Should child benefit be means tested?

Sorry Electric Elephant I was agreeing with you.

Sandy22: My list was a tongue-in-cheek breakdown demonstrating that 50k is not buying you a "golf-club" lifestyle

I was very against this to start with but it is so inevitable that I've given up my passion for the topic...

It's on the way out - I would put good money on the fact that NONE of the parties will keep child benefit for families earning 50k.

In 2 years time we will all be much worse off to the tune of several thousand a year.

Buy yourself a new sofa NOW!

I Think I must have been tired when I posted.
I I fully agree that you can still be struggling on 50k. As previously stated we have high mortgage repayments. Way above MPs suggested amount and we don't live in a mansion. No overseas holidays.
Worthless shares that I worked hard to earn.
No chance of work because we do not get childcare element of tax credits.
Can't even have another child because we can't afford too. Yet if we were on a lower income we would be paid to have more children! (Probably not much but something)
I agree people like Posh and Becks don't need it and probably shouldn't be paid it but leave us middle incomers alone.

I'm another one who needs that money coming in. I lost my job 6 months ago, the JSA is about to run out, and because DH earns what he does, just over 50K (most of which goes on mortgage, but a lot of what he earns is taxed at 40% because he HAS to have a company car), we'd be in dire straits without that bit extra.

We would fall into this category - ALL ( and a bit over my salary goes on childcare, household bills, mortgage. All DHs on car, pension, insurance, commute costs, council tax, food. Currently - there literaly isn't anything left over to save for our children - I try to put CB money into a child savings account so that when they need education later on, need help to start out on their own, there will be something there.
Means test by all means but take the whole picture into account - for those of us who do not own numerous investment properties, barely have equity in the house we do own, have no savings but lots of debt, live in a very expensive part of the country and although we fall into this band because we meet some magic number...be aware some of us are also just keeping our heads above water - try and be realistic about what you plan to cut and from whom.

'You didn't just lose £20K on the value of your house, you can move when you want, you have nothing holding you'

since when as life ever that simple?

We can't move when we want- annual reviews, last time we needed to move we had to buy our way out; there's the risk of bieng made gomeless with a few minths notice in which case we'd alsolose schools (including a gold dust place in an snu) as rented acomodation is virtually non existent in the village in our price bracket; because DH has only PT work atm post-recession, we'd be shipped into temp accom until a place on an estate could be found for us.

We have owned, and we have rented, there are benefits to both but the one thing we lack- that we'd both deary love back if we ever got on our feet financially after this last crash- is security. We're fortunate now to have the best landlady ever (pity those who do not; been there. is like Hell with bells on- water dripping through into the electric box with a not inetrested landlord anyone?)- but the knowledge that one day we'll be elderly, probably stillcarers for ds3 at best (ds1 as well at worst) and trying to make the rent from state pension is scary.

Of course we have plans and hopes- DH is on his way to his Uni induction right now, after a morning working at his PT business, so he can get his income back in a field that hasn't collapsed; my MA induction is tonight. But we have enough life under our beslts to know there are no guarantees.

The threshold needs to be much higher. £50k as others have said doesn't necessarily go far depending on outgoings, especially if you work in London and have to live within commuting distance.

Make it £100k.

And while they're at it allow couples to share their tax allowances, and bring back MIRAS (anyone remember that?).

So the govt are considering cutting benefit for those on £50k plus - those who are actually working & paying lots of tax but on the other hand might take in lots of immigrants from the calais site & give them hand outs??? Doesn't make sense imho.

I have to say, I would not mind if I did not get it. It goes straight into a bank account for my children and I have never spent a penny of it. Our combined income is however in excess of £100k, so perhaps that is where the threshold should be drawn.

I would much rather lose child benefit that have government cost cutting imposed on me in other ways - eg cuts in teachers or resources available to schools.

Electric Elephant - if you read my post properly you will see I say over £50k. I personally am thinking more like £100k.

I am on less that £50k and yes I do have some idea - I'm not thick even though you seem to suggest that you can only earn £50k or more if you have education/drive/ambition - I have all of these thanks!

I am in the £50K+ bracket and would not see it as being penalised. I would see it as money being targetted where it is most needed. But I accept it may be easier to keep it a universal benefit. If you do earn that much money and need it by all means claim it.

I am renting but have recently lost in excess of 20K on the house I did own. But when I did own my own home I did just move when I wanted and just took the consequences. I would imagine that if you are renting because you cannot afford to buy a home you cannot just move, because moving is expensive. We just moved from one rented property to another and had to find £3500 in deposits and fees without having access to the previous deposit we had paid on a rental property. Removal vans etc also cost.

Sandy is NOT right.

There are plenty of people that earn £50k as a result of their education/drive/ambition etc etc. Why the hell should they be penalised?

I'm sick to death of being in that bracket that means you aren't entitled to any benefits, but don't earn enough to be well off. Fucking sick of it. I'll happily bet that half the population fit into this category.

