Should child benefit change, and how?

[MidnightPatrol]

Martin Lewis talking about the unfairness of how child benefit is applied today. Millions more are being caught up by its removal.

Key points:

• A single income household with a £60k income is eligible for £0, while a dual income household earning up to £100k gets 100%.
• The earnings threshold has not changed since 2013

Should this change, and if it does change what would be 'fair' instead?

e.g.

• Should the arbitrary cut-off be higher?
• Should it be universal?
• Should it be based on household rather than single income?

I do believe it should be universal. Maybe, to save some money, the government could set it somewhere between the the current first child rate and other children rate for all children in a family.

Having to claim the child benefit to pay it back, purely to claim the NI credits doesn't seem very efficient does it.

The NI credit issue is well publicised; I think my health visitor told me about it - and midwife? Albeit in the early days of having a newborn when future tax planning wasn't high on my agenda.

However, given the WASPI pension changes seem to have come as a complete surprise to many, I agree this is likely to catch many primary carers out in the future.

@Needmorelego If your DD is at an SEN school, does she get DLA/PIP which in turn qualifies you to claim Carers Allowance. That would automatically give go NI credits regardless of the Child Benefit credits stopping at 12.

It should be universal.

It should be universal, as a PP wrote, raising children is a contribution to society.

Failing that, definitely household income.

I understand the point about families where the household income is not accessible to both parents but in these cases how do we know the CB claimant gets to keep it (if the partner is abusive they could very well force them to share the CB money).
And the current system is really unfair to a number of families with a large salary discrepancy (typical example of one SAHP + high earner getting nothing vs 2 person earning 60k who get 100%). I’m pretty sure this affects way more households than the ones where there is financial abuse.

I actually think that it should be means tested, like universal credit, perhaps on a sliding scale, and the income cut off should be much lower.
People earning 100k or even 60k do not need benefits, they can easily afford all that their children need.
We can still easily afford all the essentials for them, and earn about half that!

Same with the winter fuel payment for pensioners....my mum received it even though she didn't need it (her words)

These are key ways the government could save money.....

That just isn't true. Sometimes the main carer is the main earner because their 'partner' is ill, or in some cases abusive and refuses to work or look after the children

@wutheringkites

Why should a parent receive NI credits because they have an 18 year old in education?

For the very reasons you give below...

Unless their child is disabled or home schooled, the parent isn't really prevented from work, are they?

These children/parents make up a larger section of social you seem to think

I have lost count of the people I know who were SAHM until their children were school age and didn't claim CB because their OH earned over £60k. They didn't seem to understand about the NI credits.

And even if you know, if your OH doesn't want to fill in a tax return every year, they could put on a lot of pressure not to claim...

It is a terrible situation for anyone not in a good relationship.

I beg to differ tbh.

As to the cost of raising children, it depends where you live.

You live on about £30k by the suggestion of your post. £1,900pcm.

This would barely cover the cost of rent, council tax and energy costs in much of the South of England.

The cost of living is very high, and the added pressures of space for children / childcare mean that people on even quite good incomes struggle.

I agree with @Needmorelego - lots of families are in similar situations. Rather than try to find a way to include these families, which could be pretty convoluted (some people earn too much to claim carers' allowance but don't earn enough to pay NICs, some people should be claiming DLA but haven't been awarded it...) along with the other issues raised, perhaps it should be made universal.

My question about making it universal:

Is this possible, without it being portrayed by the media as a 'money for the middle classes'?

Along with frozen tax thresholds, I suspect this is something a government can't change without it being portrayed as only helping the better off - regardless of the otherwise good logic!

Torn on this one.

If the intention is to give the main carer a small allowance to protect against abusive partners withholding money - then obviously it should be universal.

If the intention is to give a small amount of extra financial support to struggling families who need it to feed and clothe their children - then I think it should be scrapped entirely and an equivalent amount (or preferably a bit more) added to UC in line with current claiming thresholds. This would mean that funds are directed to those who need it most.

It should be universal.

Should be universal again. This was always ideological rather than about making big savings in the welfare bill. As PP said, raising the next generation is a contribution to society that should be universally recognised through CB, in the same way that pensioners’ contribution to society is universally recognised. We shouldn’t even have to justify it!

The cap was introduced in 2013 so I think I was more widely published if you had a baby after that. If you had a baby before that it was not well publicised and especially if your child was older and not seeing HV or midwife. My child was well into their teens then and I almost missed the information, I saw it on MSE website. I never received a letter and nothing was related to us through the schools.

You can just claim the NI part of child benefit.

We should question how it has so quickly been reframed as money for the middle classes, when up until v recently it was seen as the government making a contribution towards the upbringing of the next generation, in the same way that the government makes a contribution towards pensioners, regardless of their financial position. Do we see universal pension as money for the middle classes?

What is the claiming threshold for UC for a family with 2 kids?

@ohtowinthelottery yes I get Carers and she gets DLA.
However I know a lot of people who have children who are not in school but have no official diagnosis for them. Undiagnosed autism/adhd (still hard to get it officially diagnosed - especially for girls) and anxiety based school refusal (again often not diagnosed)means the parent might not be able to claim Carers or DLA.
Ironically it's often the secondary school years that the issues are more obvious and when a diagnosis might be given.

Not sure on how we fix it but as a side note you can now claim for a 3rd child - which they have kept very quiet 🙃

Should be based on the claimants income. I live with my partner (not my kids dad) so if they did it on household income my kids would lose out, how's that fair? Nope, leave as is IMO.

It's been an absolutely nonsensical system since they brought in the high earner charge.

I cannot even believe that they ever let a system be put in place where a couple could earn £49999 each and be entitled to it and not one single person over £60k it's ridiculous.

I would rather see them scrap it altogether than keep the limits the same.

@BiffandChip1 you've always been able to claim for a 3rd child (or more). That was never changed. It's UC/Tax Credits that has the 2 child restriction.

Surely because you and your partner live together, if they earn over £60k you cannot claim...?