AIBU to claim child benefit?

[tooposhtopost]

This morning, I heard a minister being interviewed (didn't catch who) saying that he hoped that 40% tax payers would "do the right thing" and stop claiming child benefit.

The top earners already pay 50% tax, get no tax relief on our pension contributions and often do not overburden the state (eg private education for the DC, private healthcare).

I have always claimed CB - well, it arrives by direct debit. I have seen it as a tiny weeny small rebate of tax in recognition of the fact that we have the extra cost of having children who will be the ones supporting all of us when we get old. So should I be disclaiming it?

Who else would like to know if any government ministers (or their wives) claim CB or whether they are leading by example and eschewing it?

The fact that stories of people living the good life on benefits hit the headlines makes me think even more that it is quite uncommon. You don't hear stories gasping with surprise that people on 100K earnt incomes are generally pretty comfortable, because it's usually the case.

It amazes me how many people on this thread think that child benefit for higher rate tax payers is a handout from the govt. These are people who have put prop more money into pot. So why should they not get some back. Esp those at the lower end. It should also be based on family income not indiv. Why shoulsd one family on 45k not get it but one on 80k could potentially.

Cheryl Cole, Paris Hilton and the Duchess of Kent. Rather extreme examples. I imagine Paris Hilton isn't a big drain on the UK economy but get your point.

I hate the 'hard working families' phrase beloved of Gordon Brown etc just I as I hate the mythical 'broken Britain' that David Cameron read about in the Mail. Most families are hard working. Some are more successful financially than others and good on them. CB should be a benefit for the less weel off and is a reasonable cut for those who earn more. Details notwithstanding. But also think it has a symbolic value which only makes sense when it's universal. Still, no cash left from the last lot of spend thrifts so something's got to give. We make plenty of cuts when we are skint in our own hard working family.

LOL @ Kitty yes they are extreme but so are the 'examples' of people living it large on taxpayers money in their specially converted houses. Converted for what I wonder? To fit their flat screen tvs (bingo) in.

I agree. But some do supplement their squandering of taxpayers money by turning to crack dealing and armed robbery. There is an entrprenurial spirit that the Mail never celebrates.

It might seem a bit tough, but I think that in the current climate this is fair enough. I am a lone parent in the 40% tax bracket, CB is the only benefit that I have ever had. I cant argue that I need the money more than others on lower incomes, although the idea that 2 parents each earning 35k will keep it seems a bit difficult to swallow.

I claim child benefit - didn't occur to me not to! When my son was first born I was earning nothing, my husband about 1/3rd of what he is now (having just lost a lot of money when he business folded and recently been unemployed). Ever since then it has just arrived in the bank account.
DH told me the news when I got in from work today and we both agreed we didn't need it anyway and it was the right decision of the government. Will I stop claiming in the meantime? No.

Well. How to wind people up eh? Great idea, they will probably slip capital punishment for ASBO offences under the radar while we are all arguing

I get child benefit, I save it for my dcs for when they need something (ds is 5 and he hasn't 'needed' anything yet that I can't manage out of a monthly budget) so I have it all saved up - part in a child trust fund and part in a savings account.

Do I need it? No. Do I deserve it? Well, I don't really care whether I do or not. The government's policy is that it is paid, and I am not going to get all moral and say, no its OK, you keep it for the poor children (maybe in Malawi ). I am saving it and will keep doing so until they drag it off me. This money that I haven't spend on excessive toys, shoes, clothes etc will be there for them when they need a start with uni, a car etc. I choose to live like that.

Btw I earn nowhere near what the limit will be, I own (mortgaged) my own home, am LP and I still manage to save it. So, all of you people who earn over the limit, and 'need' your cb . When you look at monthly expenses when you earn over 40K, there is almost always something that can be cut, its just that you choose to live your lifestyle, no one has made you do that.

but where will the cut off be. I consider myself middle class but still need the CB payments especially with daughters going into sixth form etc. we don't get EMA and i think if kids are still in full time education till 18 their parents need CB if they are not earning a high salary.

I am in the same position as Elastamum. I am a lone parent - I guess I am a high income earner but I get no other benefits and work very hard to pay for child care and the mortgage on my two bedroom flat. So as you can imagine I feel very angry that a two parent family with the same income as me (or more) between them will still get child benefit.

I don't disagree with the idea that it should be means tested - but I do disagree with the idea that the way it will work will discriminate against lone parents.

I would love to put it away in the back for the kids. Really, not being sarky or 'poor me'. I think its a great idea and well within the spirit of the benefit.

I suppose that would be my mark of being 'ok' moneywise. When I got to the point that I could put half of it into their savings accounts.

