Child benefit changes - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Next week, the Inland Revenue will write to 1.2m families about upcoming changes to child benefit eligibility. The changes mean that from next January, single-income families earning more than £50,000 per year will no longer be eligible for the full amount (currently worth £1,055 for the first child) - and those earning over £60K will no longer receive it at all.

The changes are controversial. Dual-income families who both earn just below the 50K cut-off - who have, in other words, a family-income of just under £100K per year - will continue to receive the full amount, leading to criticism that the changes penalise both stay-at-home mothers and single parents. Accountants are warning that new partners of divorced parents could also lose out. And the entire process is so complicated - with families forced to fill out complex self-assessment forms for the first time - that the Inland Revenue has reportedly postponed sending out the letters because they can't find a form of words that families will be able to understand.

What do you think? Will you be affected by the changes, and what will it mean for your family? Are stay-at-home mothers being unfairly targeted - or is staying at home a luxury which shouldn't be subsidised by the taxpayer? Should child benefit be universal - or should it be available only to families who are really struggling? Let us know what you think here on the thread, and don't forget to post your URLs if you blog on this subject - we'll be tweeting them over the next few days.

Cheapandchic.

Its not an equal rights issue as your problem is chilcare payments. Some men stay at home because their wife/dp works and they can't afford childcare. If I could earn the highest wage my dh would be a sahp because we couldn't afford childcare neither.

I want to go off track a bit and say we should stop describing people's life choices as 'luxuries'. I you want to be completely correct about it a luxury is something that we don't NEED to keep us alive, so technically even having one child could be defined as a luxury!

I think most of us make choices based on what's best for our families and few of us live lives that we would ourselves define as luxurious! Someone above said that having four children is a luxury and I can see their point, but for me having had the experience of being an only child and my parents both dying when I was young, I felt that having a large family was a priority as I didn't want my children to have the experience I had of being alone in the world.

Similarly, most women choose to stay at home/ work based on what's best in their circumstances. Having that choice is in itself a luxury I suppose, but all of us give up something according to the choices we make and I think most of us with children would not describe our lives as 'easy' (which the term 'luxury' suggests).

Anyway, just wanted to blab on a bit about that as the term 'luxury' really grates on me!

Someone a while ago asked what someone with an earner of £50-£60k in the house needs child benefit for. DH earns in those figures and we rely on it... I think we live a fairly modest life: 4 bed semi (between 6 of us) in an expensive area which we need to live in to be close to DH's work, one ten year old car between us which we seldom use as we can't afford the petrol! Holidays abroad are way out of our budget, we had four night away in a caraven at Easter as our only holiday this year and they'll be holiday at all next year. The CB is used for things like school uniform, swimming lessons for the children... nothing very extravagent imo.

cheapandchic I'm in the same boat and would much rather be at work. The mums that work who have children in DS1's reception year all have free childcare because of their parents/in-laws, some of us do not have that luxury and cannot afford childcare. Before I had children, I had a job not a career and earned as much as I could for this area, only £20k. My husband is the breadwinner on £44k so it's a no-brainer. There are always people who want to be rude about it though.

I agree with you LittleAbruzzen, people forget that the majority of working mums do receive a significant amount of help from relatives and some of us don't have that option, if I was allowed one luxury in my life it would be having my mum around to look after the children while I went out to work for a few days a week

I never had help from relatives and we saw childcare something we each paid half of as I would not tolerate a sexist relationship. Why can't the £20k earns what their husbands do? Are the husbands brighter or better in some way? Don't the lower female earners have the same abilities?

Xenia, obviously wasn't speaking about you personally, well done for managing to balance work and childcare so well without help - I have nothing but admiration. I was a teacher before having DC1, and DH works in an industry wich is paid much better than teaching, so it made more sense for him to work than me. I had my children very close together (4 in 5 years) so staying at home was the best option for all of us (we both felt).

If any one's interested, I've just found this:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20093198

It does seem to me an anomaly that one house hold earning £99K can get full child benefit whilst another earning £50001 can't. And the hope is of course that the thought of filling out an SATR will put off some from claiming.

I don't howver think universal benefits are an affordable option any more. And I include winter fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences in that.

Another issue is the childcare costs. 'higher' earners don't qualify for tax credits but have to pay for childcare out of taxed incomeand may lose CB even though the women isn't in a fantastically well paid job and the couples income takes them slightly over the threshold plus the guy has become a higher tax payer. I don't think that is particularly fair.

yet as someone else said, the gps may llook after dcs and the other couple don't have childcare costs.

I think they could keep this universal. cheaper to administer. I still think only pay for say 4 kids would be fairer in the long run.

I think it would be much more reasonable, simple and fair to restrict child benefit to two children than what is proposed (and I say that as a mum of four!)

