Abolition of child benefit for higher rate taxpayers is an attack on women

It's a politically astute move, jackstarbright, because although the effects will be severe on a particular group, it is (a) a relatively small group and (b) not one that the population at large has any special sympathy for. Whereas the fairer move of increasing tax for all higher rate earners would affect (less severely) a lot more people, and in particular would affect a disproportionately high number of natural Tory voters.

"If anyone is in an violently abusive relationship they should seek and expect help."

Most women who are in abusive relationships, violent or otherwise, don't realise they are for quite a long time.

And er, yes they should expect help, but you'd be amazed by how unforthcoming it generally is. Building more refuges isn't at the top of any government's agenda.

Oh and research is still showing that women spend a larger proportion of their income on their children, than men do. So it's vitally important for children, that women have some income independent of the men they live with, even if it's only the child benefit money.

"it's a pretty vile response to say oh well, if these women will go and marry abusive men, more fool them...."

It's a pretty odd response to equate a relationship with money troubles with 'abuse'. If anyone is in an violently abusive relationship they should seek and expect help. But, in many relationships (not necessarily including children), you can get one partner, male or female, that's irresponsible with money and it's the biggest cause of break-ups going. It doesn't follow on to say that the solution to that is 'give the woman some money'. Unlike domestic abuse, I don't think couples' finances are anyone's business but their own.

Of course it's an attack on women.

I think people need to remember that for women in abusive relationships (and 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence during their lifetime - more experience other emotional abuse, including financial abuse) that money is often the only funding they have to buy basics for their kids and to squirrel away for when they're ready to leave the abusive partner.

And it's a pretty vile response to say oh well, if these women will go and marry abusive men, more fool them, why should the state help them.

Oh and lucky yes, they're talking about making absent parents support their children. That's all it will ever be - talk. The father's rights lobby are far too strong for anyone to do anythign about the fact that 3/5 of absent parents don't pay any maintenance at all.

lucky1979 - no probably I don't but at the end of the month after childcare i am left with £40.

I can't afford the dentist, new clothes for me etc. We don't drive our car lots and I don't own a mobile.

but you are right it won't put us on the breadline but we will have to make serious cuts to out finances

Chil

Luckily, we won't get to find out if Labour want to increase our taxes for at least another 4.5 years. :) But if you wanted to put a fiver on it at Ladbrokes I'd say you'd get very slim odds.

And I recant my original remarks on whether this CB cut is an attack on women after watching the footage of the conference yesterday. The well-to-do women sat stony face beneath their blonde bobs and pointedly not applauding clearly felt that Osborne was a bit of an upstart. "We didn't mean sharing the pain with us you fool"

Yes, talk is cheap

The messages are clear from the actions they have taken

Zeph - not sure what you mean by politically astute move.

For sure - Tories (and possibly the LibDems) are uncomfortable with the 'affluent' being dependent on benefits. Having said that - I don't think they would have withdrawn CB from (what must be) a significant number of their own voters - if they they weren't trying to 'share the pain'.

However - I'm suggesting that Labour will now be looking at this and wondering if this group (the £45k -£100k earners) has much potential for a decent tax increase.

LadyBlahB;ah
"What are the messages to the fathers who contribute F All to lone mothers? NOTHING

Not a sausage"

Here you go, from The Times three days ago:

"As part of the reforms, the government will crack down on fathers who fail to support their offspring. ?We are going to be quite tough on that. People who father kids have an obligation to society to support them,? Duncan Smith said. "

So ye, they are talking about this too.

cazzybabs - do you accept that it is a lot more than most people earn though? Do you need child benefit as much as someone living in the same area as you earning for example 20K a year?

jackstarbright, it might not go down well, but it would be a lot fairer, being a much smaller increase for a much larger number of those on higher incomes. For someone just over the threshhold with 2 children this measure amounts to a truly massive tax rise. 5% on earnings over £44k would be very easy indeed to bear by comparison. However, as a political move this one is chillingly astute so you are right on that score for sure.

In response to the original poster, it is no more an attack on women than it is on couples who chose to have one partner stay at home.
After 20 years of paying into the system and never taking anything out, when our child was born my wife wished to give up work and I supported that wish. I am the sole earner in the household and earn, you've guessed it, 44K. We are most certainly not well off.
The loss of child benefit will have to be made up somewhere - probably by me working yet more hours.
We feel hard done by - after years of paying in and never taking anything out, we're being hit while friends of ours (each earning over 35K) will continue to get this benefit.

