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

"Not all 40% tax payers share their salary equally"

If people are happy to stay in a relationship where their partner is so selfish as to not to use their salary on their own children then why is that something for the state to address?

When the Family Allowances Bill was introduced in 1945, Eleanor Rathbone was determined that the allowance would be paid to mothers. Today, 65 years later, on average women in the UK still earn less than men and mothers usually earn less than their partners. Statistically women who work part-time earn less ph than their colleagues - male and female - working full time.

Of course CB can be paid to either partner but I don't know any families where the higher earner chooses to have it paid to them.

I think withdrawing Child Benefit is a sign of how little our society values children and families and yes, it will disproportionately effect mothers and children. Not all 40% tax payers share their salary equally or value the contribution of the primary care giver , usually the mother.

its another ill thought out headline grabbing policy which fails to take into account the wider ramifications - particularly, for example, on working women who pay tax and childcare costs and take home miniscule amounts of pay given the work they do and the talent they bring to workplace.

keeping mothers working where they want to or have to should surely be something we should all support?

The money perhaps: what about the HRP?

How many years contributions can those under the umbrella of HRP afford to lose?

What would it mean for the likely level of the state pension between women and men? And mightn't the greatest impact be on the poorest, eg widows?

think you have just pulled a lot of unrelated stands and tried to pin them all on abolition of cb for higher tax payers

given the depths and severity of the cuts i think the affluent can afford to lose cb if it raises much needed cash

In a way I sort of agree that it feels like a little bit of an attack on mothers, even though rationally I in principle agree with the decision to give the benefit to those who most need. It is hard to explain, though.

I think it is the fact that 2 people earning just under the threashold end up with vastly higher take home pay plus child benefit (which if you have several children is actually wuite a bit), whereas in our family one earner just over the threashold we will get zero child benefit. I accept that such a family may have high childcare costs. If I work I will be able to earn up to £10k tax free, but if we choose for me to look after our pre-school aged children myself (2 of whom are breastfed and have never had a bottle) then even if dh tries to find more work to make up the shortfall he will pay 40% tax on that. This feels deeply unfair and it feels like the Govt is trying to push us towards one family model where 2 parents must work and children are in childcare. It does not support families to make their own decisions on these matters. I think this devalues the role of parents as primary carers of their own children. I am absolutely not saying all women should stay at home, but I would like to see a society where women in all familes, irrespective of income, have this option as well as the option to work. I have no problem with others choosing to work, nor with child benefit only going to the poorest, but somewhere here it feels like there is a deliberate inequity and we are saying we only value adults in our society if they are in paid employment.

How does this fit with the flaming "Big society" agenda? With one hand the govt is saying it values voluntary work, yet with the other it's implying those who aren't in paid employment don't count. Is it all about economics? What about the values of our socitey? I do hours of voluntary work a week. If I am forced back to work I will be unable to do this (though I suppose I would generate additional work for another individual through needing a paid childcarer, and then both our incomes generate tax etc -economically 'good', but what about the child?).

I was recently helped through a really tough time breastfeeding by volunteers on the national helpline and more volunteer peer supporters locally. Many of the local volunteers are mums with babies and toddlers in tow who aren't working and do this support voluntarily. Force them back to work and those vital support services will disappear too. Nice one Dave and Nick .

Chil - we are of a similar age! Once you've experienced negative equity and 'lost' £k's in the dotcom crash - you tend to become risk averse.

Zeph - I'm not convinced there is much you can do about taxing wealth in property. As people either have pay 'wealth tax' out of income or are forced to sell up / remortgage. And it would penalise those in the SE.

It is NOT the removal of cb for higher earners I object to, but the fact that it's based on the tax bracket alone and not the household income.

If as some suggest, cb will become part of a universal benefits system which is based upon the household income, then that is fine by me. However, I don't think it's fair for a household bringing in over 80k to continue to receive it when they are removing it from some households who are just into the 40% tax bracket. THAT is absolute nonsense.

