Should child benefit be means tested?

IvyKaty, child benefit for however many children isn't deducted from income support at all.

Child maintenance, (if you are lucky enough to get it) may be, depending on how much it is. LP's are allowed to keep £20 of it IIRC.

Not sure why it's deducted from the mother's IS rather than the children's tax credits. Does anyone know?

Sorry - off topic. But I have to moan about transport in London.

Two things 1. London is big 2. London is way congested.

As a rule of thumb, you have to be either VERY lucky or VERY well off to live anywhere near where you work.

The combination of this fact and ant two above, means that you inevitably have to use the tube or trains if you want to actually get to anywhere, eg. school or work, that day.

Buses are effectively for ornamentation, local journey and tourists.

Poor old dh has a commute of 11/2-2hrs, on the (speedy) tube, each way, to get to work of a day. Ds has a commute of 1 hr, on a train, then a bus, my commute is (a mere) 45 mins. We'd never se each other if we used the (far cheaper/free) buses.

And agree, 50K in London is not going to make you well off.

A £50k salary in London does not make you well off - and I doubt £900 is the average mortgage in London and the south east.

You've got to remember that plenty of companies still operate regional pricing policies - so people in the south east tend to be charged more for their gas, electricity, petrol, food, clothes etc.

I don't agree with CB being means tested for the reasons stated here, but all this talk about people earning 50k being badly off is bollock quite frankly. I grant you that for 2 people on 25k it is different as they are probably paying heaps on childcare but if one of the parent is earning 50k and the other chosing not to work then I bet they still have a pretty good life, and the reason why they are cash poor at the end of the month is because they are getting the benifit of a nice house, and all of their other lifestyle choices.

As for MPs list:

'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.

It isn't really a VAST amount for a fairly modest standard of living.'

Seriously? £1500 for a hoilday, £160 for a family meal? Savings? £500 on food a month? And only having £295 for fripperies.

How about NO holidays per year? £250 on food? Meal out once a month maybe? And usually only because my mum is visiting and paying. No savings, university debt, no fripperies? Earning 28k a year between us. Renting eternally. And I don't consider us to be that badly off. I talk about us as being the middle income earners that end up badly off. Sorry - this is a complete aside but I just wanted to refute this notion that higher earners are badly off, they are usually badly off because of their lifestyle choice. All this 'we have no money because of our huge mortgage' pisses me off. People who have huge mortgages have correspondingly bigger houses.

End of rant.

It's like means-testing bus travel for pensioners, Tony Blair actually telling the truth and Gordon Brown making contact with reality . . . it'll never happen.

I think 50k is too low a cutoff, maybe 100k.

The argument against means testing is that as well as the cost of administration, it creates a strong disincentive to work, eg family with income just below the threshold decides that one partner won't look for work because they would lose the child benefit. It is the best decision for that family, but the economy is worse off overall because that person is not paying income tax.
However, with the country's finances in the state they are, I think it would be fair to scrap child benefit for all those with an income over 75k. At this level you can do without it, its a luxury the country can't afford.

Oh and transport in London isn't cheap, unless I'm missing something.

Absolutely not it's peanilising the middle earners again and taking away even more help that the poor will again be entitled too.

I'm not begruging helping the needy but c'mon us middle earners get absolutley no help whatsover. We aint all rich

cherryblossoms - I agree with what you are saying but the cost of living is high in many places that aren't cities and there are some cities that aren't expensive to live in.

That is why I can't see why people in "cities" deserve to have family allowance up to 75k those elsewhere only up to 50k.

I'm assuming Laurie has noticed that 50K means different things in different areas of the country - it does. Cost of living is very different in different areas of the country.

Hasn't some think-tank recommended making all benefits geographically weighted?

It's a difficult issue, I guess, because it raises the whole question of group political action for wage-increases and everything else - by inference - not directly. If people in, say, Cornwall, get less benefit than, say, people in London, it has a knock-on effect on wages and then in collective bargaining.

I think that's why it's a controversial issue. But what isn't controversial is that cost of living is vastly more expensive in some areas of the country than others.

laurie - you have not explained why you think 50k for one set of people and 75k for another

I really think they should abolish all these overcomplicated benefits etc and replace them with tax allowances for people with children. Would be much simpler to administer.

I honestly feel child benefit should be abolished for higher rate taxpayers.

I live in the home counties happywomble.

We could easily manage without it.

laurie - why do you think 75k for earners in cities.

I can tell you that 50k doesn't go far if you live in the home counties and have to pay very high mortgage and commuting costs. Particularly if it is 50k on one salary rather than 2 x 25k (if 2 x 25k you do not pay higher rate tax and can claim childcare costs etc)

Someone referred to MPs - MPs do not live on a salary of 65k they are able to claim many other costs such as travel, second homes etc. If second home allowances are abolished I'm sure their salaries will rocket. Many MPs also have other jobs.

Yes for over £50k earners outside cities

Yes for over 75k earners in cities

If you are on income support then they deduct the child benifit from your income support - for however many children you have. Yet if you earn 100k you get cb, I think that is wrong either every child gets the benifit. But it shouldn't be taken from you when you become unemployed

I dont think it should be means tested but 50k is ALOT of money, i live in the south east and im be more than happy to earn 50k. you cant assumed everyone who lives in the south east is loaded. I also think all benefits should be indenpendantly assessed instead of assuming all household money is shared.

No I don't think it should be means tested.

How would it work if say the cut off point was £50,000 and you had a married couple where one partner didn't work and stayed at home to look after their children whilst the other one worked and earned £50,000. Compare this is to a single parent who again doesn't work, but the othyer parent whether the father or mother of the child still earns £50,000.
The income of the parents is exactly the same but yet I could guarantee which couple would be penalised and financially worse off.

probably should get back on topic...

Is that tears of laughter, despair or both I ownder?