Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

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

164 replies

Cerys36 · 04/10/2010 09:15

The whole point of child benefit is that it is paid to the mother to support the children. It used to be a tax allowance, but it is paid instead as a "benefit" so the mother can receive it - including those who are not in paid work. Abolishing it for families where there is a higher rate tax payer (usually the father) is an attack on women. If you want the higher earners to contribute more, as Osborne says, then increase higher rates of income tax, don't cut CB for families with a higher rate taxpayer.

OP posts:
ornamentalcabbage · 04/10/2010 10:10

Men and women are jointly responsible for their children so I don't see it as a deliberate attack on women. A lot of people in the higher rate tax bracket will manage without the money every week. What I find insidious would be if removing child benefit removed the home responsibilities protection that stay at home parents currently enjoy. These parents may then end up with a state pension shortfall when they retire (if it is worth anything by then!)

lucky1979 · 04/10/2010 10:09

LadyBiscuit - if you're earning over 40K and thus going to lose your child benefit then I seriously doubt you will be able to build up enough in benefits by going part time to make you better off in any way.

lucky1979 · 04/10/2010 10:05

scaryteacher - there will always be odd exceptions to the rule. Your example is only going to apply once the children had gone to school in any event, unless you pop one parent into the nursery and another into primary. What percentage of people in the country do you think that is the case for though?

ornamentalcabbage · 04/10/2010 10:02

I thought that the reasoning behind taking it from higher rate taxpayers rather than means testing was that it was cheaper and easier to administer.

LadyBiscuit · 04/10/2010 10:00

What about single parents lucky? I have to pay all the childcare costs out of my income.

I seriously might be better off working part time and getting more benefits

scaryteacher · 04/10/2010 09:59

Not always Lucky - they may both be teachers with children at the school they teach in - have known this to happen. Child came to school with parents, went home with parents. No childcare costs.

cazzybabs · 04/10/2010 09:59

I am pretty annoyed that it is going because although my husband is a higher rate tax earner I am not and all of my salary goes on nursery/childcare

lucky1979 · 04/10/2010 09:56

DwayneDibbley - I suspect it is to do with childcare, your friends have an income of 82K, but if they have a couple of children then the childcare cost is going to be a large chunk of someones wage, whether it's nursery or wraparound care or similar. While you aren't having to pay these costs, so can spend that money on other things the children might need thus need an additional cash payment less.

DwayneDibbley · 04/10/2010 09:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

lucky1979 · 04/10/2010 09:39

Sorry, child benefit is NOT a woman only payment and it's not meant to be pocket money for stay at home mums with high earning partners. It's meant to help people (not just woman) support their children when they might not be able to afford to otherwise.

maktaitai · 04/10/2010 09:36

Cerys36 in a way I agree with you, but I also think that things have moved on since CB was introduced. It was the last government I think who moved away from the principle that CB should always be paid to the mother, and I think that was right overall, as part of a move towards more equal parenting.

I certainly would much rather that CB were means-tested than for it to be left to wither with inflation so that it becomes irrelevant. I'm a bleeding heart and this move looks reasonable to me.

welshandproud · 04/10/2010 09:35

I quite agree Cerys.

Original poster
Cerys36 · 04/10/2010 09:32

Yes it is, it's a tax measure which has a wholly disproportionate effect on women. Either there has been no assessment of the effect of this proposed change on women, or the government simply don't care. It is another example of blindness to the effect on women in the choices this government makes to reduce spending or increase taxes.

Also your reply fails to put forward any reasoned intelligent response, you are merely trading insults.

OP posts:
ssd · 04/10/2010 09:20

its not an attack on woman, what a stupid thing to say.

you should be ashamed of yourself