Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think the CB abolition has had an effect a bit like kicking an ants' nest

257 replies

OrmRenewed · 04/10/2010 14:14

on MN Grin

And the calls for 'someone else' ie the elderly, to have their benefits cut have started already.

I have very little nice to say about the Tories but if they have to make cuts, I'd rather CB went than see cuts in other areas. It seems a reasonable place to start.

OP posts:
BooBooGlass · 04/10/2010 14:16

First the milk snatcher, and now this. I mean really, what do the tories have against our children, eh Wink

elportodelgato · 04/10/2010 14:17

I agree with you Orm but fear we're in the minority. CB should have been means tested ages ago. The argument I sometimes get from people is that it's expensive to means test these things and therefore cheaper to just give it to everyone but I don't buy it tbh.

I also am no Tory but everyone knew the cuts were coming and they're definitely needed...

Original poster
OrmRenewed · 04/10/2010 14:17

BTW as things stand we won't lose out but I don't know how things will stand in 2013. Not to mention I am sure it will (and should) be amended to take account of household income.

OP posts:
EmpressOfTheUniverseReality · 04/10/2010 14:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
OrmRenewed · 04/10/2010 14:23

Agreed empress. But I'm not entirely convinced that the response would have been that different on MN if it was being properly means-tested.

OP posts:
GetOrfMoiLand · 04/10/2010 14:28

I said on one of those other threads Orm that the effect of this will be that those who are losing out will look for other beneficiaries to attack. And that will be the lower earners and the pensioners.

Mind you, I think we do have to look at the pension pot as it by far exceeds what is spent on other benefits. If we need to reduce the benefit bill then we need to look at all areas equally imo.

I will lose CB but i agree that it needed to be cut - I just give it to DD to spend fgs. It takes the piss that high earners get a benefit like this. But then again it also takes the piss that golfing pensioners recieved a winter fuel allowance/pension etc.

Original poster
OrmRenewed · 04/10/2010 14:30

Yes it does. But there is a sort of mean-mindedness about some of the posts that upsets me. "No don't take my money away! Take it away from them!" Hmm

FWIW I do know quite a few pensioners who just about get by. From reading MN you'd think all elderly people live in a kind of financial shangri-la.

OP posts:
ChickensHaveNoEyebrows · 04/10/2010 14:32

We'll lose CB, and it won't hurt us that much tbh. I do think it's bonkers that it's being calculated on individual salaries, though, rather than household income. Those families with one full time worker on 44k and x amount of children will feel it, I imagine. Especially if they live in an expensive area (London springs to mind).

Rentatoast · 04/10/2010 14:35

Historically, I thought that CB was to make up for the axing of tax allowances for children/marriage.

So stay at home mums are going to be stuffed on their state pensions!

prettyfly1 · 04/10/2010 14:38

I am fine with having the cb cut provided it is done fairly which it isn't. Completely unreasonable for a family on 80 k collectively to get it when an individual family on 44 cant.

Chil1234 · 04/10/2010 14:45

@Rentatoast. 'Family Allowance' was introduced in 1945 and was an incentive to produce bigger families. Paid directly to women for child #2 and #3 rather than risk giving it to a man who wouldn't pass it on to the children. Became CB in the seventies and applied to child #1. UK 2010 is very different to UK 1945 or even UK 1977 in terms of family structure, women in work, tax arrangements. It should have been reformed a long, long time ago but no government - until now - needed the money badly enough to risk the upset.

olderandwider · 04/10/2010 15:19

George Osborne said that means-testing CB would be extremely complex and therefore costly.

Think how many families have children, step-children and all the permutations of main earners, part-time earners, self-employed etc etc etc. Would be very hard to calculate who is due what.

Cutting CB to higher rate earners is a blunt instrument, but it will save £1bn a year (I think) and that money can go towards those in greater need of benefits.

2shoes · 04/10/2010 15:21

yanbu
tis a bit boring
if I read one more thread where someone who has oodles of money is moaning I will kick the cat

anyabanya · 04/10/2010 15:24

Don't kick the cat!!

