to be angry George Osborne is advising people to damage their pensions?

[IsItMeOr]

Because BBC reports him as saying:

"Mr Osborne urged top-rate taxpayers to stop claiming child benefit altogether, saying this would be the "most sensible" thing to do."

Well no, actually, it wouldn't be sensible at all if you are not working at all/enough to meet your National Insurance contribution, as claiming Child Benefit ensures you get Home Responsibilities Protection (effectively, a full contribution for that year on your state pension).

So please, nobody stop claiming Child Benefit without checking you're not going to be stuffing up your State Pension first.

I would take a guess that if you're paying tax at the top rate you will be paying enough NI... maybe?

What TheButterflyEffect says.

So DH pays higher-rate tax so we wouldn't get CB, but I earn nothing as a SAHM but do benefit from HRP.

I am happy to accept the reduction in CB, as yes, we are better off than many, but don't think it fair to remove the pension cover without being explicit about it.

Butterflyeffect- that is exactly our situation. I have no occupational pension at all, my husband earns just a tad into higher rate tax (about £200/year over the threshold)

Completely agree Isitmeor

well done for pointing out another flaw in this cock eyed plan. the man has no concept of the real world.

Thanks CerealOffender .

I was worried it would get lost in the other thread(s), and really didn't want anybody to miss it.

Who's claiming child benefit you or your husband. If it's you, then the chancellors advice doesn't apply.

Really bluenordic? I thought it was on a family basis that they were doing it, so I wouldn't be eligible anymore and therefore shouldn't claim?

Oh, now I'm cross and confused.

Ive emailed my MP about exactly this ... I can afford to lose the CB but if they take away my HRP then that is a huge double whammy...

I dont think they have been clear enough about this aspect of the changes and I hope they come out and clarify the situation.

TBH it makes me extremely nervous that they haven't clarified this as it would save them even more money if they stop HRP as well......

Ooh, good idea Duritzfan. I'll send my MP an email. He's normally pretty good at replying, although not that we always agree with his views .

Yes yes yes! Why hasn't this been picked up by the news people? Seems like Georgey hasn't even thought of it.

Somebody tell the Fawcett Society to add it to their list.

Well I don't want to piss on anyones chips, but..............HRP doesn't exist anymore - the previous Government abolished it whilst they were reforming pensions. In their defence you do only need 30 quialifying years for a full pension now.

www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10018691

Would it hurt people to pay a voluntary contribution| to protect a state pension?| That's what my DP considered when he was a SAHD

www.hmrc.gov.uk/ni/volcontr/whentop-up.htm

The WelfareStateis not a charity that can support people's lifestyle choices. With those choices come responsibility, one of which is surely looking at how you will provide for yourself in old age.

. Wish I'd known this before emailing my MP. But thanks for pointing out that it's really just a name change TheButterflyEffect.

ActuallyMNM, um, well no, but that is a pretty significant change you're proposing. And the State Pension is not a direct contributory thing, so I have paid the max NI for many years, but I won't get any more out than somebody who has only ever paid the minimum. I don't complain about that, but I thought it was a pretty decent thing to recognise that, so far as the state was concerned, caring for a child was a worthwhile job.

And yes, of course I've looked at how I will provided for myself in old age, and part of that is knowing what I can expect by way of state pension alongside my work pension.

And when did caring for children become a "lifestyle choice"?

I emailed my MP about it yesterday. I think it's another flaw in the plan. I don't mind losing my child benefit as a 'wealthy' (ha ha) household just over the threshold, but if I lose my HRP or whatever they want to call it, for the c. 5 years that I'm not working until my baby starts school, then that is a much bigger issue.

IsItMeOr - I haven't made a lifestyle choice to stay at home but it's no longer economically viable for me to work - even though I would earn well over the threshold because I work part time, paying for a nanny and to commute into town takes all of my take home pay, so protecting my HRP is important to me.

Gideon Osborne, for example, is a twat.

If your DH is just over the tax threshold the best thing he could do is to pay more into his pension fund and you will be still eligible for CB.

at theseconscoming

PanicMode - that's pretty much what I said to my MP, too.

I still don't get what the lifestyle choice comment from ActuallyMNM is about. If you have children (yes, that's a choice, but one the nation needs many people to make to sustain itself), then you have no choice but to care for them. Is the norm supposed to be paying someone else to do it, and doing it yourself is a "lifestyle choice"?

Just sounded very peculiar to me.

To my mind, smoking is a lifestyle choice. Or eating 5 a day and exercising loads. But caring for your children is socially and legally required of you.

Working or styaing at home are choices you make/consider when having children. If you chose to stay at home, you need to appreciate the impact this may have on your entitlement to future contributory benefits.......the choices you make are your lifestyle choices. I currently choose to work - however i haven't always as being at home with my babies/toddlers was important to me. That choice made an negative impact on my occupational pension and could have on my state pension. My family will lose our ChB - would prefer not to, but then the measure is for the greater good and all that jazz. If only some families getEMA why the hoo-har about ChB?

Voluntary contributions are there for people who wish to make up shortfalls/protect their NI record - suggesting someone pays one is hardly revoliutionary and is it just another option/choice people have. Why should the state shoulder the burden and provide for those whbo can provide for themselves. OP ws referring to higher rate tax payers, is it unreasonabe to expect them to make a voluntary contribution if needed?

This will have been researched, impacted and risks explored and mitigated for. Desparate times call for desparate measures - guess there will be many more things we don't like coming along. At least the less well off in society arepretty well protected from this change - hardest hit are probably among the Tory vioters themselves, so if you were feeling ungenerous, you could argue people got what they voted for.

Maybe I'm oversensitive today (who, me? ). But the phrase "lifestyle choice" seems to me to be disparaging and suggesting the option chosen is somehow unnecessary.

I have no problem with simply "choice".

I think I've already said that I don't mind losing CB itself. I do object if it also means I lose my state pension protection, not least because no Government Minster has mentioned that impact.

I see from your profile that you're a fellow civil servant, so I know that things are impacted, etc. But given my experience, this smacks of a back of the envelope political announcement without the necessary backup to explain to people what it means to them.

If you know different, fine, but the HMRC's press office should have been doing better in that case.

Lifestyle choice was not meant to offend.

Can't imagine there are many jobs worse than working in HMRC press office

Yes, I know, it's mostly technical stuff that nobody understands. And those that do understand, don't like it.