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.

Xenia - you and I have different very views.... to me a marriage consists of forming a team....

My hubby earns more than me because as part of our team "negotiations" we agreed that I would take on the role of home/kids/finances/PA etc.... things which he values greatly as they allow him the freedom to work as needed for the team and earn us more money than would otherwise have been the case....

I chose my role as quite simply I am good at those things... I now work part time as the child rearing part of the "job" has diminished a bit with the kids growing older - but I "earn" more from managing our finances and negotiating prices/utilities etc than I do from my part time work.

We COULD both work FT on a fair bit of money each and pay others to do those roles, but choose not to - we enjoy life and do not live simply to earn money or status.

THE OTHER ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM AS REGARDS CHILD BENEFITS IS THEY CAN BE CLAIMED BY FOREIGN WORKERS IN THE UK FOR THEIR CHILDREN LIVING ABROAD. I THINK THIS IS TOTAL MADNESS AND WE NEED A REFEREDUM ON THE EU ASAP

Yes but you are enforcing sexist stereotypes, providing a bad example to others and ensuring women never get anywhere. The more couples where man just happens to do the full time work and women clean up, mind children and look after the house the closer we get back to where we were before women could even vote, become doctors and become prime minister. If too many women do as you do then we could end up like women are under the Taliban or in Saudi - with women as home maker and facilitator and man as earner. Women own 1% of the world's wealth. We need to get that up to nearer 50% if not more and we don't get there through women taking on a domestic role at home. The person choice is political and hurts other women.

Sorry, I am not erudite enough to argue against the strong feminist viewpoint you hold, but as a woman I do believe that I as an individual (man or woman) should have a choice,

and if I have made an informed choice based on my family's circumstances - then I have the right to live as I damn well please... women CAN become prime minister, they CAN become doctors if they choose that path.

I choose to be part of a team that is not enslaved by the need for consumerism and wealth - why should I be out there working all hours god sends so I can pay someone to do the stuff I want to do.... when I would rather be at home watching the dragonflies hatch in summer, playing board games with the kids after school.

Surely it's about choice Xenia. Everyone takes their own circumstances into account and does what is right for them/their family. I certainly didn't marry for money, but that old thing called 'love'. We also didn't foresee my in-laws telling us to sod off with childcare help. I am not going out to work for a pittance (as I have also tried to explain before, no room to improve on my salary in this area) to pay for petrol and childcare because it makes others feel better about their crusade. DH cooks, cleans and is great with our DCs too by the way. In my best friend's case, she is the breadwinner and her DH stays at home, he used to earn what I did, is that ok because he is male? It is simply a case of who earns the most working.

Well said ByTheWay

Yes but inlaws say no childcare help (and why should they help and we never had any) so why then wasn't it the father at home and mother working? Why resort to the sexist stereotype which does women most damage? Sorry I cannot remember your work but it sounds like you picked work which would pay very little and your husband did not/ Why is that? Was that sexist? Also it's an investment in the future. If you will work for 30 or 40 more years then it is worth working for not much not to get advancved in a career. You might even earn 10x your huusband's earnings in due course as more and more women are.

Yes, it is okay if someone is male for now in 2012 because women own 1% of the world's wealotyh and until we get to 50% we want more men earning much less at home and women at work. We have a long way to go to balance things out and every wife staying home spoils the chances of that in due course but the bottom line is women think they marry for love but 4 in 5 marry someone who earns more so not surprisingly it is their career which ends up as pin money thing.

Xenia-omg choked on my cornflakes did we seek out higher paid men!

I think sad fact of world is even now men generally have most of top jobs and better paid despite girls having done better in school.

I know one person who has no idea what her husbands income is.

blue-yes had prepaid meters in past pre kids when lived in flats and uni.

This change will badly hit a single parent who lives in southeast as 50k is 35next and living costs/childcare pricey.

I like to think single parents lower income already get support maybe im naive but im going by people I know or have worked with

housing benefit.
ha house-so lower than market private rental
help with childcare costs-I know this as used to be an employer.
tax credits
free school dinners, dental/prescriptions-schoopl dinners here £40 per child per month!
income support

I was discusing this on an online mums group and we reckon at end of day

2parent family-1 working on 12k a year in council house probably once add all the extra income they get same amount net as the couple on 50k as probkem with benefits is it never counts the otherbenefits as income so when you see daily mail headlines family raking in 60k a year and saying its not enough its everything added up .

I often joke i be better off as single parent. as we rent so thats my rent paid, little or no council tax, child benefit. full entitlement to tax credits.

As for clubs -my 3year old does ballet she loves it. £3.50 per session so one of cheaper clubs.