Alot of people, when they moan about how there ought to be cuts or 'fairer taxes' usually mean that 'someone else' pays MORE.

2shoes · 04/10/2010 15:25

imo most of it is an excuse to look down on us poor people

LadyBiscuit · 04/10/2010 15:26

£1bn a year saved through scrapping HTR CB. And at the same time HMRC lets Vodafone off a £6bn tax bill. What a strange world of fucked up priorities we live in.

IsItMeOr · 04/10/2010 15:32

I agree that some form of targetting for Child Benefit is fair enough, and I would expect us to lose CB under any changes. Fine. Others can much less afford to bear any cuts than my family can.

I'm concerned that George Osborne doesn't seem to be saying anything about how full-time carers will have their state pension protected - or does he mean to cut that as well for the higher earning families?

I would be a lot less relaxed about that change!

Also, if we have to claim Home Responsibilities Protection through another route, it will mean that some of the administration will still be needed.

rokersmum · 04/10/2010 15:43

if the tories could afford as system to do it on household income i am sure they would and it wouldnt help single families as the threshold would still be 44k. i am all in favour of this cut - it will affect my family but as i have said in previous posts we need to make cuts as a country and rather they start with HRT.

one thing is for sure ... this is only the start - in the end everyone is going to be impacted by cuts as that is the only way to sort out teh country in the long term.

JoanneOfArk · 04/10/2010 15:44

A: She earns 15k, he earns £45k, household income of £60k. No CB.

B: both earning £43k, household income £86k, will receive CB.

C: Single parent earning £44k. No CB.

I am all for means testing it. But that's not what they're doing.

I think there was a campaign against considering couples' income jointly, hence the abolition of the married couples' allowance. This really isn't any different.

Alibabaandthe40nappies · 04/10/2010 15:52

Orm I do agree. Clearly lots of people on here who say 'leave the poor alone and tax the better-off', mean everyone who is better off than them!

I am in agreement in principle with what is being done, but there are a lot of problems with the manner of the doing - I am very interested to see the detail of how this will pan out, provided that it gets through Parliament.

I wonder what the response would have been if Labour had put this proposal forward? Not so much howling I think....

sarah293 · 04/10/2010 15:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

hallamoo · 04/10/2010 15:58

It's completely different to the married couples' allowance, where you used to get a tax break just because you were married, not if you were co-habiting.

All other benefits are calcuated on a household's joint income, so why not this? I think that's the part people are saying is unfair, and I agree, it is.

olderandwider - I don't buy that it would be harder to calculate who is due what, that is what happens with other benefits now - you look at the combined income of a household before determining tax credits etc.

What can't HMRC and the dept responsible for administering CB talk to each other to see whose combined income is too high to get it?

Lots of people are going to be badly affected where one parent stays at home and they are living on one income of, say 44k, and they have 3 or 4 children and live in the South East. It's not that much to live on, compared to a couple earning 40k each with a couple of school age kids living in an area where the cost of living is considerably lower. Ironically, the 2nd couple will get to keep their CB.

Tokyotwist · 04/10/2010 15:59

I don't think this view is held by the minority. Most of us think it's unecessesary to pay it to better off families, but I agree that it seems daft that combined earnings of over £80K will still be eligible but single earnings of £45K won't. That's just daft.

Their argument is that it needs to be like this for simplicity. How hard is it to fill out a form saying how much your combined earnings are. In fact, surely they already have this information.

Alibabaandthe40nappies · 04/10/2010 16:03

Riven it is and it isn't.

For me and DH it would be a disaster, because we have a mortgage based on a household income higher than that. If we were earning it between us, not so bad because neither of us would be paying higher rate tax. We would be worse off but it would be survivable.

But if we had been able to buy a house 10 years ago even instead of 6, and lived in a cheaper part of the country rather than in the very expensive SE, then it would probably feel like quite a good income.

FeelLikeTweedleDee · 04/10/2010 16:08

Riven 44K is not a lot when there is a SAHP situation.