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.

[CelineMcBean]

Love? That's very patronising Happybunny12. Did you mean to be so rude?

Any hoo, back to those asking sensible questions about NI credits, there is a form for people to compete to receive these which I referenced up thread (CF411A Application form for credits for parents and carers) but at the moment you wouldn't need to complete it because you'd be getting child benefit.

There needs to be clear information about how people can protect their pension entitlement and at the moment there isn't.

[Iggly]

Oh and the pedant in me feels the need to point out that the Inland Revenue dont exist any more. It's HMRC now.

[shinyblackgrape]

celine - the cynical part of me thinks that the government wants it it be as Byzantine and complex as possible. The less people who claim the credits, the cheaper it is....

I'm not generally a paranoid type but I have a general sense of untrustworthiness and bad faith when it comes to the current government b

[Xenia]

For simple cases like I am - full time working single mother loses it all - You can either leave it being paid and then they claw it back on your tax return which is what I will do or you can save HMRC some costs and have the CB stopped.

[CelineMcBean]

There's also no HRP any more Iggly It's National Insurance Credits now.

[CelineMcBean]

Oh I completely agree shinyblackgrape. Dh and I have decided that it's not worth the hassle of him having to do a tax return for what will probably be less than £200 but we don't know because dh's bonus makes a difference.

I cannot believe this is going to be cheaper to administer than the current system. Isn't cost the argument the one that's wheeled out to enable millionaire pensioners to keep their winter fuel allowance? So unfair.

[Babyrabbits]

I'm thinking lets make it the most exspensive option for the government that we can.

If i continure to claim it do i not need to fill out the form?

I'm going back to voting green.

[EddieVeddersfoxymop]

I am so angry about this that I may just combust. We will lose it......but the child benefit is in MY name, not my DH.

I worked in an industry previously where people had to disclose their financial circumstances - you'd be amazed at how many couples do not know what each other earns. Why should my DH's salary have ANYTHING to do with my receipt of a benefit for my daughter? He has worked bloody hard to get us to where we are, he pays 40% tax, pays into his own pension and mine to ensure we are ok into retirement, he pays for insurances and private medical care to ensure we are never a burden to anyone........and yet the government sees fit to remove a benefit which is mine?

I appreciate that we can afford to lose it...however, when will the government explain how they can justify a family earning under the threshold and therefore having more take home pay than we do can keep it?

I cannot believe they are going ahead with this utter farce...how to they propose this will save money when all the affected people will now have to complete complex tax returns which needs administering?

Child benefit is a UNIVERSAL benefit, paid to help with the costs of raising a child. The news reports that Britain is supposedly out of recession now - so hey, lets take away money from the economy that might just keep it that way! Nonsense.

We are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, not in the slightest, and to lose child benefit is a huge blow. We only have one child, through choice......I get so angry seeing my Dh's tax going to fund those benefit families who have child after child, because they can, safe in the knowledge that the state will provide.

I wrote to my local MP about this, whose half arsed reply simply stated that those who can afford to lose it, should. That does not constitute an answer

[LittlePicnic]

I agree with above posters that it is unfair- that a family on 99k will stay get it whilst a sahm and husband working won't, once his wages meet the threshold. This is especially difficult given the history of this benefit going typically to the mother to provide for the children. It points to the fact that the austerity measures seem to be affecting women more than men.
Also shows this government aren't concerned about child poverty and they certainly are not interested in women being in the workplace, for example.
All the progress done in the last 40 years is being undone with more women having to be sahm.
Being a sahm isn't a luxury; many do so because the financial rewards of working are minimal once you pay for childcare and transport to work, work clothes and shoes etc. Plus it is better for children (in most cases) to be looked after by their parents.
Most of all I think the system needed will be unworkable. How can you pay a benefit to one person and then take it back from another? So complicated to implement and therefore expensive.
I think the government know that people will probably just put it into savings- if your other half gets a variable salary/bonus, all you can do is save it, pay out the amount requested in tax for each new tax year/ time for self-assessment. This will actually stop people spending it- who wants a big tax bill 12 months later?

