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?

yes taxes do pay, but there is not enough money! the government NEEDS more, and it has to come from somewhere.

I just think it's so badly thought out.

Those whose salary just goes over the £44,000 suddenly lose 5% of their income.

And those whose £44,000 is split between two earners don't lose any money at all, even if their household income is £80,000.

tbh though I don't know how people work out which bit of money they're spending on what.

Mine all goes into the bank account and when something has to be paid for it comes out of what's most recently gone it, whether I spend the CB towards the rent (as I will this week), or the HB towards the food, and the WTC towards the rent.

"he money paid out in benefits comes from high earning people working jolly hard and and, ahem, sharing it with the rest of you (through paying taxes"

What happens to my taxes then? I'd love to know. I'm not a high earning people payer but I seem to pay quite a bit. I also work jolly hard and so does DH. Does our tax not count then? If so I'd like it back thanks. How do I go about that? Anyone?

My mum used to put the cash (when they paid it in cash at the post office) in a jar and use it all to buy us shoes and other important things. Then it never got mixed up with other bills. I'm starting to think that's not a bad idea myself, accept mine seems to go on nappies and food as I struggle to make ends meet on a low income.

NordicPrincess for some (me) the cost of school fees is the SAME as childcare fees so paying school fees does not necessarily mean you do not need CB.

Orm - LOL

Cretaecueous - I agree that is bonkers. Surely if they;re going to do it it should be based on household income.

MollieO...my jaw just nearly hit the floor ...hope your DS doesn't know this..

MaMoTTaT I had forgotten that I had to fill in a form (take your word for it). I WAS poor when I first had the DC so would definitely have done so if there was a choice. I am sure however that the form of claiming will have to change once it stops being a universal benefit and you will need to make an annual declaration of entitlement, or provide proof of income, or some such. THAT is where some will fall down.

Orm - nope I only need to thank the high income earners for being able to support my boys until I get back to work - or start my business

I'm probably going to be screamed at for this, but the government can't afford the welfare state anymore. Where my DP grew up (South Africa) if you don't work, you don't eat & you don't see a doctor, etc. So he has little sympathy.

I think that CB ought to be capped for high earners nd this will limit those who don't need it from claiming it, especially when it's used to pay for music lessons and Malawian orphans. I would go further and limit it to the first two children only. Becasue if people can't afford to have several children without state help then perhaps they shouldn't have more than two in the first place. This would also prevent all those people you see in the news from having 10 kids, not bother working and having the state pay every penny for them. People would stop that immediately if the state didn't pay.

A1980 - where my exH grew up (and I lived for a while) many people that didn't work scrounged off their (already struggling) family, exBIL

People wouldn't stop having children because the state doesn't pay up - it's not that simple.

And would you propose your 2 children cap is directed at those who are yet to have their children - or the ones that have already had them???

Okay I am with OP here in that although they are called 'child benefits' they are in fact not benefits but a tax relief for parents. Take them away and there will be no tax relief at all for families. And that is just very very wrong. There are WAY too many people on this thread who get hung up about this being a 'benefit' and what it's spent on. That is NOT the point IMHO.

ormrenewed but that is my point! You DO get your taxes back if you are not a high earner. You get it back through education for your children, GP services, police, courts provision, legal aid, medical treatment, tax credits (pick whichever are relevant). Until you are a higher rate taxpayer you are, on average, a net beneficiary of the state. Of course rich people also benefit from the police, courts etc but they PAY in a lot more so are net payers.

I need to check exact stats but about the top 20% of earners are net payers of tax/ benefits and the bottom 80% are net beneficiaries.

I have to say, my heart sank when I heard the announcement on CB.

we are a higher earning household (dh works, i don't - I care for dd1, who is severely ASD)

yes, dh's wage slips show a decent salary.

in the past 3 years we have:

had to move house twice, chasing appropriate schooling for dd1. our current rent (we have to live where we do, again because of dd1's schooling) is triple what our mortgage was before we had to move. we still own (hah! the bank does, inreality) our house, which is rented out - it covers it's mortgage and management fees, but of course our outgoings have tripled.

we have paid: £30k the first year for dd1's ASD pre-school; £50k last year for her schooling, plus

Ed Psych fees, legal fees to take the LA to court, private OT (none provided for pre-schoolers, none provided for children with no gross motor delays, none provided for children who don't have a physical disability - the list of excuses changes every time you ask) - this costs £100 per hour, dd1 goes weekly. Tbh, the list goes on as to what we have paid out for dd1 to just get a suitable education.

currently, the LA are paying her fees (we won the legal fight), but her statement is up for review in December, as it will be annually, and no doubt we will have to fight again. I expect there will be further years where we pay her fees, while we fight to keep her in the only school which has enabled her to learn.

I am bloody grateful that we can afford all this, but of course the money is not just sitting htere - it all has to be budgeted for.

and, when the bills all come in at once, there has been many a time when the CB is what has been used to put food on the table, and clothes on our backs.

so, we are to lose CB. but I notice that we are not guaranteed to never have to pay out like we have had to do so far for dd1.

life sucks, sometimes.

tooposh - your private medics were almost certainly NHS (public) trained and if you had a car crash would you not get an amubulance (NHS) coming to you - even if you then paid for private care afterwards?) , you need police as well don't you, and if you have a fire then the first state, Your DC teachers were probably trained in the state sector too

You also seem to forget that yes they are net beneficiaries in monetary terms, but in terms of the services they provide they are huge contributors.

I have clearly been living under a rock this morning, I see the Govt have made an announcement. Well no more Monsoon clothes for my DD, no more Malawian aid and Music lessons for Duchesse and maybe Tooposhtopost will have to reconsider private healthcare.

However the point is that we will all survive.

At least the very low paid are being protected.

I still cant get my head around the double income homes - so do 2 incomes of £40k still get the benefit whereas 1 on 46k does not?

silverfrog - that is shit

so what do you think WOULD stop people having children they couldnt afford? so many people do cap the size of their family based on income so why on earth wouldnt it work? yes there'd be a hard line few who broke the rules but it would be a minority!

Whitehorn

yes according to the BBC

"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."

• go figure

Schulte Why do you think families should get tax benefits. Its our choice to have them?

tbh I don't think anything would stop a minority of people (as thats what it is most people can afford children at the time of a planned conception - obviously accidental pgs are somewhat different) having children they can't afford.

People have always done it, and will always continue to do it.

MaMoTTaT
Admittedly the family with 2 earners have to pay childcare (we do) but it still doesnt even out. How bizarre.

Whitethorn - because the state only works on the basis that people have and bring up children... who then later pay for pensions etc... Surely that's obvious?