Jack, maybe so. Also the wealth is not quite where we think it is - a lot is in property. House prices have risen so massively far ahead of incomes over the past 15 years or so that if you look solely at incomes (as we tend to do) and not at assets, you get a very distorted picture of what constitutes a wealthy/average household.

@Jackstarbright... I also think it's surprising how many people on what I'd call 'decent money' (£40-50k) still seem so dependent on extras to get by. I'm sure much of it comes down to house-prices and enormous mortgages. But I also think the huge levels of personal debt have had a lot to do with it as well. And what drove that personal debt, I think, has been this atmosphere that we'd seen 'the end of boom and bust' (who said that?) and that things would only ever get better - not worse.

Being in my forties and having experienced the recessions of the mid eighties and mid nineties at first hand, my fear is that there's always another pinch around the corner. And now there is.

Zeph - I wonder how many of the top 15% are living in the SE? A good number - no doubt. So perhaps we have less 'wealthy' people in this country, than commonly thought.

Cappster - if they want to encourage women to stop claiming they'll need to guarantee NI credits - that's my guess, anyway.

I like the way this method, quite elagantly, removes the need for 'means testing'.

Jackstar that sounds like a bit of an admin mare

also aren't they asking people not to claim?

It is a reflection primarily on the high cost of property, jackstarbright. £44k is a fortune if have a low fixed rent, or bought a house when prices were low. But if you need to be in London, say, to earn your £44k and are renting privately/trying to buy/only just bought, then the difference that child benefit makes is very substantial indeed.

Cappster - it was mentioned on the other thread (several times).

Also - my understanding is that they are not stopping mothers claiming CB - but if you continue to claim then the higher tax payer need to declare it and pay it back.

Chil - It does appear that single parents who just fall into the higher rate do come off worst - especially if they live in the SE.

Imo - the 'two people with one income anomaly' is less of an issue. I'm in that position - and I could always get a job if things got really tight. I appreciate that might not be an option for those with LO's.

It is a concern that (on the other thread) people, in this country, in the top 15% income group, rely so heavily on state benefits.

I'm not sure if that's a comment on salary levels, cost of living or something else?

jackstarbright - where did you hear that? I can't find any mention of it

I think it will be a major attack on women if HRP is removed.

it's already been reduced to end when your youngest child turns 12, but if it were removed altogether, then that is a lot of people (predominantly women) left with holes in the NI record.

This has clear potential to increase poverty in old age amongst women - a very serious prospect. I hope that it is not overlooked simply because it is not the immediate concern of withdrawing the payment.

Does anyone know what is to happen to HRP?

"This is completely unjust and decidedly ill conceived."

I think that the '2 low incomes vs 1 high income' anomaly sticks out like a sore thumb and will cause a lot of resentment - and I'm speaking as a single-parent higher-rate taxpaying family that will lose CB. However, I think that higher-earners losing this benefit was fair in principle and I also think that the Universal Credit, when it is introduced, will be a balancing factor.

Cappster - The SAHM NI is still protected.

isnt an attack on women at all.trying to redistribute monies and drum up some savings.given that many families have shared finances male/female doesnt really come into it as it is family money

it isnt substantial money that i need,is nice but not essential

and arguably one could say in times of austere cuts it is right to redistibute to less well off

It was my understanding that claiming CB in your name protected your NI status - so that if you had a few years off as a SAHM or worked at a level below NI contributions you could have those years counted towards your entitlement eg to pensions

Is this not the case now then? So say if your husband earns over the 40% bracket, you SAH, and then get divorced you will have a huge hole in your own personal state pension entitlement?

If they are doing this then I think the least they can do in compensation is allow DH to use my tax allowance!

"Having seen more details on the proposal, the lower earning partner is still going to claim and recieve CB. This amount will then be deducted from the higher earner. So, if we accept the premise of this thread that men are the high earners, then the removal of this benefit is actually an ATTACK ON MEN as their pay packets will be the ones affected so I think we should ask mumsnet to retitle the thread appropriately."

Quite Lucky - I thought I was the only one to get this