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

Yes - I guess the 'women's issue' angle is their only option.

Although Yvette Cooper was still in the 'all cuts are unnecessary and dangerous - coz economic growth will save us' zone yesterday.

In answer to "complimentary" this is what I am trying to get across, we have always supported our children, worked hard and not claimed, we pay higher taxes to pay for the people who don't but this benefit is for the kids and in already struggling households, should not be squeezed

jackstarbright, personally I would be quite happy with a higher rate tax rise. Just not one of 5% which is only payable by those with children.

"baby boomers are still sitting pretty"

Sour grapes is an unworthy reaction. If someone has parents or in-laws in that 'wealthy baby boomer' category then I think a mature response would be to get the family round the table and discuss how they could best help each other. Mumsnet parents wouldn't let their chldren go hungry or sit in the cold. The older generation wouldn't either.

The Opposition are being fairly quiet at the moment. Principally because I don't think they can oppose this change without being seen to support the wealthy over the poor. Polly Toynbee is doing her best from the Guardian trenches but her assertion that the UK is full of martinet husbands, spending their wage packet down the pub or at the bookies whilst the children go hungry has a slightly last-century quality to it.

this just sounds like a ridiculous bitter comment from someone who has had no hardship in their life. I have already been where you described with jobs and children so I don't understand the cry me a river comment. Just nasty and very misinformed. You also obviously have not read the comments properly that were being responded to in the first place. You are actually trying to make me into some scrounging beggar who sits watching daytime tv with no intention of working. You are so far removed from the truth.

I think this is a proper poke in the eye for single working parents but also yet another chip away at our and future generations. Please note that so far the baby boomers are still sitting pretty with their non means tested winter fuel allowances and free tv licences, many in fuck off houses that they made vast profits on.

It seems like anyone under the age of about 50 is destined to be financially shafted forever more.

It is a luxury these days, you are right there but unfortunately I can't send them back now that times have changed and mortgages have doubled. Its nothing to do with being laudible it is actually real life that is already here and trying to cope with changing society brought on by people that have no intention of getting off their backsides in the first place. I have worked all my life until recently from 13 years old-no one can accuse me of ever slacking and I have also struggled on my own through childcare issues etc. It would probably help if i could get my violent ex partner to contribute to his children instead of the burden being put on my Husband but then that will open up a whole can of worms that need to be left where they are. Maybe this sort of thing is what people who have never suffered any domestic abuse would prefer though. What I have put is only the tip of the iceberg i'm afraid for a lot of women not just me, who have suffered previous abusive relationships.

"I have no objection to people doing that if they want but I want to bring my own kids up, thats why I had them. I do not appreciate being forced into taking a job to make ends meet instead of looking after my kids and then, when I come home, I also have no energy left to give them any time"

Cry me a river. Thousands and thousands of working women feel the same but they have NO CHOICE as their partner doesn't earn 45K+ so they have to go to work. Why are your kids more important than theirs?

"But that's what many people have to do.."

Chil - good point. Can't believe the 'lefties' are letting the mc SAHM's get away with this.

Also - I'm wondering what Labour really make of this 'outcry' against what is, an average £200 a month reduction in income from supposedly affluent families. The top 15% are not turning out to be a soft target. Does this knock a future higher rate tax increase off the table for Labour?

In an ideal world that may be a fair comment but my family came together with my Husbands family when we got married. To be honest it was probably the worst thing financially we ever did but the point is it shouldn't be. We can just about get by at the moment, we lead a very poor life but don't usually moan about it. We get no help and are quite happy to support our large family, the problems start however when too many issues that i can't go into on here come into effect. Like for instance my Husband having to pay a solicitor for the next 7 years for defending my case in court against my violent ex partner. Too many other things come into play. We should not be told anyway how many kids we can have. I am not one of these people everyone likes to go on about that has kids to get benefits etc and could support them. We sail close to the wind though and cuts mean its impossible. Not everyone is the same and we do not ask for anything but if we didn't house my family and they had to go elsewhere it would cost the state a lot of money. We foot the bill instead and it comes at a cost. You can't just disown your kids because they reach 18 in my opinion and try to support what you can with them so they don't ask for benefits and then it comes at a cost to us.

"I do not appreciate being forced into taking a job to make ends meet instead of looking after my kids and then, when I come home, I also have no energy left to give them any time"

But that's what many people have to do to maintain a standard of living. If you can't make ends meet on one salary, then either your household income has to increase or your costs have to come down. You've opted to have a large family & stay at home to look after them and, whilst laudable, both are an expensive luxury these days.

chil 1234, no my children will not be in school in 2013 and even if they were, to be honest, i have been down this road with my older children. No job allows for all the different school holidays, illness and occassional days and some people have family/friend back up but i do not. My children are wide age ranging and the older ones can sometimes be more problematic than the young. I do not agree with latch key kids, its just not an option for me but I really wish this system was more fair, where if you earn a decent wage you are penalised so much that eventually all your resources are used up and you end up like us wondering why we ever bothered to get married

This is a fair comment I feel about the Government trying to force us all to work and pay child minders. I have no objection to people doing that if they want but I want to bring my own kids up, thats why I had them. I do not appreciate being forced into taking a job to make ends meet instead of looking after my kids and then, when I come home, I also have no energy left to give them any time. I would rather be poor. I am already exhausted looking after my family. There has got to be reason somewhere though, I don't actually earn a wage and do everything for free so cost no one in the government anything,my Husband got a good job to pay for us all but he gives half in tax almost and the rest on bills and mortgage. We ask for nothing and wish we could have more of his wage to support our family but instead we pay for the supposed poorer people who are better off than me, every where I go. I try not to get bitter but it is getting difficult

@lovrose... by 2013 will all your children be in school? Could you get a job, perhaps?