Good link ihategeorge, I really hope they're right in saying the cut may at least be delayed.

Yes, Freddo, it's given me a bit of hope but we'll see (hmm)

Sorry, should be hmm emoticon

I don't view my worth or intelligence by my salary. I work in an industry where one degree is a minimum qualification as a scientist. I will never earn as much as dh who is in medicine. I fail to see how that makes me some how secondary. Nor do I see what this has to do with cb.

That's very interesting hate - I wonder if it's worth writing to Mr Field.

MUMSNET - I HAVE HAD NO RESPONSE TO MY TWO POSTS AND TWO MESSAGES ASKING IF SETTING UP A WEBCHAT IS FEASIBLE. I DO GENUINELY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE VERY BUSY. HOWEVER, CAN YOU AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THE MESSAGES SO I KNOW YOU HAVE THEM/CAN LOOK IN TO THINGS? THANK YOU

Freddo, very wise suggestion - just pay it for first two children, so remains universal, much simpler to administer. The BBC link says 500,000 more people will fill out self assessment tax returns. What a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The same has been suggested for free bus pass etc - that rather than means test it (if they decide to) cheaper to say if you are over 75 rather than 65 you get the benefit.

Tilder, who has said it makes you secondary? I don't think any woman here sees themselves as secondary... we all just have to decide what's best for our families based on our own individual circumstances. I don't see myself as secondary because I've taken a career break to look after my children. I didn't decide to stay at home and look after the children because I thought DH was more intelligent than me (he's certainly not!) It was based on the practicalities of maximising our income when we couldn't afford childcare costs.

Yes, but time after time women marry these men who earn more. Why is that? It is the main reason women earn so muchl ess than men and give up careers because they marry Mr Big bucks. If you earned 10x your other half as I did with mine you can bet women would not be at home wiping bottoms. This marrying up thing is the biggest reason women have about 10% of positions of power only because they marry someone who earns more so they do not bother carrying on with work. If they married men earning sday £20k when they earned £40k women would do so much better.

I did not marry my husband for his money Xenia I didn't even know what he did for a living when we met. If teaching had paid more than his job (which it probably should!! But that's another thread altogether...) I'd happily have let DH stay at home and wipe the bottoms!

There are various ideas that the Government has sneaked into the public consciousness.

1. It is ok to ask HRT payers WITH CHILDREN to contribute, whilst HRT payers WITHOUT CHILDREN do not.

2. It is fair to ask a family earning 50-60k to pay a marginal rate of 70%, when a family on 99k is not, and when a rate of 50% is seen as 'too high' for someone on 150k.

If I were running the country, I would firstly restore Child Benefit to being a tax allowance, for all people earning HRT. It could remain as a benefit for those under the HRT threshold.

I would then RAISE the HRT threshold to about 70k. It was instigated as being a tax for the 'very well off', not for people earning about 40k - how many people know that George Osborne is LOWERING the HRT threshold, despite inflation???

And then I would raise the amount of tax you had to pay after 70k to about 43 or 44%, depending on the maths. And would do away with the 45% after 150k. Which would restore the tax system to how it was conceived to be, and simplify it too. Thereby ensuring that higher earners contributed more, in a progressive way (ie through a graduated income tax).

xenia Wish I could meet a man who would look after me financially. Maybe I am stuck in the dark ages but if my partner wanted to be the main 'breadwinner' I wouldn't mind. Thats not to say I wouldn't work, (I would go potty being stuck at home)

But hey this doesn't have anything to do with this thread

Xenia you may have done very well in your career, but your post is a bit patronising! Most people end up in a particular career as a result of the choices they made when they were 16 or 18 and decided what A levels they were going to take, or what degree they were going to do. Most teenagers of that age didn't have the foresight to choose particular careers because they were well paid or having a family 15 or 20 years later. If you did, then hats off to you.

And hopeless romantic that I am, I also think that 99% women marry because they fall in love, irrespective of what career / earnings potential a potential husband had!

I don't think that women are in the position their in now because they do not bother carrying on with work simply because they have a high earning husband - thats ridiculous.

sorry, full of typos - I meant careers that fit in with having a family, and they're rather than their. Whoops

Xenia, there is also the issue that some industries and professions go belly-up, which people often have no way of knowing about when they go into them. When I had a job, I was earning the same as DH or sometimes a little more (though neither of us went into a high-paying profession), but while his field is about as secure as you can get these days, work in mine is drying up; I was very actively searching for over a year (until I was so obviously pregnant that no one would have employed me anyway), got maybe four or five interviews in that time and no job. I can't afford to retrain, so if I got a job it wouldn't be highly paid and we wouldn't be able to afford childcare.

It's all go tonight. Here's another one:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/backbenchers-tell-osborne-to-reverse-child-benefit-cuts-8228748.html