work place providers. There are too many variables.
As to 'providing tastier meals etc' - I don't think that comparison can really be made either - some friends work full time, and contract all of that out - so they will have a nanny who does out of school childcare, cooks the meal, cleans the house during the day etc etc. Everyone's situation is different, and the only way to legislate is to be scrupulously fair. To pass a policy with such a blatant inbuilt unfairness is either grotesque stupidity, or social engineering, or a bit of both.
but the nanny will have to be paid for lily paid help is exactly that
yy, absolutely, what I'm saying is that you can't generalise about what people's situations are; you can't assume that because someone is a SAHM then they have loads of time to prepare tasty food etc, or that people WOHM don't have that time.
That's why it should be done on family income, and shouldn't try and second guess what people's situations are.
If you had to pay someone to do the work of a SAHP then you would be talking at least 23 grand, working parents have to either contract this work in OR do it in their spare time.
It is the cliff edge nature (the mass of people with high (40+ grand) salaries that are still getting it that is the problem
but what if you are SAHP who can't do all that work;
maybe they are ill
maybe they are caring for an elderly relative
maybe they are volunteering in school
maybe they have a disabled child
You just can't generalise, and certainly can't make law based on assumptions about people's lifestyles.
People say 50 thou a year is not a massive income. It is if you compare to 15 thou
pickety, it isn't though, and the reason is because it isn't as simple a comparison.
At 50k you have no help with anything. No tax credits. No help with housing. Huge wodges of tax to pay etc.
At 15k there is help to be had, less tax etc.
The interesting stat I like is that the benefits cap was set at 26k. No tax to pay on that. That was seen as 'difficult' when it was set, with many people arguing that it was 'very difficult' to live on that amount.
But on 50k, you are bringing home about 35k before any expenses incurred in going to work (childcare, transport, clothes for work etc). Suddenly they don't seem so different. So it is disingenuous imo to say '26k it is too low for a benefits cap, but someone earning 50k wouldn't miss child benefit'.
Many mothers who stay at home full time to care for children do have additional costs similar to the working mother in any case. Those who want to re-train or update their skills. Also those who are doing valuable volunteer work. I have been thinking of volunteering to work for the CAB, but may not be able to now as the CB would have helped fund childcare to enable me to do this.
I am still convinced that this time next year they will change this policy. They will probably have no choice. Once the reality of the additional self-assessments hits HMRC and all the cock-ups that ensue from that become apparent, they may have to change course. Also, I am waiting for someone to challenge the fairness of this in the courts. I am sure someone will. If not the fairness aspect, there is always the tax confidentiality aspect, e.g. husband doesn't self-assess as wife tells him she's stopped claiming. Who goes to prison? How will that work? HMRC would have to tell husband that wife did claim CB. Surely that breaks confidentiality rules? It's sure one hell of a complicated mess. We'll see
" Once the reality of the additional self-assessments hits HMRC and all the cock-ups that ensue from that become apparent, they may have to change course."
HMRC are actually really keen for more people to self-assess and particularly self-calculate because it cuts costs and reduces mistakes. As for the legality surrounding confidentiality it is always the responsibility of the taxpayer to ensure that they are paying the right amount of tax. Claiming to be ignorant of whether a partner has claimed or not claimed CB won't be a legitimate defence.
BTW... confidentiality doesn't apply when Tax Credits are claimed. Whoever applies is required to submit the household income. If a partner in those circumstances refuses to hand over the information and the household income is under-declared as a result, then it's fraud.
The tax office is now authorised to give out info about your income to your partner/husband.
Join the discussion
Please login first.