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.

and my point wasn't that teachers are worthy and binmen not. my point was that it is a degree plus postgrad requiring job that incurs a great deal of responsibility and professional expectations and the poster had clearly been doing it for a long time. in any other profession that required post grad qualifications and that level of responsibility you'd expect someone to be a hrt payer over a decade into their career.

swallowedAfly - 23 years teaching and no-where near £50k! even though I have senior management responsibility.

I suspect most teenagers know not to go into teaching for the money and always have done in the UK.

Childcare often becomes less of an issue at age 4 though - granted school holidays are still an expense, but it is much less of a financial burden than before they start school.

Absolutely although in our case we substituted cost of day nanny for 3 under 5s with school fee places at £10k a year each so no difference and then university of £10k + a year.... so I have not personally had a difference between the years when paying for full time all day childcare and when the children were older. In about 10 years or perhaps a bit shorter about 40 years into being a parent those £10k a year per child costs will cease with the youngest! I am a glutten for punishment.

Childcare costs are not gone when a child starts school. The after school charges £9 per night plus before school is £3.50 so at £12.50 per child per day per week times two that is about £500 per month and then holiday clubs at £25 per day per child that is a lot of money. I have a lady that comes in every morning for an hour so that is £45 per week and then my daughter still at primary school does after school. My son who is only 12 looks after her two nights a week until I get home at five because she was so miserable going every night and I feel bad about that but things are tight. I am a higher rate tax payer but receive nothing from ex who is unemployed. The difference is I have no choice whereas a stay at home parent does have a choice to stay at home or work.

I have been thinking about this since it was first suggested. DH and I both earn a smidge under 50K. We may well be the dual income family on 99K mentioned up thread.

We both pay some HRT, we have lost our childcare vouchers. In order to continue our proffes ional careers we have had massive childcare costs £2400 pcm at one stage. Now they are at school it is less, but often 200-300. We also have 2X commuting costs, we need 2 cars and we both need professional clothing.

We receive £134 chb IMO it costs far more then this for us both to work. If one of us SAHARA and the other earnt 99K we would feel far better off, even if we lost our cb.

That should read SAH

Long term though you would probably not be better off and probably neither of you would be happy at work. You can get to my age with teenage children and know you have 20 + years of working life ahead which you like and earns a lot. Those who stop work often find they cannot get back into it at the same level and on the same pay.

Child benefit originally came in to replace a child tax allowance which was of more benefit to the rich than the poor. In the 70s we had some upper tax rate of 99% and my father who was only an NHS worker paid 65% tax on parts of his salary. CB came in to replace that and went o the non worker in the couple or lower earner as some workers did not give any money to the non worker who could not then feed the children. it was money for the lower earner of the two and that did help some lower earners or non earners. It went to all as it was taking away a massive tax break from hard pressed working families with children whatever their income level. Now most parents both work they might prefer to revert to the 1960s child tax allowace actually and as we are trying to "make work pay" that might also fit in with Government policy. I won't hold my breath and I would rather we had no allowance and just simple taxes and very low tax rates.

losingtrust - no, childcare costs haven't gone completely, but they are much less crippling than when at preschool. For example, I had 2 children in nursery, was teaching, but in a peripatetic capacity, so I was paid for 30 weeks per year, the nursery of course charged 52 weeks. Childminder wasn't really an option because of our working arrangements - the nursery was the only one that really fitted.

Once at school, the costs of after school care were much less than the day care had been, and of course fitted in much better with the times I was working - if I needed childcare in school holidays I could book it on a 'per day' basis, I didn't need to enrol them permanently, which also means you are paying much less. All the parents I know who work FT do this in the holidays - so they use some AL, some grandparents care, some friends looking after the children and some holiday clubs, all of which means you are not paying for fulltime childcare, as you are at preschool.

Apologies if this has already been said up thread (haven't looked at this since the day it started), but I agree that the single/dual income issue is to some extent a red herring. A couple each earning £40k would keep it, whereas one on £60k & £20k wouldn't - so it can't really be argued that it's even a back door attempt to reward dual income families.

You don't lose childcare vouchers when you become a HR taxpayer. You can still get half the 243 per person. If you were already receiving them before you became an hr and have not changed employers you should still be able to get the full 243.

