CB - alternative solutions?

[CardyMow]

If cutting CB in the way that has been outlined is unfair, how else could/ should the government save money on this benefit?

I ask this because a columnist in the Daily Fail (I ^know!) said that he would rather they stopped CB for dc at the age of 16yo, regardless of whether they are still in education or not.

I always thought that the reason CB was paid to 19 was because, if, like our family, you are caught in a cycle of very low wages (£16Kfor a FT job), the only way out is more education. If you take away CB for poor people, they will also lose their TC's, and theefore have a dc in FT education that they get NO income for, and are therefore unable to feed or clothe them. It was done because otherwise, these DC would HAVE to go out to work FT, just to have money to eat, thus them also being stuck forever in a very low paid job, with no chance of bettering themselves.

Surely education is the way OUT of the benefits trap? But many more dc will be forced to leave school at 16 to work in min wage jobs if their parents cannot feed them while they gain better qualifications.

It would make any form of further education the preserve of the rich, surely that is a step too far back in time?

While I agree that the way of administering this CB cut needs to be fairer and based on household income rather than one earners tax bracket, surely if minimum wage is £5.85 p/h, then a lot of the country earn barely more than £12,000pa for a FT job, so wherever you are, whatever you are doing, £42K is a HUGE income...Why shouldn't CB be cut for anyone with a household income of £34K pa? My family certainly wouldn't need CB if we had an income of £34Kpa.

How about removing CB from anyone who has 4 or more children (excluding multiple births) as a proxy for means testing as few people who are working or have one partner as SAHM can afford that many kids!

Those that can are likely to have either very high household income or very low (ie only benefits)

There would need to be some transition or other benefits so those on very low incomes who already have large families dont see the kids suffer but might remove an incentive to have more kids if you lost benefit above a certain number

would i be better off working if i took a job for 17hrs aweek contract in a school as catering assistant and did get paid in holidays. i have 3 children and a husband on sickness benefit and myself?

thesecondcoming - not stalking your answers today honest

We do both work for a deficit (or we will be - at the moment we have some support with childcare but that will go in April as we are evil and earn in the 40's).

I work because I would go mad not working and because I am in a job which has clear progression, I wouldnt get back to the same place, have a good pension etc. If I worked in a call centre I wouldnt bother working for a deficit no.

I think it should be limited to 4 children as well Fijamez. i don't agree with people who are long term unemployed keep on having children.

The reason some SAHM's can't go out to work is QUITE simple. DP only earns £16K for a FT job. If I go out to work, nursery fees are £52 a day in my area. I would only earn £46.80 a day. I would be PAYING to go out to work. And we would not get childcare through TC's because DP works....

Welshexpat - nop

Supersmashingreat - I totally agree with you, I am a sahm of two by choice and doubt Ill be going back to work until they are both much older. But agree that there are probably some SAHM that possibly use the CB as a little extra to enable to them to be SAHMS.

boring stats average uk household income is about 25k, even in southeast it is only 30.5k so 44k is still 50% more than southeast average, more than 25% of SE population live on less than 20k and only 2% more than 100k

while 44k may not go as far as we like ( i pay HRT and now SATM) but I saved so I could take a couple of years out I don't think its the states responsibility to pay anything for my DD,
I think benefits should be a safety net for a maximum of a year or two to cover hard times and its different if someone is severly disabled, I think you have to adjust expenses to fit income not decide ezpenses and then think you need that amount of money, my mother in law manages to save on her state pension!!

why cant some people disagree without being so nasty???

They could start by asking Samantha Cameron to pay for her own personal dresser and diary coordinator. Hmmmm.

The irony is that keeping child benefit as a universal benefit keeps it cheap. Child benefit is incredibly cost effective to administer compared to say child tax credits while it remains a universal benefit.

Once account has to be taken of sorting out the 'stamp' protection (tied to child benefit payment) for stay at home parents and those people with oscilating incomes who will be inluded one year and not the next it's all going to get very messy and expensive.
That's even before we attempt to include a 'fairness' element to avoid hitting families on the margins living off one HRTP.

Everyone who has a child/children incurs considerably more expense than those on the same incomes without them. In most young families I know (including mine) virtually all the money is directed at the children and this applies accross all classes.

Isolating higher rate taxpayers will end up being punitive for those at the margins and not save any money in the long run. I don't believe that Cameron will win on this one - especially as child benefit is such an emotive issue. In France, once you have three children you pay a substantailly reduced tax bill irrespective of income. In this country there is now no recogntion at all for some families that they are supporting perhaps 2,3 or 4 children.