I doubt she be next darcey bussel but unless kids start young with somethings they can never realise a career in these areas arts/music ect.

Its actually something me and hubby feel strongly about.

What do we want for our kids.

good role models- used to think as kids those who worked hard get nice things soon realised the unfairness of the world and huge diffrences in income at uni.

A warm safe room over their heads, for them to have healthy diet, suitable clothes, looks smart .

A broad education and this includes hobbies and extra curricular.

Only have eldest in school but her school did 2hours pe a week-quite a few overweight kids in her class.Most of parents seem to drive even short distance.

They do no sports or after school clubs.
no music instruments until year 5 and then parent pays.

My dd does gym and cheerleading so extra 2hours physical actvity a week.Rainbows is cheap and helps dd make freinds an feel close to her community.

ours get less at birthdays and xmas than most of their freinds get as we prioritersie clubs, 1holiday a year and few day trips.

Would feel pretty sad if they couldent do those things as why punish our kids for crap economy, when their father works 50+hours a week, weekends even their birthday.sometimes feel like a single parent.

i do fear for the future min e still young hoping economy improves by then but

unis so expensive
secondrys so competative.
learning to drive -huge costs
at this rate with housing unless they get very good job they could be living with mum and dad even as adults.
Even when they finsih education-so few jobs out their average school leavers just very affordable pay as lower min wage.

Right now dont know what they will want to do with their lives.
But do want to support them, give them opportunities that myself growing up in single parent family with prepayment meter never had.

mumzy, CB cannot legally be claimed for children who are not resident in the UK nor by a non-resident parent. If a child spends more than 3 months abroad or no longer lives with the parent claiming the CB, then you are supposed to inform the authorities.

Xenia if I had had my own way growing up, then I would have been a professional dancer like Flavia, Aliona etc. I would not earn much, but I would do what I love. I was a good ballet and modern dance pupil, passing my exams with distinctions, but my parents wanted me to be academic and made me give it up so I ended up doing mundane admin work with no chance to earn more. Not everyone is academic, not everyone feels the need to earn lots of money. Feminism is about choice.

it's massively biased against single parents. a working man earning over the threshold with a sahm partner or part timer has far less expenses than a single mother who has to pay out for childcare and i do believe single parents (particularly those whose children have no contact with their fathers ergo no shared care arrangements possible) should be exempt from this. the govt knows it is unfair but claims it's too complicated to create exemptions - utter bs essentially.

i also think it is a worry for women in abusive relationships. cb historically has been a life saver for some women as it was the one sure, paid to them, sum they had control over. i hear alcoholic men in aa meetings talking with wonder about how their wives managed to put food on the table during their drinking days - that would have been the child benefit being eeked out. no matter how much money those men earned they weren't responsibly handing over money to the family.

on the single parents thing this government seems to be targeting them at every point: good earners losing cb, middle earners losing tax credits, cuts to the rate of childcare elements, those who can't find work around school hours or any wraparound childcare being hit with cuts to their housing benefit as punishment etc. their contempt for single mothers, working or not, is blatant.

We had a household income of just over £55,000 with my hubby earning £52,000 of it. He travels a long way to work and we live in a rural area, so I also need a car just to get my older children to the school bus stop (which is about 10 miles away). It's not fair that we loose child benefit and others with a much higher joint income do not. My husband was just offered a pay rise at work (for more hours) but we worked out that with our 5 children we wouldn't be any better off.

My husband has just taken the dramatic step of getting a new job which is closer to where we live and pays a lot less. It won't actually make us much worse off though due to travel costs and not loosing child benefit.

Now the government are starting talks about capping child benefit at 2 children, which will also have a massive impact on us.

Childcare is too expensive for me to work (ironically in childcare), so I go out to work in the evenings as my hubby gets in, which is naff, but we have no choice.

We don't drink, smoke, go for meals out, go to the cinema or other days out and never in our whole married life have we gone on holiday anywhere. We earn enough to makes ends meet, but def are not well off.

To top all this we are also paying back a massive overpayment of child tax credit that happened a few years back, even though we had always given correct and up to date information.

Sometimes this government just seems to penalise those that help themselves. What about the family down the road who get their house (bigger than ours) paid for by the council and taxis take their children to school, even though they have 2 cars and neither of them work. They both drink, smoke, go on holiday several times a year and have an aray of pets.

Bitter me!

Xenia

Just to reply to you; I married my hubby before he went to uni, so couldn't possibly have known how much he earned. I also had my own business before having children myself, which eventually folded due to our crap economy.

