Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Child Benefit reform "virtually unenforceable"

43 replies

LadyBlaBlah · 29/10/2010 15:39

It is the Daily Mail, but as they are pointing out, it is even more of a shambles than originally thought

I don't know how they are going to get round this one.

here

Interesting questions raised by Alan Johnson and critics:

Would a single mother have to spend a certain number of nights with a new partner before his tax status meant she lost her right to child benefit?

'Would she have to keep a record of the number of nights she stayed with him? Would the answer vary if the nights were spent in her property or his?'< he went on.>

There were many other potential anomalies, he suggested, asking whether the cut would affect:

* A mother of two whose older child becomes a higher-rate taxpayer while living at home;
* A single mother who moves back in with her parents - one of whom earns above the threshold or with a sister whose husband pays higher rate tax;
* A daughter whose higher-rate paying mother moved in with her and her husband.

In the latter case, would the grandmother be fined if the daughter continued to claim?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Chil1234 · 04/11/2010 09:00

" is it what families with young children should be doing?"

Everyone has to make decisions based on what they are comfortable with as a family and what works for them. If you tried to take into account all opposing views you would be a SAHP, you would work, you would educate at home, you would send them to school, you .... you would be in a bit of a mess, in other words.

If the best way you can organise your family and your finances is to drop to one income and claim more tax credits, that's a valid, legitimate decision and not immoral in the slightest. If you opt to do something different that's also a valid decision. As time goes on your circumstances will change in all kinds of ways and you will be faced with choices at every step of the way. Trust your own judgement, do what you feel is right and you will have few regrets. Take everyone else's opinion above your own and you will be hamstrung by prevarication and doubt.

peppapighastakenovermylife · 04/11/2010 07:55

See this is my / our moral issue. Currently we both work, pay huge amounts in childcare and will get nothing apart from child benefit next year.

If one of us gave up work we would be financially better off as we would qualify for tax credits. We would also be a lot less rushed off our feet.

Of course work is more than just money but is it morally right for one of us to give up our job, stay at home with the DC's (who are 4, 2 and 11 weeks by the way) and then claim tax credits?

I feel completely stuck in the middle - one one hand there are lots of threads recently about SAHM being best for children and then there are lots of threads attacking those receiving any benefits. So is the only acceptable option to stay at home but claim nothing?

I have been told on a number of threads over the years that if we made changes one of us could stay home. Yes we probably could but one of those changes would be dropping an income, paying less tax and claiming more in benefits. I am not comfortable with that but is it what families with young children should be doing? Should we be subsidising a parent to stay home?

Chil1234 · 04/11/2010 07:32

The rise in basic rate income tax threshold will not apply to HRTaxpayers I read recently. It will take more people out of paying tax at the bottom end of the scale instead.

The HMRC has to be very careful with this one because in a similar way that there is a 'poverty trap' ie. benefits kick in below a certain amount but if earnings are a few ££s too high the person fails to qualify for anything... there is a risk of creating an HRT trap. I calculated recently that if my HRT-qualifying salary was halved my take-home would only go down by 20-25%.... less tax and at a lower rate, less NI & retention of CB & CTC all impacted on that result.

frazzell · 03/11/2010 18:43

I think Huddspur makes a good point about income tax cuts, that will give all HRTs a bit more money in their pockets.

nikos · 03/11/2010 18:39

And it's been shown over and over again on these threads, that someone on £26k gets benefits which mean that they are nearly just as well off as many HRT.
I would repeat my question = Could people take a £200 per month cut in income?

nikos · 03/11/2010 18:37

Why is it optional? Dh is a journalist working with national news. What is the alternative? Don't say local news because it's not the same kind of job. Formany of us there is no choice.
It's like me saying that someone on 20k should just get a better job and not get any benefits. It's not that simple.

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 17:28

No-one ever admits to being 'wealthy', ever noticed that? And the cut-off point for anything is traditionally 'the guy earning a bit more than me' :) Truth is that when the average salary is around £26k, someone earning £44k is very well off. Only 10% of the population earn more than £51k. Anyone can live in an expensive location, spend a lot on travel and end up with very little at the end of the day - and it may not feel like a choice - but it is all optional.

huddspur · 03/11/2010 17:24

Is there not one thing that people are forgetting here. The Government are aiming to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000, giving all earners an extra £700. Although this won't fully compensate the loss of income from the withdrawal of CB it will go some of the way to reducing the amount of money that HRT familys lose.

nikos · 03/11/2010 17:13

I think another consideration is that it keeps being said that HRT are wealthy and many of us are not. To get those sort of wages most have to work in big cities with high housing costs. Dh has to rent a room in a flat as he cannot do a daily commute (300 miles!!). We don't have anything left at the end of the month so its just the same as lower rate tax payers being asked to take a cut of £200 per month. You would find it hard as we will do.
It would be fairer to make the cutoff £100,000 per annum which is definitely wealthy.
Also we have never had any other benefit or help with childcare. This was the only concession to dh having a family and children as there is now no difference in tax allowance.

kikoline · 03/11/2010 16:52

I don't think that the Government should be subsidising people staying at home and not working. If you can afford to be a SAHP and live off your partners salary then fine but don't rely on benefits to fund this decision.

nellieisstilltired · 03/11/2010 16:03

Its not an unfair life style choice but perhaps expecting it to be subsidised is in this climate.

brownhairedgnome · 03/11/2010 15:25

Sorry - it has not been directly suggested but full time motherhood -has been described - very surprisingly to me - as an unfair lifestyle choice - and not work. I am saying that it is work and the most valuable job at that and one that should be supported by governments. The number of children one has along with many other factors eg their ages, jobs available, support network, chidcare costs may prevent mothers finding other work at the same time as some posters are suggesting they do if will find it difficult to live on a single income without CB.

nellieisstilltired · 03/11/2010 14:44

I'm curious (or reading too fast) where is it suggested that you should limit your children?

