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?

PS, i know people on higher incomes stopping recieving the benefit will not increase those on lower incomes share, but its just a thought.

Whitehorn - you said exactly what I wanted to say, a lot more eloquently!

yes but they are not spending money ring fenced as child benefit on "felix".

18 a month? you need a reality check...

" if taking away CB from them does not help anyone else. What is the point of it?"

ermm - aren't they trying to cut down a massive black hole of public debt down to size???

Personally, I object to the fact that it's the equivalent to a huge rise in tax. If you have two children, that's a loss in income of £1,600 a year. That's an awful lot to lose if you're only just a higher rate tax payer.

If you live in London, many people pay a higher rate of tax, and also have huge outgoings - travel expenses, housing etc. I doubt that those who only just pay a higher rate tax can afford to send their children to private school if their partner isn't working. And music lessons round here are likewise really expensive.

However, outside London, your money goes a lot further.

how much gross income do you have to earn to pay the higher rate of tax?

choccy, I'm a lone parent who is dating a man who earns a very decent salary. he isn't the children's father, he doesn't live with me and never shall. We've known each other for... oh god, this is scary... twenty years now and have been "involved" (okay, dating and sh... well, you get the idea) for the past 10. We don't have any influence on each other's lives wrt our homes, children, income or finances, we just get on really well and have fun. It works for us! :)

Besides, being the person I am I wouldn't accept a penny from him even if the relationship was different. I lost my purse, cash, debit cards, the works last week. He offered me money - I politely declined.

Riven surely it is the Governments problem

a) they are the only ones with the powers to make them

b) if more NRP paid up then a lot fewer women would need to rely solely on Goernment handouts to be able to feed/clothe their children pay the bills??

I'm with Valhalla here.

MrsVidic

Just under £38,000? So if one of you is a SAHM, with a salary of £38,000, that gives a take-home pay of around £28,000 after tax and insurance. So £1,600 is a large chunk of that.

(Someone else might like to correct my maths! I just quickly Googled, so it may be quite wrong! )

Cretaceous, swap you London's travel costs for those of rural Cambridgeshire?!

Yes, that's true as well, Vallhala .

Cretacesou - you're spoilt for choice in London with all the Music Colleges (and large general population) - loads and loads of music students offer music lessons for prices cheaper than I can get round here in sleepy Northamptonshire.

Our next door neighbours live on benefits below the breadline as it happens. As a tiny village, we all help them out with gifts of food and clothing. One thing we do not have to help them out with however is school fees for their son, since there is a decent and free school just up the road, and that he gets the school bus there.

Felix would not be able to go to school at all, ever, were it not for his sponsorship. In fact he may even have died by now from the effects of poverty. I am astounded how some people are so unwilling to take any kind of world view on poverty.

My next door neighbours are exceedingly badly off by UK standards, yet they are still able to buy wine, tobacco and ready meals.

Felix's family is without even basic healthcare or free schooling. Consider that before slating me.

Just seen this too, so it's actually £44,000. This gives an after-tax income of about £32,000, so £1,600 is still a large chunk. A 5% cut in income...

"He confirmed the cut would hit homes with a single or two high earners but families with two parents on incomes up to £44,000 - which might add up together to over £80,000 - would keep the benefit."

MaMoTTaT We're actually in Herts, and around here that's not the case, but we still have the commute into London!

We are borderline, if you take DH's bonus' into account then we just go over the 40%. But we are not rolling in it. We pay our bills, we pay our mortgage, we both have cars, and im constantly buying nappies and clothes for my ever growing children.

Sometimes I go out with friends, sometimes he does, sometimes we go out together as a family to the zoo or something similar. These I would say are luxouries so because we sometimes do these things, should I not receive CB even though some months we desperately need it?

It's a tough one.

so what is next to close this massive gaping chasm in our beautiful country's finances???
how much more money could we give back to our government by say, taking back bus passes, annual heating payments and free tv licences from our more wealthy pensioners? or forcing people to pay a proportion of their health or education costs? no one in society who is capable should think they have any rights to anything they dont contribute to...

MrsGravy Of course, low earners working jolly hard also pay tax but they were not relevant because they are not being asked to forego their CB which is what this thread is about. You may also have missed my point which is that making CB means tested will not help plug the hole in the deficit as it will not save any money! Means testing is expensive. Furthermore, the minute you introduce it then you will get those who are fully entitled also missing out as they do not fill in the correct forms etc so I cannot see who benefits from this change and asking tasxpayers to voluntarily disclaim something they are entitled to just strikes me as bizarre.

Personally, I am all for raising personal allowances so that the poorest hardworkers don't pay tax at all (tax cuts in at too low an income).

So, which posters are going to ask their MPs whether they or their DPs claim CB for their children? I am betting that Ed's DP does and that Mrs Cameron probably doesn't as from about last week. I would love to know. Don't be fobbed off by any weasel worded answers like:

'I don't claim any CB' WITHOUT mentioning whether OH's do. Or even "MP Smith does not collect any more benefits than he is entitled to".

Valhalla, good for you keeping your independance, I hope he pays for the occasional treat.

"forcing people to pay a proportion of their health or education costs"

Even at state schools, parents pay. Swimming lessons, for example, are not free. The schools expect "voluntary" contributions.

Well i am shocked! Sorry for hi-jacking but is there a London wieghting?

OP yanbu- but surley you can see that some need the benefit more- yet I understand the wanting to get out something from a system that you pay so much into. As often when people are seen as high earners it does come at a price. The big salaries usually comewith long hours and a lot of sacrifice.

However- paying a bigger proportion of your wage into the tax system does not neccessarily mean you pay more into the system. As some jobs are just as taxing, as draining and are paid less and therefore taxed less. The money the 'system' saves on paying those people 'fair' wages could well be in line with you tax ammount iyswim

but tooposh - you have to fill in the forms when your child is born to get it anyhow - there may well be people not getting it now because they didn't fill in the form. It's not a new benefit they're introducing that some people may not know about. if you've got children (or have a child) then you (should be) told about CB.

I thought taxes paid for schools and hospitals

(and don't forget that all your private medical staff were probably NHS trained)

felix should not be subsidised by money that is meant to help you pay for the basics from tax payers money! if your kids are going to private school and you are paying the fees you shouldnt get cb, its all just common sense really!