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.

Ok, i'm late to this discussion, but frankly i'm furious. We live in the sticks, i'm desperate to get a job, but its not happening at the moment, we have 4 children and they require ferrying to school each day...childcare logistics/ costs become daft, if I could work flexible hours I could. BTW, I trained 7 years for a top profession, fat lot of good it does me now.

My Dh works in same profession, 90+ hours a week, 50 are unpaid overtime and travels up to 250 miles away at the drop of a hat. We are just over the CB limit at a single income of £53k. Our travel / petrol costs are astronomical, not to mention the tax we pay indirectly through petrol etc.

I am not against the principle that higher earners should forgo CB, but when double income earners with a far higher joint income than us get to retain the benefit, I am not happy. I for one, will be voting with my feet.

sweetkitty I have a well off friend who has admitted she will be doing exactly that. Her family has a far greater net income than my PAYE family, all due to creative company accounting and she has 3 DC so will keep her £2000+ pa whilst I will lose mine for 2 DC.
It's NUTS I tell you...!

If we start unpicking 'who pays for what' - care homes, education, health, your kids, my kids etc, everything unravels and we all begin to sound like US neocons - each for their own and stuff everyone else. We have enough policy think tanks and experts to go back to basics on this and formulate fair and just policy for all families. Why havent we done this? How much does it cost to bring up a family? What is a fair wage, what is of value in our society? Care worker or Banker? These are huge and massive issues which should be scrupulously worked out before formulating policy which is devisive and will cause real hardship. The policy should have been thrown out and scrapped a long time ago.

Higgle - yes that's exactly it, we do want it to be based on 50/60k joint income, we want it to be fair. It's opinions like yours that the government are depending on to stop anyone protesting against it, but where will it end?

It's not fair that at one person earning 60K loses it, yet if one of them dropped hours or took a pay cut, the other could then earn 50k and they would still keep it. Also remember that people on 60K are already paying over 15K a year in tax hardly not contributing, many will be working a lot of hours unpaid as well.

What if that SAHM is an unpaid carer for a disabled child, a friend of mine is like this, or caring for elderly parents and cannot work? What if the DH financially abuses the DW and the CB is the only money she has to call her own?

higgle are you happy for your taxes to be used to pay for Child Benefit for children in Poland? Surely you would rather it went to children living here who will be our next generation of taxpayers?

We shouldn't! employers should pay a living wage at least. I manage a workforce with plenty of single members who pay tax as they earn around £15-£16,don't get any tax credits and after they have paid rent or board and run the cars they need for work don't have much over, but it is sad that everyone just expects them to manage when people who have chosen to have larger than average families ( and presumably have considered at some point they are particularly vulnerable if they do not make provision to the effects of unemployment etc. ) and are reasonably well off by definition think the state owes them.

This is the thin of the wedge. Give it time and soon they will be means testing the NHS. You wait, anyone earning over 50k has to pay for a doctors / hospital appointment. Will everyone think that is fair too? Soon it will be pointless actually earning a half decent salary in this country. In fact, I think we are already there.

A few more points in response to the newer posts.
No, I don't thinkk it should be going to Poland, but that is not directly relevant to where the cut off whould be. I'd say just a straight cut off at sole or joint income of £60k would be fair, with no child benefit for more than 2 children. ( But I could be persuaded other levels were correct if an argument convinces me)

My mother and I were chatting about this over Christmas as we both remember her taking me to the post office to collect the "family allowance" ( as it then was ) and her telling me that we had to spend it on nice things because they would stop it soon as it was unfair everyone got it! ( over 50 years ago, so it took a while to happen)

So I'm guessing Higgle if a family had somebody on 16k and another earner on 34k you think they should keep it errr why exactly?

And I haven't got a huge family just 3 with a Dp who has worked his but off and gone without a salary at all at times to get where he is.

X crossed posts.

We obviously agree.

I personally think it should be a combined income of 80k for 2 dc max.

Higgle I am not sure you are getting the point - a couple who both earn £50k therefore have a joint income of £100k will not lose their CB yet a couple where one person earns £60k and the other maybe earns nothing therefore have a joint income of £60k will lose CB - can you explain how that is possibly fair?