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 14:44

@brownhairedgnome... Average number of children in families has been getting smaller for decades. Age of first-time mothers has been getting older for decades. First time home ownership is getting later & later. All of these things have been happening in society well before anything happened to CB largely down to financial pressures. So anyone who is sub 35, has more than two children and who can afford to run their own home on one income is in a more privileged position than I think they realise.

brownhairedgnome · 03/11/2010 14:27

Working and raising children at the same time is of course possible - whether its the best thing for all families and children is really debatable - and depends on the number of children you, have their ages, childcare you have available, support network in your area and your job. I made an active decision to have children and make sacrifices in order to prioritise looking after them rather than spending most of my earnings on paying others to look after them. Please don't suggest middle income families like my own have fewer children - as then we are into area of only the rich can have big families.

byrel · 03/11/2010 14:04

brownhairedgnome I see no reason why you can't work and raise children at the same time. You outlined yourself that you could have been £20 a day better off if you had carried on working. This is more than CB so if the cut encourages people back into the workplace then it will be a very good thing.

nellieisstilltired · 03/11/2010 14:00

brownhairedgnome - the announcement for hrt to transfer their tax allowance was made about 24 hours after teh announcement on child benefit.
It was all over the tv news. I have no idea what papers you read but suggest teh daily politic show too.

the policy has not been well thought out, however if there are to be cuts to the poor then paying out a universal benefit to those on hrt is indefensible.

I'll reiterate what chili says many families do not have the choice for one to stay at home to raise the kids. Ours included. I'm not suggesting that to be sahp is a life of luxury or that sacrifices haven't been made, however it is very unfair for a lifestyle choice to be supported by society.

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 13:40

"why are families with two incomes- worth twice mine- retaining their benefit?"

I've said that it is an anomaly and I've said that I don't defend it.

I thoroughly resent being described as 'feeble minded' for suggesting that the decision to be a SAHP is easier for those with money than without. You have decided that you can halve your income as a couple and still adequately run your household finances. Other people never have that luxury of choice.

brownhairedgnome · 03/11/2010 13:36

byrel- I think it is wrong if women cannot give credit to other women who make the decision to stay at home and do THE most important job of raising a family. Please do not take this job for granted by saying that women stay at home not doing any work.

I went back to paid work part time after my first child and it was perfectly feesable financially. After my second I worked out I would be taking home just £20 per day after paying for child care - I liked my job but not that much!!

David C - talks about the Big Society - in my village it is the parents at home who are most active in all the 'society' events - constantly fundraising for playgroup, school, building a new playground, running youth groups etc. It might not be paid but our society would be a hell of a lot 'poorer' without this.

Stopping paid work is a big decision for women and sacrifice for many.

leandro · 03/11/2010 13:35

I don't see what is wrong with stopping benefits to some of the more wealthy people in the country. If that means that you can no longer be a SAHP and you have to do a little bit of work to make up the shortfall then so be it. Given the fiscal position of the country we can ill-afford to dish out benefits here there and everywhere.

byrel · 03/11/2010 13:26

I think being a SAHP and not doing any work at all is a luxury particulary once the children reach school age. The Government cannot afford to just give people benefits that allow them to stay at home and do no form of work if they are capable of work.

bullethead · 03/11/2010 13:20

chil 1234
'this is not marginalisation or victimisation'
then please do tell, why are families with two incomes- worth twice mine- retaining their benefit? If you can't see any penalisation of stay at home parents (who also work extremely hard) in that, you must be very feeble minded.

It is not a luxury, it is a much-maligned choice which parents should not be made to feel ashamed of - ie taking responsibility for looking after their own children.

It is not a luxury to effectively halve your income when you make this decision. This IS an attack on a parent's right to look after their children because 'making different choices' means using a childminder or nursery.

brownhairedgnome · 03/11/2010 13:18

If not universality - how is the cut off point to be decided? It is balatantly unfair that 2 working parent family on £80k will get benefit and single income on £44k will not. With no means testing as the conservative government are adament they will not do - the only other option is univerality - or raising the cut off point higher. There is certainly a big difference in level of income between Coleen Rooneys millions and £44k for a family.

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 13:07

@brownhairedgnome... the witness eventually did answer the question when pressed and went with the second option.. give the available money to those that needed it most. We are not a third world country but the principle is the same. To take another extreme example, would we say that depriving Colleen Rooney of an extra £20/week is not valuing children and families in a fair way? The cut-off point and method of calculation is all we're arguing about, not universal benefit per se

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 12:58

"The fact that richer families will receive it while poorer families will not - I don';t understand why people are defending that?"

Few - myself included - are defending that particular anomaly. Many are defending the principle that it should not be given to the relatively wealthy.

@bullethead... Stay at home parents make that choice largely because they can afford to do so. It's a luxury many never have the option to take up. If any change to their finances means they can't afford to run their family on one income then they have to think about making different choices. That is not marginalisation or victimisation.