[Silibilimili]

My husband and I both earn above the threshold. What we have been receiving so far just goes into savings for my children's future like uni fees. So I don't mind losing it if it means people who really NEED it get it. However, I planned to have children after being financially settled. I only had 2 kids as I know we won't be able to afford 3. So I think the following should be done:

1. Child Benefit should e based on overall family income.
2. It should be capped at 2 children.

It should not be seen as an allowance for mother to stay at home.

1. Grandparents or other family who look after children should be rewarded by either giving them tax cuts or being able to pay them in hold care vouchers

[Viviennemary]

I don't know who I'd vote for at the next General Election. Certainly not Lib Dem. And I don't much like Labour or Conservative. Voted Labour last time. Goodness knows why!

[notenoughsocks]

Thanks sbg
I hope they may yet 'reverse' their decision out of a fear of alienating too many women voters. The way the policy has been cast has made it too easy to talk about it as something that the more well-off can afford to give up (after all, we are all in this together ).

I'll just take a moment to share iggly's rage.

CHILD BENEFIT SHOULD REMAIN A UNIVERSAL BENEFIT

[Asinine]

T offs
O ld Etonians
R ight wing
Y ahs

Anyone else want to play angry acronyms?

I agree with the posters making the point about losing universality of CB being the first step to more attacks on it. Even Xenia

[shinyblackgrape]

can we try a mass tweeting tonight to Question Time to see if the question can at least be asked about the "fairness"of the way the cuts are going to be implemented?

By that, I mean the divorce issue and the general issue of unfairness in that two people earning slightly under the threshold contine to receive but one earner just over won't link

I also think the general issue of the fact that the government is expecting couples to share tax information and removing the benefit from principally women (as the stay at home parent generally) needs addressed. What if that woman's partner doesnt top her up or share finances equally?!

[Babyrabbits]

I think they figure like stamp duty which we now all have to pay, in ten years time no one will get Child benefit.

[pumpkinhellokitty]

i hadnt heard about this my dh earns £46k
i earn £10k
so we r safe

[shinyblackgrape]

not - I seriously doubt they will reverse it, I'm sorry to say. You're more likely it get an offer to go and work as a scullery maid for George Osbourne on 10p an hour to top your income up! sorry, that was very childish but it's how I feel!

[morethanpotatoprints]

Mandy21.

I wasn't being personal but there is no difference. You paying 13k childcare per year still means you have earned this money through your work. You may have less left than somebody earning the same and not paying childcare but both examples have earned 60k. This is why I don't work myself I know people who clear £500 per month when everything is deducted and as I really wanted to be a sahm I couldn't justify working for so little.
Other people would rather work for nothing than be a sahm, its whats best for you really.

[scottishmummy]

will lose cb
the discrepancies are bizarre
they haven't set an equal tariff for all cb recipients

[ihategeorgeosborne]

This policy is an absolute shambles. The only reason they are doing it is to make it look like the rich are shouldering the burden, so that they can get away with inflicting the cuts on the poor and the disabled. There is no way it will save much money if any at all. It is purely political so it gives them cover for all the other cuts they are inflicting on people. In the meantime, the richest 1% get a 5% tax cut.

A man earning £50k a year who supports a wife and 3 DC is in the 5th income decile, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies income calculator. The richest are definitely not shouldering the burden. That is simply not true and it doesn't matter how many times they try and justify it. They are talking bollocks.

[pumpkinhellokitty]

my dh earns 55k does this mean we r safe?
does it only count his earnings

[Asinine]

I doubt they'll reverse it, but I'd get enormous pleasure to watch IDS, Cameron or Osborne being forced to admit in interview that their policy is both unfair and illogical.

[shinyblackgrape]

baby - if you continue to claim, then the higher earner in your family will need to fill in a self assessment tax return so it can be clawed back.

My DH is self employed and his accountant has said it won't be too much of a pain as he's getting one done anyway and I understand it will just be a box that is ticked and it will be clawed back that way. Will be a bit more of a ball ache to fill in if you are employed and don't have other income to declare as you will just fill the form in for that

Actually, vis a vis my comment above about women (or stay at home parents) not getting due to a higher earning partner. If yiu are at all concerned about your partner not sharing finances etc, just keep claiming and tell partner to repay by way of the tax return.

[Silibilimili]

All the recent policies coming out are drawn up by idiots. From schools to child benefits to giving aid to India.

We need to vote these dumb inbred idiots out. But who can take their place!?