Should child benefit be means tested?

50k would mean no tax credits, right? So assuming one partner stays at home and one partner earns 50k, then a rough budget would be:

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.

No - it would cause a lot of resentment. there's already a feeling among middle and high earners that they the 'haves' are paying too much for the 'have nots' - if you take away the one thing they do get I think it would be a very unpopular move.

No, because the administrative cost of means-testing Child Benefit would outweigh any savings achieved through cutting it for high earners.

High-income households have all their CB clawed back in tax anyay, so means-testing would make no difference to what's paid out, while raising administration costs and undermining the principle of universality.

Well it depends on how many DC you have. In some parts of the country 50k for say 4 kids isn't that much.

Custy why would "your" CB be paying for their pimms?

Guy sounds really on the back foot now. He didn't address any of Justines points.

I do think EMI should be more stricly means tested ,for divorced couples

dd has friends who get this and the kids get loads of financial support from other parent ,seriously loads .

they howl with laughter at getting emi as well

No- we'd still get it anyway but partly becuase of what drusilla said, and also becuase people not on a low income still are usually far from well off

Definitely not. It would cost more to administer the means testing than to pay it. You would get all sorts of delays in receiving it.

It is simple to understand unlike a lot of the rest of the tax system.

If they have a cut off it should be higher - say £100K.

Surely there are other ways of cutting public spending that would be less of an admin nightmare? Justine up next..

maybe if only one person was working it wouldn't be extravagant

which is my point - the other one could get a job - why not.

good point about childcare

i think it depends on the industry elephant - maybe in london its a diferent animal - maybe in teh city its peanuts, but certainly looking through the jobs pages DAILY - you have to be quite senior to earn 50k

I dont' think someone on 50k would be able to afford a very extravagant lifestyle custardo.
Actually two on £25k might be worse off because of childcare..

custardo - i don't think you don't have to be that senior to earn £50k..

It makes so much more sense for people to be able to off-set childcare against tax if both parents are working - that will surely bring more money in in terms of people paying tax - so often posts here explain why people can't afford to work, and it's because of childcare costs...

NO!! bloody hell

It pays for all of DD's clothes and nappies!!
My wages pay her childcare
DH's pay's the mortgage, bills and everything else (car/insurance/etc). Very little left after all that.

If they are going to do this, it needs to be a much higher limit.

one person earning 50k - quite senior management role - like very.

wouldnt like to think my CB was going to help them out with pims on the golf course

No, it's a really successful benefit with aa almost universal take-up rate, unlike the mess that is tax credits. They'd do more to alleviate child poverty if they actually increased it.

Oh god they are thinking of paying it through cTc and we all know how well that system works don't we

well maybe is one person is earning 50k and the other person has nothing stopping them - they should get a job - like most people have to when they need money

How about if the figure was set after tax rather than gross IYSWIM?

TBH though, I agree that the savings are unlikely to outweigh the costs so it is a bit of a silly one really. I twould just be more worthy of considering, IMO if the ones who needed it stood to gain something - the chances are that they won't.

No it shouldn't - it is a valuable resource and simple to understand and administer. It also represents the time spent at home for women (usually) taking a break in their working lives to raise their children. This information is important when working out pensions, the universality is key and should be saved!

If you are on one income of £50K than you will be even worse off because you will be paying higher rate tax and only have one tax free allowance. £100K would be more realistic, but I still think that it should remain not means tested.