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.

FOR THE SILLY LITTLE MAN ONLY

Eugenics? what has this got to do with CB.

I concede just one thing, CB should not be paid to highly educated and highly paid individuals.

Obnoxio,should we add Jews to that, as statistically they make up a fairly high percentage. Since time began in your christian bible, Jews have been the most educated of all races. What do you say Obnoxio? Ahhh, but they pay their full wack in tax don't they. So what are you left with?

The disabled and mentally ill, any suggestions. How can we prevent such "eaters" from ruining our good nation? Obnoxio, what would you do with them?

Finally those of impure genes, what do we do? Should we send them home?

I don't believe you know anything of which you speak. I don't believe an educated person would hold such views. Maybe you could enlighten us.

Ok - had another thought - if admininstering CB through tax code is seen as the cheapest form and therefore only viable form of administration, why not grant CB to all single parents automatically (can't be that many on excessive incomes anyway) but allow couples (married or unmarried) to nominate which of their tax code is measured for CB. Thus housholds with one high earner and either one 'normal earner' or SAHM or SAHD could nominate the lowest one or non-earner. Households with two high earners still scuppered but eliminates the most obvious unfairnesses.

And for those who have allowed the topic to be highjacked by Obnoxio and ilk, suggest ignore - works with toddlers - sane people can continue with productive discussion or go to bed (latter for me - work!)

Thesecondcoming, you have such a nice way with words, but your right. I am sitting here wondering though why loudlass is getting all of his vitriol. No one needs to defend their right to child benefit to a tosser like that.

I think it is because she is justifying herself. I won't. Nothing to defend, but I am just wondering who the hell spawned such a creature and if they claimed child benefit.

Why create a two tier system of CB at all.

Why can it not be scrapped and any money paid in CB to people on modest incomes simply be paid to them through Tax Credit. My real fear is that Dave and Co plan to ax tax credits, thats why they have left CB in place. Why else?

www.parentsforfairchildbenefitchange.weebly.com
also facebook

mima1 - there seems to be a lot of fighting on here and very little sensible discussion of what people are actually saying. your posting makes a LOT of sense to me.

we are lucky not to have to rely on benefits but i agree with everything you have to say. when you work out all the taxes etc the middle classes are not necessarily rolling in it.

as i put in my original post, I do not object at all in principal to giving up my child benefit IF it is really going to make a difference to the country's defecit but i do think the proposed system is bonkers. My brother and his wife ahve 3 kids. My husband and i have my 3 kids (and his 3 kids - but ex gets the cb for them). My brother and his wife both earn just below £44k each and so together have an income more than my husbands but they will not lose the cb, and we will because though I am a sahm my husband is a higher rate tax payer.

an anomoly that is mad.

Hi SAAS1963

Totally agree. We are in exactly same position (3 chn and one tax payer earning in the late £30,000's but pushed over the boundary to £45,000 by the taxable benefit value of car provided by work and essential to do the job). We will lose our CB. My chn's cousins (3 chn - all same ages as ours) have both parents earning in late £30,000's, they will keep theirs.

We use our CB (pooled in with earnings) to augment the family budget. Out of this we pay for clothes and food for the children, school items/shoes/uniform, school trips/residentials , cubs, rainbows, swimming lessons etc. We already holiday/camp in UK and have done for for last 11 years. Of course the annual amount we spend on this sort of thing i.e. 'family lift' exceeds CB and I would not expect the Government to fund the whole cost of a child but these are the things that are likely to be cut from our budget if CB goes.

How do I explain to the chn that they cannot do these things when their cousins with a higher income still can? Of course I would not point this out to them but this is the reality of the situation.

I have to say not as tough as families struggling on £17,000 pa etc and would support re-distribution if it meant children in real need would be better provided for but am so cross that we are being told we are sacrificing for the greater good when others with bigger budgets are not making the sacrifice too. 'All in this together' could be a very strong and positive message if it were true. At the moment it feels like being punished for being in the middle!

sorry - meant 'family life'!!

And in post on previous page

...Moving beyond the obvious single parent issue, how on earth can a system where a family earning say £60,000 a year (say HRTP on £44,000, partner on £16,000), who may be paying two or three sets of daycare and after school club fees in order to work and with a likely household income left after tax/NI/childcare of £36-£38,000 (be told they have 'broader shoulders' to absorb this loss than a family earning £86,000 (lets say with one child at secondary school and no childcare fees, a likely household income of £79,000?...

meant last figure to be a likely household income of £69,000 after deductions, not £79,000.

So little time...so many mistakes...sorry!

It all needs to be means tested really doesnt it depending on number of children and level of childcare plus ability work (e.g. disability, illness etc).

Just like tax credits really!

It's the 'cliff' aspect that gets me - one single penny over the basic tax band and - whoompf - thousands of pounds worse off.

This only affects 15% of CB claimants (including me single mother supporting children alone with income above the limit) so I think they are just going to have to put up with it. We need to move to a system where most people get no state help with anything and reduce tax in return.

this has all become so unpleasant. maybe i have got rose tinted spectacles on but i never used to feel so resentful.

i think successive governments have absolutely hammered the working, lower middle and middle classes for the past 15 years' and wasted money. I think we will still keep our child benefit (just about) but i still think people on higher incomes should as well. they pay enough tax and they don't get any tax relief on childcare.

i have always been very fortunate because i have had school jobs and a mum and neighbour who have helped out when my children were at primary and i have never had to pay for before or after school care. Then again my salary has never been anything to get excited about.

i think it should cut off after 4 children and discourage people from having lots of children when they cannot afford them.