Living in hugely expensive London with loverboy and state school educated kids, it seems to me that every non-earning child carer parent who does volunteering work at the local playgroup, nursery, primary and secondary school will have their CB cut.

This will mean that the state schools etc. will lose their free volunteers as many parents will have to find ways to supplement their familly income. Maybe the state can start paying the volunteers for the jobs they presently do for free. I reckon I do at least 10 hrs p.w.!!!

Surely in this big fair society that supposedly very smart Mr. Cameron can find a solution to this hugely unfair Household income - CB cut situation.

If not..., fair is fair, fellow mothers, waft your aprons, wave your wooden spoons, burn the spuds and refuse all amourous attention until these Eaton Boys sort it out. Come on Samantha talk some sense into these boys. Equality for all mums!!!!

Dear supersmashing great, are you aware that it is those horrid stay at home mums that organise most of your kid's school events???
see my thread on gin4me.

Loudlass

'The reason some SAHM's can't go out to work is QUITE simple. DP only earns £16K for a FT job. If I go out to work, nursery fees are £52 a day in my area. I would only earn £46.80 a day. I would be PAYING to go out to work. And we would not get childcare through TC's because DP works....'

My DH earns 17k a year. Our nursery fees are £58 a day plus breakfast club and sometimes after school club. We do not get childcare support either. After childcare I earn around £200 a month. After paying back debts accrued getting my qualifications to earn 30k and general work costs I have minus amounts of money.

Ok, so we choose to work to maintain our jobs etc but are you saying it is ok for people in our situation for one to give up work and then claim CB TC etc as we have a low income? We would then only have a salary of 17k but would actually be better off! Is it morally right for me to give up my job?

Can you not see why a joint salary in the 40's is not rich if you have chilcare costs?

Yes exactly...I am actually at redundancy risk and am no longer worried about it too much as we will be better off

Saying that there are so many more benefits to my job than salary including pension, experience and my mental health so I wouldnt stop for those reasons alone. Just fed up of the impression that we are rich.

All we seem to be doing is fighting with each other

I don't think losing £40 a week if you are earning over £44,000 a year is unreasonable.
It seems a sensible way cheap way to administer a benefit.

I also like the previous idea to limit it to 3 children.

In my world I would administer all benefits from the local government offices.You could then employ more people from the local area into administering them. You could then hand over all your income details just once instead of sending them all over the country endlessly. They would know straight away what you were getting in and out so cutting benefit fraud, overpayments and all the other crud that currently exists.The amount of paperwork I get from the tax office in Portsmouth, the tax credits in Scotland, student loans somewhere up north and local benefits office is enough to paper a small house...and then it's not right.Grrrrr

Well lets start by stopping paying people child benefit for children who do not reside in this country (completely legal to do this by the way!) £24 million a year saved there!

Also lets take the money back (with interest) from the banks!

The eu £40 million a DAYFOR US TO BE MEMBERS!!!!!!!!

Also pull out of this stupid unwinnable, illegal war!

That should be a few bob saved without us lot having to sacrifice too much just now!

i totally agree Sulk. why is this situation never addressed by the politicians. if we are so broke as a nation why are we wasting money in this way?

Our current government are too busy vilifying the poor to actually conduct any politics! this really is not what i voted for! we should sack the lot of them and start again!

Bunch of swine!

LOUDLASS - I agree £34k sounds like a huge amount of money, but for people living in the SE of England and moreso in London, £34k does not go very far, particularly when you take into account the cost of public transport to get to work and childcare costs. I imagine £34k doesn't go very far for a family in Edinburgh either.

Could someone please tell me what TC stands for? thanks.

Tax credits? perhaps i don't know though just a guess

It would appear that the poor are to blame. Having read through too many posting, lamenting on 'only earning £17k pa', four children, £200k morgage, it appears that too many people have a Champagne lifestyle whilst earning ber money.

This is not difficult for people to understand, I am an finding it quite annoying that I have to repeat this. Stop asking people to pay for YOUR children.

Lets look at this objectively. I have a car, not a big one, not expensive, relatively cheap to run. I purchased this as it fit my budget. Now, imagine if I bought a large 4x4, full spec, doing 10 miles to a gallon of petrol. Only I was allowed to drive it, enjoy it, show to the world just what I had achieved. Then I asked that everyone else paid for it. They'd, quite rightly, think I was having a laugh.

You breed em, you feed em!