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?

As for controlling partners- we can't be giving out money to all because some men are selfish - but we should be supporting women and children who leave a controlling relationship.

If you are a family you share

It was the intention when lobbied for and introduced by Eleanor Rathbone MP, as a wealthy husband dues not always mean that the wife and children have food.

It should be universal. Children are a universal good. There is something about buy in to the state and the future too.

You can claim child benefit and choose to not get paid anything. Therefore you don’t need to do a tax return as there is nothing to pay back, but you do get the NI credits for the SAHP. That’s what we did.

I guess the problem is if someone earns between 50-60k because they would be entitled to some money but not all, so would need to do a tax return.

I think it should be universal or the threshold made higher. The system as is is so unfair to single parents.

I listened to a money podcast yesterday that the child benefit link to pension credits is being fixed finally so those who don’t claim will still get credits (and with a six year remedy period). They also said you can now tick a box to “claim” child benefit but not get paid for it, so you don’t then need to do the tax return and return it. Haven’t checked but sounds positive!

I think it is a very, very difficult question.

Although the main carer should claim, anybody can. So while the main carer is often the most financially vulnerable, I would suggest that a financially abusive partner who doesn't give them access to household income would be likely to also control child benefit. One of the disadvantages of online claiming.

Household income is perhaps the most financially equitable way of doing it but it is difficult to do behind the scenes. You could also argue on the same basis that income tax etc should be calculated as a household as you can be one the same position of one higher earner in a higher tax bracket than 2 slightly lower earners. But we don't. How do you sort all the matching up of households and proof of who lives where? Where do you stop calculating household income? Would an 18 year old still loving at home and working affect the child benefit form their younger sibling?

We are in the position of just stopping claiming it as dh's income now means he would pay 100% back. I earn considerably less so we are actually one of the families who could say it is not fair and other households earning more than us still get it. But we're filing it under "nice problem to have" and getting on with life.

In an ideal world it would still be a universal benefit and those in power would wake up to the value of universal income, making arguments like this obsolete.

@Needmorelego

I didn't ask any personal details about you or your child. This is a thread about a policy that affects every family with children, not your family specifically.

If parents who claim Carer's Allowance get NI credits that way then isn't the system already covering families who may need that support for longer?

If you claim carers allowance you get NI credits.

You have been able to claim child benefit but not get paid for years. We did this 7years ago, I just don’t think enough people know about it.

I think all the points about whether children are in school, disabled, women in abusive relationships etc etc are missing the point really. This was always supposed to be a universal benefit. For all children. Yes, disadvantaged groups should absolutely get help from the state in various ways, I just don’t think messing with the child benefit system even more is the way to do it.

I think it should be paid to all children and not based on income.

That’s interesting as it’s constantly parroted on this site that you have to claim and pay back! More comms needed! (Doesn’t impact me as we just don’t claim as we both work and don’t need credits, but I’ve read it loads on here as being an issue.)

I think we need a philosophical alignment on what it’s intended for. Or, if that’s not possible, clarity from the government as to what they think it’s for:
A. A benefit to help people raise their children financially when they are struggling;
B. A universal payment for all children;
C. Something to support vulnerable main carers of children who may not have access to family funds;
D. A reward for having children as society needs them;
E. Something else

Until the above is clear it’s impossible to take a view on how to develop what is clearly a broken system.

I earn too much for us to get any child benefit, but my wife earns such that if it was based just on her income she would get the full payment. I move between thinking there is no way we should get any (we don’t need it) to thinking we should because we pay into the system and have a child. If I was clear on what it was trying to achieve, I think I would know how I felt.

As an aside, some countries allow a family to pick whether they are taxed / receive benefits based on whole family or individual salaries. There are pros and cons to each but the family gets to decide. Seems sensible.

I came to answer this question but then reading through the comments - I don't understand enough about the NI parts to make an informed opinion.

Just make it universal and scrap the income crap altogether.

also, it should be splittable if parents are separated with 50:50 custody.

I think it’s absurd that despite earning more money and having equal outgoings for the children the child benefit awarded 2/3 children to my DP’s ex simply because she used to claim for all 3 and you can’t split one payment into two. So each year she gets nearly 1k more to spend on the children than he does despite him having to provide just as much for them. They actually reached a sensible agreement themselves to alternate years for one child but lots of parents won’t do this and CB can’t be split.

I think the most likely thing to happen would be for it to be done away and the £ diverted to additional funds for people with children on a means tested basis
It is a bit of a throw back to days when mums stayed home,not to be encouraged inmy opinion

I think the current amount will remain universal but if any increases are made to the benefit the increase will be means tested.

the thing is it's never on a sliding scale, and it's working people on lower wages that suffer as their wages don't meet basic costs of living but are over threshold for any help.
I'm at a point in life where i've increased my hours now my children are in school and my wages have increased through promotion and i'm heading towards being comfortable but for so many years my household income was just over the threshold for any help but I was struggling so much- child benefit was essential, if it was means tested chances are someone like me wouldn't have got it.
People earning just a bit less, or not working etc get a lot of help- school uniforms, meals etc and that's a good thing but everything could do with being on a sliding scale because then there's people earning just marginally more who get no help at all.

Exactly this!!!!

I agree. One person earning £100k whilst their partner is a stay at home parent is considerably better off than two parents earning £50k each as the former will have zero childcare costs. Personally I think they should scrap it altogether.

It absolutely should not as that would mean a stay at home parent with zero income would get it even if their partner was earning £millions per year.

@Motheranddaughter Why, why is being a stay at home mother (or indeed father) 'not to be encouraged'. Just because it wasn't your choice, do you feel morally superior somehow? Bloody hell.

I am sure many more families might choose this if the cost of living didn't make it so difficult. After all, families did just that for centuries. All nurseries are wonderful, are they? You are being very judgy. In times past mothers were judged for going back to work. How about we all respect each other's choices?

UBI for adults and children is what is needed. Instead of sanctions and having limits on this and that. To stop the poverty trap. Stop folk feeling so hopeless. That would do away with child benefit.

I am a SAHM and an OU student. They're all in school. There's nothing wrong with being at home. No one should be pigeon holed into a set family ideal by the UK government.

It should be returned to universal and paid the mother (in the majority of cases). It was often a lifeline for abused women in the past who had no access to any money except CB.