I suppose it is a divide and conquer.

I still think this country needs to put its own people first and people who have paid in to the system.

Agreed Xenia. If middle income earners need to be given state handouts then something is fundamentally wrong. Cutting CB entirely over time and replacing with means tested tax credits seems sensible to me. Why is it so expensive to live in the UK these days?

I think the government have to recognise that for most families (including higher rate taxpayers) bringing up a young family is really hard financially.

I want to start my own business and a few years down the line I would happily handover my CB but as things currently stand we need every penny. I thank god that we have a couple of years to plan for this because if it was coming into force from next year I would have no choice but to kick dh out and to claim benefits. Five years ago we could have managed (just) but the recession and the price of petrol/utility bills/food have really hit families hard.

Xenia I agree that people have to start taking responsibility for themselves but this is the not the right way to do it. Other than child benefit and SMP I have never claimed anything in my entire life and yet the last few days have made me feel like a "sponger". You are always going on about how people should choose careers that allow them to earn lots of money and in turn creating a secure future for their children. How do you expect children to do that under this government? Our childrens futures have never looked so bleak. At least when I was growing up I was entitled to receive a higher education grant because I came from a low income family but our children won't have that luxury because we are rich in David Cameron's eyes .

Parents for fair child benefit change are interested in a family rally 'PICNIC AT PARLIAMENT'.

Take the poll on our website to show interest in the rally or share your ideas for action.

WWW.parentsforfairchildbenefitchange.weebly.com

If I hear one more time from a tory minister or lib dem (susan kramer) that it is not right for people on low incomes to pay the child benefit of those on higher incomes I will scream/kick the TV.

Those on higher incomes are covering their own families child benefit through the large contribution in tax they are making. Many of them would also have contributed tax for years pre children into the general government pot. Therefore those on low incomes are not paying the child benefit of those on high incomes, those on high incomes are covering it themselves.

Yes those with wider shoulders should pay more but middle earning families are already doing so:

1. loss of tax credits for those earning 40-60k
2. NI rise
3. Government lowering/freezing higher rate tax threshold meaning they are taking more income tax from anyone earning over 40k.

As has been said many times a salary of 44k is not 18k more disposbale income than someone earning 26k because some one on 26k will still get child benefit, tax credits, the personal allowance rise to 7000 and will not be paying 40% tax on any of their earnings. Their SAH spouse would also be entitled to things like free prescriptions which SAH parents with higher earning spouses pay their own. Government ministers are deliberately exaggerating the disposable income of people on middle incomes to stir up resentment among the lower paid and thus enable the government to squeeze those on 44k more. Cameron also mentioned the average higher rate tax payer earns 75k - right so why does this make it fair to hammer those on 44k?

Furthermore taking a couple of grand away from the middle classes is not going to help the economy. It will mean families will spend less on things like sport, music lessons, holidays leading to further job losses.

Whereas going after the non doms or taxing the 6 figure bonuses a little more would bring in revenue without reducing spending on goods/services. They could also scrap the winter fuel allowance for pensioners paying higher rate tax. Some of these baby boomers have retired at 60 or earlier on huge pensions and will have paid off their mortages. Why on earth are families with young children with so many more outgoings (mortgage, school uniform, several mouths to feed etc) being targeted first. Oh I know it is because there are so many well off baby boomers and the political parties are all desperate for their votes.

Xenia - Your salary is exceptionally high from what you say and you seem unable to understand that most people are unable to earn anywhere near this however hard they work/study. If you were trying to support your children on 44k I think you would really miss child benefit.

Some good points Miffy Jane

And of course, while the AVERAGE higher level tax payer may be on £75k, the MEDIAN will be far lower because the average (guessing mean) will be skewed upwards due to a very small number of people on extremely high incomes (read bankers!). So even more disingenuous.

I agree miffyjane.

Motherforjustice can't access ypur web page?

WWW.parentsforfairchildbenefitchange.weebly.com
??

The tories just want to keep the rich richer (where is this 'we are in this together crap' with Sam wearing her £750 dress - the cuts are not going to affect the rich boys club.

To me its all about choices and we have to take responsibility for those choices. I dont agree that unless you can afford to have children you shouldn't have them and therefore I think it is fairer to say that CB is paid for up to children to 11 years of age and if you want more children you have to take responsibility to pay for those children. Personally I sacrifice spending alot of time with my two children so I can provide for them when I would much rather be at home for them. I would like another child but simply could not afford another one - its about choices. Our joint income is over £100k but we are not 'well-off' as it is all relative. Our mortgage is £3k a month, nursery fees are £1K a month and private School fees are £1K a month. Again I know it is our choice to have a larger house (which is not fantastic) but we live close to London and wanted to live in a decent area etc. I do think we should have a benefits system to help genuine people who cannot work for some reason but there are too many loopholes and too many people exploiting the system and I dont think I should pay for people who want 8 children and decide NOT to work because they are better off on benefits - that is not right!

I meant to say for up to TWO children :)