[poor me alert] I cant see that happening anytime soon. Thats the problem with making assumptions about 'the' poor. 10 years ago I was just about getting to the point where I could have opened those back accounts. Then life intervened.

Considering how low our income is, we are fine. Not flat screen (bingo), holidays and nights out fine, but food on the table, mortgage paid and kids clothed fine.

And that is 'fine' with me

I do think its crap that LPs will be worse off under the new laws. Thats bollocks

(I really am trying hard not to say told you so).

Even on a whacking great salary (sorry guys but that is how I would describe 40k +) its not right that you will come out worse than a couple earning a lot more than you.

Not fair is not fair regardless.

Being the MD of a company is harder work than being a cleaner. Not even comparable in terms of workload and stress.
A cleaner's work maybe more grotty and less empowering and the cleaner will be more likely to have income related home stresses, of course.
However in terms of comparing work stresses and workload the two can absolutely not be compared.
There are obviously some exceptions but the great majority of high earners in PRIVATE SECTOR companies are earning every last penny of their wage. Then they are resenting every last penny that disappears into the big black hole of tax.

what about care assistant pommedeterre.

minimum wage to look after 30-40 elderly residents, with dementia, incontinence and other general health issues with only 2 other people to help them out.

Mind both of them get treated like shit from everyone further up the ladder than them in the work place

I think it is fair enough for higher earners not to get CB as cuts need to be made somewhere and this is less painful than other options.

But I also think it should be on TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME, not on each partners income individually. This is a nonsense.

And this is not based on self interest. We will not be able to claim CB on either basis. But we do not really need the money so it is only fair that it should be spent elsewhere where there is real need.

The responsibility for the incomes of X amount of people (staff of the company) does not rest on the shoulders of the care assistant though MaMoTTaT.
I understand that the actual work might be more laborious for manual/care work but the responsibility and thus huge stress isn't there.
You can also NEVER step away from running a company. it is there 24/7/365.

maybe not the incomes - but you've obviously never worked as a care assistant looking after vulnerable elderly adults......

I reckon GO is going to have to amend this policy before 2013 so that it is household income that is assessed - not the individual - that is how child tax credits is/were done. Real blunder he's made whereby someone earning £44001 will lose but a family with £87998 won't.

Sorry, cannot agree. The rewards V stress equation is totally difference. Ok so there is workplace stress if you are a CEO. Cant be denied but you get rewarded for that stress with a great salary and perks. You have more responsibilty because that is what you are being paid for.

You get a lot of stress in lower paid jobs. Your life can be at risk. I worked as a receptionist in an A&E and was threatened on a daily basis. A colleague had a shotgun pointed at her head. Health care assistants are being given more and more responsibilites, the stuff that nurses used to have time to do, for no more money. They also get smacked in the mouth by patients that cannot be held accountable - dementia patients.

Look at social work. Asssitant social workers and those who are newly qualified have to go into the homes of dangerous people. They also take the blame if something goes wrong.

My OH was a security guard when he came out of the army. He was spat on and bitten by people with various viruses.

On that note, what about army families. You really going to tell me that being the CEO of a company is more stressful than being shot at.

really?

If you are a CEO earning big mega bucks. How about NOT buying a huge house with a mahooosive mortagage? How about not spending it all, how about working for a few years, putting loads of that money aside and retiring early? That way you avoid the stress and can take up pottery.

Not an option open to those on low income/high stress jobs.

Hmmm, I was thinking of MN this morning when I heard it on the news.

For the record, it will be passed as law in 2013, so those who don't want to give it up, you'll have to soon enough.

I agree that it should be on total household income and not individuals.

My own opinions on this are that perhaps if you are earning enough to be in the 50% tax bracket, perhaps £20 a week isn't really going to benefit you as such. And as home schooling/private schooling is releasing the Government of a "burden", perhaps letting go of the £20 a week, would also release other people, those less fortunate.

Child Benefit is not to sponsor a child abroad, especially when our Govt. give billions of pounds in aid; and while I don't deny it is both admirable and kind, I deny that it's doing much use in the long run, and until Britain stop supplying Africa with weapons, you £80 a month isn't going to go very far, but I digress.

What you do with your CB is your decision, food, shoes, nappies/milk etc, but please remember that CB was introduced after the war when rationing was still happening, to ensure that children had enough to eat and be supported. Perhaps if you're not using this money for the basic essentials, then you don't really need it. And as you're so keen to relieve the Govt. of its burden of so many dependants, perhaps you can consider handing that £20 back in to ensure that hospitals/schools/public transport and other "lower class" things that you don't indulge in, may benefit. Over and out.

mamottat, i have, i have also worked in management with a responsibility for running a business including staff, budgets etc etc. i was working a lot harder as a manager

£3600? really? that is awful!