If the government can't even get this right then how can we trust them with more complex matters? Speaking as someone with no vested interest at all as DS2 will be past CB age when the changes come in and we both earn well under the higher rate tax band I can only draw attention to the worst of the anomalies and wonder how on earth the government could have failed to note them.

If parent on edge of band gets pay rise could be worse off with it than without it.

Separated families where non "custodial" parent is on higher rate tax

Families where they will be better off not cohabiting to retain the benfit - I thought this government was about family values!

Cameron doing his homework? I doubt that very much

This is not about wealth as such. It is about fairness and is certainly about attacks on women, especially lone parents who tend to be mothers

What messages have been sent out in the last few days?

1. If you are on your own and earn £44k you can't have CB, but if you are with someone else and between you, you earn £ 80k, then you can have it.

1. If you are married with children you can have some tax relief.

These are ideological positions and nothing to do with the public finances.

What are the messages to the fathers who contribute F All to lone mothers? NOTHING

Not a sausage

To be clear, I am not a lone parent, however I know people who are. And most of them struggle to get by simply because their ex's refuse to pay enough/anything, and their work options become limited when you have sole responsibility for all childcare - money, logistics, times.

We need more women in parliament. Theresa May hasn't a clue and is simply a token female which never works (tokenism has a number - less than 15% of the group)

lucky1979 - i do work and still don't think 45K is very much

Lovrose. Looking through your comments, I do think you have a point I don't think 44k a year is relatively wealthy. It would depend on your circumstances. It would certainly not be a lot for a family to live on in central London. I think the problem here lies with families relying on a benefit that can be taken away. If Gordon Brown had kept his house in order, we would not be in this situation in the first place, (The Labour party and the Bankers together). The present governemnt has to make savings, and it sems everyone will be hurt in some way or another. I just hope the government does not touch help or respite for disabled children, as I have worked in this area and know it is much needed for these families. I really think the government should have looked more closely at those who have been on state benefits for years, and try any means to find them paid employment.
Cutting benefit is complex, just hope that Cameron has done his homework.

My lack of sympathy is in regards to this:

"I do not appreciate being forced into taking a job to make ends meet"

You seem to think that you should be funded to stay at home with your kids, while I'm telling you that thousands and thousands of women would love to have the luxury that you have had of a decent income of over 45K, but couldn't stay at home even with child benefit because their take home is worse than your family's is to start with. Actually it's not just women, millions of people in the UK are forced to find a job to make ends meet, it's the way of the economy. The only reason you give is that you want to stay at home to raise your children, but you don't get that that is a luxury that shouldnt be state funded when there are thousands of women who are worse of that you to start with being denied that choice.

I'd love the government to pay me some extra cash at the moment to stay at home with my DD, but I don't think it's my right to stay at home with her.

Please don't assume that because people don't agree with you they have charmed lives either and couldn't possibly understand. It's patronising and inaccurate.

From the comments on here - some 'higher rate' tax payers are relying on their child benefit to 'make ends meet'. I'm not sure if even a 2% rise would go down well.

I'm assuming a future Labour government would need to ask for a lot more - if they are to grow the public sector again and reduce the deficit.

(Obviously the people who wouldn't accept it are the Tories themselves as supposedly they do not believe in tax rises.)

Well it wouldn't need to be 5%. Would they accept it? I should think that those who currently pay 40% would. No doubt the really high earners who arrange their affairs so as to avoid paying income tax altogether will continue to do so. I don't suppose a couple of % will make much difference to that situation. But it would be a damn sight fairer than targetting it at those with young children who can therefore least afford it.

Zeph - I mean the tax payers would except it, agree it was fair and pay it.

Would work in what sense? Presumably it would raise rather more than £1 billion.

Zeph - so you think a 5% increase payable by all those earning £44k plus would work?

Chil that's an exceedingly mature response to my sour grapes post. Fwiw I'm not talking about individual cases although I'm sure many wealthy baby boomers are indeed helping out their children and grandchildren.

The point I wanted to make was that if we are a in together as Mr. Osbourne has stated then perhaps the oldies could make a contribution as well as working parents?

Just a thought.