It's always going to seem unfair to somebody. I was furious at the EMA rules. Husband on about three times what my DH earned and yet kept EMA because parents had separated. Why was his salary not taken into consideration. Wasn't he responsible for his own children. I think it would be fairer to limit it to two children for everyone and leave it not means tested.

In one of my posts I said a cut off at 2 children would be fairer and I have four.

But then again would we have "I was forced to have an abortion of my unplanned third child as we couldn't afford it it hour CB?". What if you had twins second time around, would you need to give one away? And God help you if one of your children is disabled as we all know what the government thinks of help for the disabled!

Higgle - in all respect a modest salary was worth a lot more 15-20 years ago, house prices were not where they are today, young couples old get a decent council house in a good area (unheard of now), petrol was a lot cheaper for commuting etc I'm with you on the living wage thing though.

My own DP comes from a modest background, has two degrees (one entirely self funded), has worked so so hard to get where he is, he works 90 hours plus a week, hours commute each way, works at nights and weekends when our DC are in bed. We don't expect anything in benefits, we just want it to be fair as I said before, why should our neighbours earning 100K between them still receive it or our friend whose DH earns over 100K but has a good accountant still receive it?

I went on to HMRC website and opted out of payments as we are not entitled to the CB under new rules. My DH who works at a large firm said everyone received an email recommending them to do so (re salary applicable) as it would be Difficult to make sure self assessments were done accurately as it complex.

We've already had HMRC feck up twice with tax code and had to put them straight. If I'm honest I can't say we relied on it and it doesn't bother me that much.

I offered a few much better alternatives to George Osborne but he cant have got my letter:

• Just pay less to everyone
• Only pay up to the age of 12
• Pay for up to 3 children
• Don't pay to any UK non-residents
• Don't pay to anyone who has been here for less than 3 years

Or maybe these suggestions were just far too sensible to be credible

Ceebeegeebies - have I confused you? yes it is unfair, but I would cut if for couples on more than £60k and I think they might have a bit more to moan about as they are feeing/clothing an extra adult out of the net pay.

Viviennmary - children need to learn about part time jobs ( mine is working in chinese restaurnant tonight) not get an early benfits lesson via EMA

Do not have children if you cannot afford them or bring them up ;).

Didn't realise non resident get it's does this mean people living here temporarily?

Yay stranger danger but some people may factor this is in when doing sums when trying as it been round for so long. But yes I agree.

I agree higgle. But I was pointing out the unfairness of not taking the father's large salary into consideration when deciding who qualified.

I haven't read all the above but my view is as follows.

The changes are overly complex and unfair. I find it laughable that we have an Office of Tax Simplification trying to simplify existing tax code, and yet we still bring in convoluted new rules that create unnecessary admin.

If I ruled the world, child benefit could be claimed by any non higher rate taxpayer for up to two children. This would protect state pension entitlement for any parent not working outside the home. Even if your partner earns over £60k, you should still be able to claim Child Benefit. The changes now coming in go against the principle of independent taxation.

Do folk know that the £50k-£60k threshold is not gross salary but "adjusted net income"?

Feelinggood - I think it's more to do with EU member states, where a father (or mother) can come over here legally to work and is entitled to lots of the various benefits available and which includes CB which they can then send back home to the family still living in Poland!

Child benefit was brought into force in the good old days when father's kept most of their wage for the pub, and mother's needed to feed their children.

Quite surprised it is still being given out, it is madness.

Sad that sheeple would rather pay strangers to look after their precious "children" so they can have money, so sad. They have everything yet they are still not happy with what they have got.

Be grateful.

Stranger danger - where would you set the "allowed to breed" level. Once you have earned X you can have a baby, Y two children?

Minimum wagers/part timers/unemployed need not apply!

It's crazy that a bunch of Mums can quickly come Up with a system that is simpler and fairer than the one the condems came up with.

I just heard on the news that 200,000 people have already opted out from receiving CB. I can't understand why so many would opt out, as this is likely to be a total balls up and they will never catch up with half the people. It is poll tax mark 2. I also heard that 300,000 people who should have received a letter haven't yet received one. We are one of those families. I am quite certain that this will bring this government down in the end, in the same way that poll tax did in the 90's.