to think that child benefit changes to those on over 60k is genius?

[patsara]

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.

[whensteaready]

Lucky you then

[patsara]

Oh yes, I am lucky, as are those on 60k a year who also should just suck it up and admit losing child benefit is nothing to them.

[Ithinkitsjustme]

I'd also prefer that someone who isn't as well off got it rather than us, but I also think that the scheme is badly flawed by not using a household income. It's totally ridiculous that a family with 5 kids and a combined income of £61k may lose out (on a lot of money) whereas a family on a combined income of £119 and only 1 child may lose nothing. I don't think anyone would mind losing it on a combined income of £60k, it's the unfairness of it that sticks in the gut.

[ivanapoo]

It's not genius so YABU, but its a compromise that will hopefully save some money in a way that won't hit the poor.

My partner and I earn well under 60K but our salaries combined are slightly more.

However we will have to pay extortionate childcare fees and see our child for only a few hours per working day to maintain this income. I'd much rather one of us earned our combined salary...

[Tailtwister]

Good for you patsara. If it means nothing to you and you think it should go to someone more deserving, why have you been claiming it up until now?

[Brycie]

We'll just be even more net contributors than we've been all our lives.

[patsara]

I've claimed it and put it into a charity.

[YoullScreamAboutItOneDay]

It's not genius. Personally I do not mind that my family will lose the money. We can survive without it.

I do care about the impact on families with one earner living in expensive bits of the country like London. Has anything been done to address the unfairness on single parents, because a single parent on £60k in London, paying for, say, two sets of nursery fees, is not well off. Are they still promising to even that out in the single credit?

[noddyholder]

My dp and I live together and have separate finances yet for tax credits we have to fill out joint form so it is possible to do it on household

[Tailtwister]

Well in that case patsara, well done you!

[abcdangel]

It's not genius, it's completely flawed.

A sensible option would have been to cap it at say 2 children.

[Brycie]

Yes I hope they do this capping thing for future children.

[Ithinkitsjustme]

Methinks this is a windup!

[Savonarola]

No, it's a crap flawed proposal which will be expensive to administer, changes the fundamentals of tax policy in UK and leaves people open to a much reduced state pension. It imposes a marginal tax rate of around 60% on a 3 child family earning between £50-60k, at a time when the government is trying to argue that 50% is too high.

It also can leave families on £90k with CB intact, whilst stripping it entirely from those on £60k.

[Woozley]

I don't mind in principle, certain benefits that have been universal now being means-tested, but only if it:

a) Applies fairly (which this isn't)
b) Doesn't end up costing more to administer it than the potential saving (which this will)
c) Isn't just another omnishambles from an incompetent administration (which this is)

[catsmother]

The notion of clawing back from those who can most afford it is one thing but for all the reasons mentioned the way CB's been tackled is unfair. 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.

However - what also seems to have been swept under the carpet is the issue of women (usually) who have no other earned income of their own, and who are in financially abusive relationships where they have to effectively beg for and jusify every last £ from their partner/husband. If said man earns more than £60k they'll have nothing come January - and in financially abusive relationships it is very very unlikely that the man is just going to hand over what she's lost. This does happen .... in my time I have read quite a few such stories on MN where women married to high earners have no financial independence at all, and were having to eke out the CB for essentials in order to avoid critcism and confrontation over money.

No doubt someone will be along to say that the state can't legislate for the comparatively few women affected in this way - but that doesn't mean this problem doesn't exist. I should imagine those women are dreading the new year - and the prospect for them and their children - who, after all, CB was supposed to help support - at going without even more because the high earner will baulk at handing over more of "his" money. I know households with incomes of £60k plus usually receive very little sympathy but it's kind of irrelevant if it's not fairly distributed for the benefit of the whole family and for such women, CB was often a little bit of a safety net and a little bit of financial independence.

[Brycie]

I think women should know they should keep claiming CB in their name even if most of it is clawed back so they keep up the NI.

[sweetkitty]

I think it's genius too because it sets women back years interns of individual taxation, it will cost more to administer than any savings made, it's inherently flawed, as everyone else is saying 4 DC on 60K lose it, 1DC on 99K keep it, it hits a band of middle earners already being squeezed for every penny, the savings made will not even meet the tax lost by reducing the tax rate to 45% for the richest people.

If anyone complains about it you are told to shut up its your fault for earning too much!

Yes genius all right!!!!

[Jins]

It's not genius! It doesn't affect me but I can see what a flawed mechanism it is.

Allegedly it will save 1.7bn which is about the same amount as RBSs liabilities for mis-sold PPI. Building the Olympic Park cost 1.8bn just to put it into context. None of the money 'saved' will go to people who need it.

What it does is introduce the concept of means testing CB so while you may be quite happy to see people on £60k pa lose their CB will you be happy to see those on 42k lose it? 35K? 26K?

I've got plenty of sympathy for those losing their CB when their neighbours may earn twice as much and keep theirs. It's the equivalent of a fairly substantial pay cut and it will work as a huge disincentive to earn more.

Carry on OP being happy to see the better off being hit. It's very short sighted of you.

[MonkeyRisotto]

I think it has a number of flaws in the way it's being implemented. My partner has a daughter (not mine) which she gets CB for. I earn over £50k so I will be taxed because of it.

My ex gets the CB for our son. She also earns over £50k so will be taxed on it.
(why should I pay extra tax because of someone else's child that I have no responsibility for?)

But also, because the maintenance I pay her is a percentage of my net income, this will decrease because I am now paying more tax.

So my ex will lose CB and get less maintenance at the same time.

Ok, so none of us will be destitute, and most families in the UK have far less money coming in than we do, but it just seems rather unfair in the way it's been implemented.

[WearingGreen]

Its not genius, its ill thought out, unwieldy, costly to administer and discriminatory. It allows dual income families to benefit when they earn vastly over the threshold applied to single income families. It makes the children in the household the financial responsibility of high earners who live in the household regardless of whether that person is the child's parent or not whilst at the same time ignoring the income of non resident parents. You are deluded if you think the 'savings' from this are going to feed the poor. Its one of those dumbass, sound-bite driven policies designed to be popular with people who don't give much thought to how things actually work and will conveniently scapegoat higher earners in a pious 'if only they didn't scrounge of the state this financial crisis would never have happened' way. Ditto 'bobbies on the beat' sounds good but pulls resources away from actually solving crimes. They know that but they do it anyway because they'd rather sound like they are doing something than actually rigorously govern the country.

[MonkeyRisotto]

Sorry, the bit in brackets is below the wrong paragraph... :/

[abcdangel]

Brycie - how does that work?

We will lose CB due to DH's salary. I earn but not even enough to pay tax. But from what you've said can I still claim even though it will all be taken back again?

Feel really aggrieved about this, OK DH has a good job but we are far from rolling in it, and I have sacrificed my career to look after our children, so that now it's not worth me working full time because childcare costs are too high - I'd be working for next to nothing.

We know a couple who are currently both earning too much, but they are both going down to a 4 day week so they fall back under the limit and reduce their childcare costs by 40% as they will take different days off. Their household income will still be nearly £40k above us, but they will continue to receive CB.

There's a lot of apathy about the CB thing, but there's also a lot of anger.

[patsara]

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

[irregularegular]

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.