Lovrose. I do sympathise with your plight, but as you say you have a "large family" Why have a large family if you can't support them as you would wish?

This is my only money and I use it for shoes,clothes and birthdays/christmas for the kids. We are already poorer than anyone I know on tax credits and it just gets worse. Not only are we massively penalised in taxes but now my kids will have nothing as my Husband has no spare money after paying bills out of his wage. Even if he did, it is the only independent thing I can do for my kids without feeling like i am asking for money. We have no holidays, don't drink/smoke, go out or buy new clothes. We get no help with anything but do have a large family-this does not however bring us in any discount or allowance. We still support all our children, even the older ones who cant get independent because of high costs or further education. We are penalised for everything. My Husband even has to pay my solicitor for dealing with my ex partners violence. Its all wrong. I would even consider divorce now as I am sick of struggling to make ends meet. My kids have 3rd hand clothes from relatives and i shop on ebay. I dont know what makes the government think we may be well off??

It's not an attack on women, why should people receive a benefit they don't need? I'd go further than that, if people want more than two children , they should have not have child benefit at all! People should get off their lazy arses and look after their own children! Suffice to say I'm not a feminist!

I would quite honestly do naked cartwheels down the street if I had an income that meant I would be affected by this move. I stay at home dh works giving us an income of less far less than 20k a year. We have a mortgage, two cars, my 2 kids eat well are dressed well and we have a weeks holiday in the UK each year. I sometimes think it is important to remember that what we want is not the same as what we need.

This seems very unfair on single parents whose salary just takes them into the 40% tax bracket. Perhaps we should campaign that the 40% tax starts at a higher salary level.

To have a couple earning £87k combined and keeping the benefit is ludicrous when a lone person on £45kpa loses it. I do believe benefits need to be fairer. Combining it in with the Child Tax Credit may be a fairer thing to do? And have it on a sliding scale? We do need cuts, but it seems to be families and children who are taking the brunt. Cameron/ Clegg/ Osbourne all went to elitist schools and had privileged upbringings, as yet, they haven't forced any of their own kind to pay more tax. In fact they are happy for party members to be tax dodgers (Lord Ashdown!) I don't believe they know what it's like to live on a middle income. Ok it's not the breadline, but it's not brand new cars and luxury holidays either!

i just have to add my opinion here. I was a stay at home mother for a number of years but as my children are at school I now work, although only 3 days. My partners income just tips him into the higher rate bracket and I think we will miss the Child Benefit, although we wont starve as we tend to use my income for food etc.

However, if Child Benefit had been pulled say 6 years ago when I had children under school age and chose to stay at home then we would have struggled.

I think this is another case of the typical Conservative attitude of "slashing and burning" - and going for the weakest members of society - Children - lets not forget this benefit is intended for children. I lived with the Thatcher government and feared that this would happen again. I was moved to anger last night when watching Newsnight and Polly Toynbee mentioned how Child Benefit has and still can be a lifeline in families where one partner, often the man, but not always, may drink, gamble or just be feckless with money - I got her point. The anger I felt was directed at ?Phillip Hammond - Conservative Minister - who actually laughed at this point and said "while earning enough to pay higher rate tax". His inference there was that anybody paying higher rate tax was not going to drink/gamble/demonstrate fecklessness - which for me highlights that the Conservatives haven't changed at all. In their eyes. earn lower salary = drunk, scounger, gambler, loser. Earn higher salary = responsible member of society, hopefully conservative supporter!!. I can feel a letter coming on to David Cameron. I am so, so, irritated. I must really annoyed as I normally only post on Travel threads!! Katie

Very gallant of the government - women and children first

Correction. The government are targeting relatively wealthy working people.... those with above average household incomes (in the case of CTC thresholds) and those in the 40% tax-band (in the case of CB). If people really are turning down overtime or pay-rises because it affects benefits then that is what the proposed Universal Credit is designed to offset.

The way the welfare state looks and works will be quite different in 10-20 years' time than it is today. We're at the start of a generational wholesale change.

Bellsaringing, this is what I don't understand why are the government targeting working people when over and over again they are telling us that they want to get the unemployed benefit dependent people off of benefits? I know people who work but will not do overtime @ £15.00 an hour because it will affect the extra benefits they receive from the state, crazy.

I agree with the Op.
We all paid thr taxes that pay for this benefit. Not fair that now some won't benefit and others will.

Why are they picking on people with children? Why not tax ALL higher earners a bit more and keep CB?

This is the beginning of the end for CB.

All to save a measly 1bn, a drop in the ocean of public money.