Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Ending Child Benefit at 13- a tax on carers?

44 replies

SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 16:38

Sorry, I did mention this elsewhere but not a very busy thread.

I get Frank Field'ds idea about stopping CB at 13 even if I don't support it

But do people realise that it's a tax on being a carer?

Thafter all-
child hits 13, you lose CB, can't cope financially, you can at least try to work / increase hours

Disabled child hits 13, you lose cb (and hrp?), you can't go out to work any more than when they were 12, you lose. (and HRP???)

As I say, tax on being a carer.

It's multiplied iof you have NT kids too: you can't replace the Cb with them any more than if they were disabved if you have caring responsibilities.

And typically the tiny provision they do have here (summer clubs) stops at 12.
Seems to penalise people who have no options to me.

OP posts:
salizchap · 16/06/2010 23:14

Perhaps we should just send our kids up chimneys when they get to 13!

Teenagers cost a lot more than younger kids. Yes, there might be more costs in childcare, but school uniform and school dinners are cheaper, and they eat less anyway. When kids get older there is more pressure to wear the right clothes, and to go on ridiculously expensive school trips.

And to suggest that just because they are 13 they don't need you to be around so you can work more hours is ridiculous! What if they start getting into trouble because you aren't around? What if they get excluded from school? Or they become school phobic or bullied?

Teenagers need their parents more than ever!

Chil1234 · 16/06/2010 20:16

This suggestion mentioned nothing about carers. People/children with disabilities and carers are assessed separately and finances/services allocated according to need, availability and budgets. Even if CB was dispensed with wholesale that would still be the case.

I think you're fretting unnecessarily. I also think that expecting 'special cases' to dictate 'the norm' is totally unrealistic.

Original poster
SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 18:22

CU I guess the argument (and remember I said I don't like this idea) is twofold: one that you chose the age gap, and two that you would at least get the CB for the toddler.

Whereas when ds4 stops getting CB at 13 if it happens, we will still need a carer for ds3 (hope not ds1, who knows?) at home. I am hoping we'll have managed to hire soemone in from our own incomes by then (the Big Plan, will take a few years but that's the idea) but lots of people won't be able to do that, once DH is qualified we will be lucky to have two potentially high earners (if any of my experience still counts mind, I have noted a lot of my professional training has been ditched in favour of NVQ3 in random areas. if we can afford a Nanny though I can afford to finsih my MA forst, which will at least make me marketable I hope).

OP posts:
CaptainUnderpants · 16/06/2010 18:15

Ols enough for a paper round and start making their own way in the world

What would happen if you had a 13yr old and say a baby/toddler - what do you do ?

Original poster
SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 18:06

Frank Fiekld was a Labour MP commissioned by them to think the unthinkable to save cash, but the unthinkable he thought was too unthinkable. Or something. the Tories have revived his as some kind of poverty tsar.

He can be very good, I think this is misguided though.

Not sure where the 13 thing comes from although I note all SSD provision for holidays etc ceases at 13 here so I imagine it's some official number? Unlucky 13 perhaps?

OP posts:
DecorHate · 16/06/2010 18:03

No they cost more, if anything. I have no idea who Frank Field is but why has he chosen 13? I could understand the logic of 11/12 to coincide with starting secondary school and not needing childcare or 16 or whatever age they can get a job. But why 13?

Original poster
SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 18:00

I think the idea is that people stop needing to mpay for childcare by then?
So you get more when the childcare / being a sahm is most fiddly.

I bloody wish though! DS1 got out on Monday, took me an hour of chasing to get him in- and if at ten he cannot veven leave the house in a safe village alone, he's not going to be self caring to the extent of being a latchket kid at 13 is he?

Let alone ds3 who can't even use the blinkin' key!

OP posts:
HerBeatitude · 16/06/2010 17:57

Do kids stop costing money once they hit 13 then?

Oh goodee.

sarah293 · 16/06/2010 17:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

herbietea · 16/06/2010 17:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 17:16

There's also a suggestion by a think tank for a £10 charge to visit a GP

Now, I suspect that people on benefits would get itr free but lots of ill and disbaled people work- woudln't that work as a tax on not being in perfect health?

A £10 charge for non attanders yes.

OP posts:
Original poster
SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 17:13

Pootles it wouldnt be fair: nothing about this idea is fair.

However if my kids cost more when I could work I did extra hours. Now I can't.

That's not fair either is it?
As I have said about the place, I am happy for my CB to be taxed and actually I would hope to be in work before ds1 (10) hits 13 so would end up paying the tax no doubt.

Tax though at elast helps those who are on very limited income.

OP posts:
Original poster
SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 17:11

Perhaps herbie at least people could make the choice, although who knows when a disability wIll affect vtheir family?

I just trawled through every job within 20 miles of my home that is part time. Pull the ones that require specific quals (eg nurse, TA in our LEA, social worker) I am left with fitness coach (honestly if you could see me..... er no), escort and adult film extra.

I wanted to do the TA course and they were desperate to take me but couldn't access funding for me as I have a degree.

I'll keep looking: the ideal job for me came up last week and I was going to go for it FT but when I called SW (we are now cl;assed as able to get help soI can work) there's a 6 month wait to be seen!.

OP posts:
Pootles2010 · 16/06/2010 17:10

How would that be fair? surely my teenager will cost as much as your teenager is currently costing?

And i doubt teenagers cost as much as nursery fees tbh.

herbietea · 16/06/2010 17:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 16:59

Yes but how do yopu get that work MC? Who is going to offer me a job when I typically need 2-3 days off a fortnight atm for appopintments?

Beleive me I am looking (and it is fiddly for me as DH is a student and there is no law compelling Universities to allow students time off for childrern etc and they are very free with their 'sacking' where he is) but where do you get a job offering 4 hours? Self employed of course buta ctually nothing I have evcer done can be done self employed and I wouldn't know where to start with that.

OP posts:
mumblechum · 16/06/2010 16:56

Hmm, I see where you're coming from, but CB is what, £20 a week? You'd only have to work 4 hours a week while the child's at school to recoup that much. It'd be a lot worse if they were taking away tax credits or carer's allowance.

Original poster
SanctiMoanyArse · 16/06/2010 16:46

I doubnt they'd do that, plus if they decide not to tax CB it'd be hard as CA is taxed.

Now, I don't have an isue with CB being taxed: am happy to pay when we can.

They could link it to DLA, however that would still miss any kids who are NT that someone might also have: a loss of £10 is just over 1/5 of CA and if say you had three kids over 13 (even if only one claiming DLA) it would be a huge loss.

I hope it's something they have considered but it seems to me it's the sort of detail that floats by without being noted.

OP posts:
purpleturtle · 16/06/2010 16:41

Couldn't they increase Carers Aloowance for those cases?