Women's lib is about free choice and nobody should dictate that a mother has to put her children in childcare and go out to work. I personally feel mothers/fathers do a far better job for society by staying home with their children and raising them well.

oh look one of those mysterious families that gets zillions in benefit and has a massive house, 2 cars and their children taxi'd to school. that sounds likely eh? and massively relevant

Fair enough Xenia - You've mentioned that someone has stalked you on here before, so I don't blame you.

Well, my maximum earning potention is x amount. I have a career and I don't want that to change, and in my field I can never top a certain amount. DP happens to be in a field where the maximum earning potential is double what mine is. It is what it is. NOthing sexist about it.

Xenia, if, as you suggest, all women seek out careers which pay highly, and put their children into payed daycare, who will provide that care? Where will the carers who are willing to look after our children at an affordable rate come from if every person is seeking out a highly paid job? Your arguments on this, and other threads are hypothetical only.

The bottom line on CB is that it is very hard times at the moment for lots of people and this Government thinks the rich (who are losing CB entirely like I am) should bear most of the pain as indeed we did at the start with the new 50%+ tax rates.

(I don't think I've been stalked but people do build up information about others and disclose it. Without doubt many women on here are with men who earn more hence women stay home and women never advance in society. Anyway that's a site issue except that ensuring housewives with richer husbands get no child benefit might encourage those women to go out there in whatever they love and earn more money - chain of dance schools for example for the dancer above like the lady who has set up rockchoirs and franchised them around the UK who I heard on R4 the other day.

Free choice if it is I will do as my mother did and clean and cook in return for being kept by a man is not really that often free choice. you think it's choice but it is sexist conditioning just like wives under the Taliban or in Saudi who do not work)

don't mean to cause offence but anyone earning 50K should not be entitled to any benefit! You are obviously living beyond your means! CATCH A GRIP!

completely agree 50K is comfortably off dont need cb,should be redistributed to needy
all this mc angst about losing cb,wel its a bit bad taste.dont need it but do like it
redistribute to those in need not the hunter wellies wearers who need to stop whining about this

Mandy - i don't know what the age is for letting older children go home and let themselves in, but I'm guessing it's 13 or 14? It's payable from 0-16.

There's no set age, but most secondary school kids I know do not have before or after school childcare, so 11-12 in practice. Mine are 10, 12, 14 & 16, and can look after each other :-)

And child benefit gets paid up to 18 if the child is in full-time education (which seeing as they have raised the age at which you can leave education will be an increasing amount of children I guess).

And you're wrong in setting out the child credits pay for childcare - have no idea what the threshold is for receipt of child credit but it's very low, would suggest small minority of families qualify.

I don't know, haven't asked people. I assumed that they asked the question about childcare costs for a reason, that it would make a difference to the amount received. Perhaps not. I certainly wasn't suggesting that it covered it all, and said that I thought more help was necessary.

50k is not necessarily well off. It depends where in the country you are. Cost of living is dependant on location. I know my nursery fees are less than they would be if I was still in London, but far more than if I lived in Scotland where I'm originally from. All this talk of people living beyond their means because they need their child benefit whilst on that wage is ridiculous.

Oh, and I don't earn anywhere near 50k.

5ok is well off and doesnt need a state top up
should be redistributed according to need
i find it a bit distasteful to read people on 50k protesting they need cb. no they dont need it or rely on cb, actually just like it.thats different

Those who are raising the pension credit issue - as I understand it sometime in the next few years the state pension will be a fixed sum of about £150 paid to people regardless as to whether they have paid NI. The people who will lose out will be existing pensioners who will carry on receiving the current weekly sum (which is less).

if it helps on childcare when went back to work after 1st 2007 we could in theory as both workng fulltime claim up to £240 max childcare vouchers each saving £80 in tax per £240.

when stopped vouchers as dd started school and use nursery funding.

restarted them when dd 2 was 18months

it had changed.

the higher rate tax payers £40k + could get the vouchers but the savings had halved maybe £40 saving cant remember detail dident look too closly as at tme in old job dh was under 40k.

So 2010 lose childcare saving
2011 lose tax credits
2012 lose cb

its huge clobbering on people already paying higher rate tax on earnings over 40k.

we ok as below 50k but im currently looking at part tme job extra money. I dont own hunters:( I dont even drive-hubby does and most mums at school treat be like some underprivaliged pauper not driving.

no wonder uk kids most unhappy its a bleak no frills childhood here for sure.

I resent the fact middle earners not taking their fair share.

is the lmit down to 2 kids after the 50k change or instead?

a 2salary income on 45k each =9ok combined dont need but will still get.

A one income family on 50-60k probly still could do with it!