We earn just over £50k. We don't get any help, we pay for everything and our childcare (£41 a day, thank you!) no tax credits. dee0468 then you are in the £50k realm, so you know what I'm talking about?!

I could work more hours, but the tax/NI/childcare/diesel would cancel it out.

Seriously, all of you on less than £50k a year, you have no idea. Fucking sick of people thinking we're well off, well...
we're not.
Once i've earnt enough to be able to pay into my pension, then I will consider myself well off. Until then, £50k means squat.

I'm SO happy for all of you who are renting. You didn't just lose £20K on the value of your house, you can move when you want, you have nothing holding you. Personally, I have a massive anxiety disorder that just didn't allow me to breed without the security of 'our own house'.

God, some of you just have NO idea.... seriously...

dee0468 - then you actually disagree.

Sandy 22 your are so right. My dp works really long hours for his 50k. As for savings. Each month we seem to hv to eat into our savings. As for holidays the accomodation cost about £300.00.

Most of our money seems to go out on mortgage(still on huge 5.99 fixed) car loan and pensions. Or and those endownments which won't even cover the mortgage now.

I would love to work but what would be the point when it would all go out to pay for childcare. Unfortunately my dp and yours earns to much to get the lovely tax credit child care subsidy.

Not read all the thread so I give an honest a answer. I would like to see it meas tested, I dot really understand why you would claim money you dont need. But if it would cost more I guess it does not make sense to means test. I do think perhaps people need to think do I need to take this money and if they don't need it leave it in the system. We do this with our tax credits and CB, we dont have a huge salary by any means but the money does is not needed for essentials.

we are on a good wage but six kids cost
our mortgage far exceeds the average and that's our choice
i like the cb its my money for the kids stuff

SomeGuy Well said.

Sandy22 Perhaps mp shouldn't have used the word 'fripperies' but if you notice, clothes, shoes, MOT, car servicing, etc etc etc aren't mentioned in the general list.

I do agree that £1500 is a lot of money for a holiday (£400 for us, and that was only because of a bonus!)
We don' go out. We have to save to fix things in the house that are going wrong. we are NOT well off.

It's pretty disgusting that you can have a combined income of £50k and still be hard up. You might not believe me, but it's true.
It makes me quite ill actually. DP works SO hard to cover everything, his job is so demanding, and we can't afford to do much at all.

What would really help if childcare was properly subsidised. If I could get my childcare paid for, I could go back to work more days a week, therefore pay more tax, therefore cancelling out the subsidy!

OK - rant over.

I say means test it but up the limit £50k is not high enough. Your not telling me Posh & Becks rely on their CB each month!!!

As for:

'50k take home = £2900
average mortgage: £900 per month
7%ish for pension: £200
various insurances: £100
average council tax/water/gas/electric/TV/broadband: £320 per month
Foor per month: £500
Going out as a family once a week for a meal: £160
Car hire purchase or loan perhaps?/petrol: £150
Savings (£150 fairly modest?): £150
Once a year holiday, say £1500?: £125 per month

We are now down to £295 per month remaining to spend on fripperies such as clothes, going out, erm boilers exploding, that sort of thing.

WTF!!!!!!! Family meal £160, holiday £1500, savings £150 - helllooooooooo!!!!!

everyone full stop pays tax- VAT, fuel duty etc; there's more than one way to taqx a head!

'Well, high earners are paying huge taxes. Why would they not have a child benefit? If anything, they are getting very little back considering the amount of money they may be asked to pay'

They are getting something very, very important (experience leads me to this belief after a really shit patch this year)- social security; the knowledge that if it all goes tits up, their pension scheme collapses or they become diabled- they won't starve.Worth an awfullot, that is.

I think I should get a tax break to have children because, as a high earner, the chances are that my children will be the same and will therefore pay more taxes to pay for the pensions of the elderly.

Wealthy childless people should be taxed more because they are contributing less to society.

No, it's the only thing I get from anywhere and it's a godsend.
Just cos we're both working dosn't mean we're not struggling.

Actually I was mortified at hearing a woman from an older people organisation complaining as there were more people than children and therefore the main support should not go to support education but to the elderly.

As sympathetic as I am to the cause of the elderly, my only thought was... Fool! and whose taxes are going to pay for your care when you can no longer cope on your own?

Bumperlicious 'People who have huge mortgages have correspondingly bigger houses.'

This is just NOT true. A friend of mine has a 4 bedroom detached house in a lovely area very close to us, their mortgage is around £550 a month. We have a 2.5 bedroom terraced house very close by, and our mortgage is £1250 a month!!

the difference? Purchase dates 10 years apart.

Our mortgage will drop next year when our fixed rate ends, and then we might be able to start paying into our pension

Like I said earlier - £50k can be a fortune to some, or barely enough to live on, depending on all sorts of variables.

And I'm very sorry... but my DH does over 60 hours a week to earn enough to pay this mortgage/bills etc. I'm not saying people on a lower salary don't work hard, but ifyou earn £50k a year, you should be able to afford a fucking holiday!