No childcare vouchers if you are self employed though as many women are. I have never had any child tax credit or help with childcare (except when two chidlren were 3 they had a voucher against nursery school fees of £600 issued by Tony Blair which was very amusing - a Labour government giving a voucher to use against private school fees).

That's right. Only for employees. Self-employed should be able to get tax relief. In fact the best way forward to keep fairness is tax relief for up to two children until they are 18 or leave full-time education and scrap child benefit completely. Benefits for those not working should take into account an equivalent amount. Still not fair to single parents but avoids the 60 % tax rate for those between 50 to 60 k

The trouble is except for this voucher concession (which I think employers cannot be forced to offer and may not easily cover the full cost of child care we had 3 chidlren under 4 with full time care to pay for and later the twins) tax law has always been very clear that expenses which are not work related but instead enable you to work are not tax deductible. So for example you buy a suit but normally would just wear jeans at home you cannot claim for the suit. You have a journey to work which you have to make to work you cannot claim for that etc etc You have to arrange care for your horse or dog or mother whilst you work you cannot set that against your tax. Whereas if you are already at work and sent to deliver some papers and need a taxi that is at work wholly for work.

Anyway there is absolutely no chance of tax relief for childcare in the current recession.

As self employed I could take on a secretary on £30k a year so that I spend much more time with the children rather than doing my own admin and that is tax deductible but if I decide to do the admin myself and want to pay someone to mind the children I cannot claim tax relief for that. If I want to buy a Bentley as a work car that is tax deductible as long as it is just for work use. If I need to arrange transport to school for the children because I am taking a 4am flight for a work meeting that is not tax deductible.

I wish people would stop assuming that being a SAHP is necessarily a choice. Given current childcare and transport costs, I for one simply cannot afford to work!

Yet your husband can. Why is that? Is he brighter than you are? Did he have better career advice? Were you brought up in a sexist home to expect low paid work? Did he work harder at school than you did?

her husband has a wife.

really the paid labour of industrialisation was built on the back of workers having house elves. imagine how easy life would be with a house elf - i wouldn't be half as worried about going back to work on monday if i knew my child was cared for, i didn't have to worry about cleaning, washing, organising, shopping, feeding myself or my child etc. marvelous system except those elves were human beings forced into purely by what genitals they were born with.

i often think how nice it would be to have a 1950's housewife. imagine opening your wardrobe and clean, ironed clothes being in there as if by magic given you'd only dropped them on the floor a couple of days ago? or being at work and thinking ooh i wonder i'll be cooked for dinner tonight?

i did not mean that to be insulting to you aliphil sorry if i didn't make that clear.

i'm a single mother and it's a daydream i have. i also remember having it as a kid looking at the adult set ups around me - i can clearly remember thinking i'd much rather have a wife than a husband pragmatically and being very clear even from a very young age that there was no way i was going to end up in wife role.

I have that swallowed. I really really appreciate it. Last night my sheets were changed. I have paid someone to change them for years and I still very much appreciate it. I know the children will be fed. Women as much as men can organise lives like that with a house husband or paid staff or whatever. Just because you are female doesn't mean you have to end up a muggins drudge doing much more at home than a man.

But what about the people you employ to do your menial tasks Xenia? If all women (and men) were able to find highly paid work who would you employ?

exactly. it's based on exploitation of gender or exploitation of social class. or for the most part nowadays both.

you too could be successful, earn lots of money and rely on the cheap, flexible domestic labour of women with less earning potential than you. hmm. doesn't sound like feminism so much as determining to be the one doing the exploiting rather than the exploited. not everyone wants to exploit others and pretend it is all through their own merit that they are where they are and anyone and everyone could do the same if only they pulled their socks up.

clearly not everyone can or there'd be no one to clean the toilets and feed the children of those who want to earn money and status.

I have asked Xenia this question before, strangely, she ignored me!

Men.
Let the men change the sheets and women do interesting work.

If you can't find a man to do that then yes hire someone. It is not menial. It is dull and low paid and anyone can do it but as I said I am lucky to find someone prepared to do it. It is not exploitation and one person is paid x for work and another y but we must root out sexism

Anyway we are waiting to hear from ali the answers to my questions - what is so special about her husband that he earns so very much more than she can and how come as ever it is that very sexist way round - woman who cannot earn much marries man who earns much more.