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.

If they are at school or nursery school it doesn't and plenty of couples work two shifts - wife could do evening bar work etc. where there are jobs to be had and some women can write for pay or design web sites or whatever their skills in the evenings

Grr! Just spent an age writing a comment and it didn't go through!!!! Agghhh!

Xenia, maybe if wages for the lowest paid were fairer, there would be no need to rely on TCs. Most people I know would be hard pushed to find a f/t job paying more than £12k pa, which is impossible to support a family on.

Of course, businesses would complain if they had to raise their wages, so the government subsidises the low wages for the benefit of not just the families, but the businesses.

There is a gaping and widening gulf btween the highest and lowest paid. Sorry I find it hard to feel sorry for those paying 25% in tax. They are still much richer than I will ever be. I work hard. I don't expect holidays, fast cars or a big house. That money helps me to clothe and feed DS.

I would much rather be able to earn a decent income independantly (and pay more tax), and for childcare to be free at the point of need. Unfortunately, ATM that isn't happening.

Xenia, we don't all have reliable husbands or partners. My ds's father has no involvement and pays nothing (he is currently unemployed and homeless in Spain).

I suppose you would rather I abandonded DS in an orphanage like single mums were forced to in the old days.

Plenty of couples work two shifts yes, but also plenty of people have a long commute,leaving home at 6 or 7am, and aren't home until 7, 8, 9 or even 10 pm in the evening. Not easy to fit another job around that without childcare.

School hours are 9am- 3.30pm 39 days a year. Wrap around childcare for two children, term time only will cost me £3.5K. And that will mean my 11 year old will be alone in the house after school until I get home.

Actually, finding after school care for DS2 is proving pretty impossible atm, as there is no after school club!

Could someone please suggest what I could do in the evenings to supplement my income? I've wouldn't know where to start with website design. And DH doesn't arrive home until 7pm.

lynette - you are lucky if your school day goes to 3:30. Ours is till 3:10. Hardly time to do a days work unless you become a TA.

I'm sure a lot of SAHMs will have to/choose to return to work when the child benefit cut and tax credit cut come in. However this will mean more people competing for fewer jobs and maybe some of the mothers married to higher rate tax paying husbands will take low paid jobs meaning there will be fewer low paid jobs for families who are struggling to get off unemployment benefit and into work.

If every SAHP with primary age children were to return to work there would be no one left with time to help listening to children read at school, fewer volunteers for the PTA etc. The big society would become the small society. I know there are people who work full time and still do voluntary work but it is probably easier to do more when you are not working full time.

lynettescarvo - I meant to say I agree with you about the difficulties of finding a job when your DH works very long hours plus commute and wrap around childcare is still expensive.

Actually, our school day is 9-310. What was I talking about?

And yes two parents both working for £40K a year takes away a job for a family who could exist on one lot of £40, so both parents working isn't always to be applauded.

I think what SAHM actually do for society is very over looked.

Helping in schools, being around for small children and elderly parents shouldn't be sneered at, but so often is in this country.

yes, but if you have 1 or 2 children within about 1 - 2 years then that is not a long time to work at a loss to preserve a career so you can then work full time once they are at school. If you give up work it's very hard to get back at the same financial level which is why many men and women dont' give up work when they have children.

au pairs cost £X a week if you can free up a spare room for them. Our children share rooms and it doesn't kill anyone.

As for what work can be done after 7pm at home lots of women have lots of ideas. Go on [www.peopleperhour.com]] for ideas. Someone put a note through our door and every neighbour this week offering babysitting, gardening, dog walking, etc etc. My daughter's friend who had a baby just after university is a qualified personal trainer and she sees clients for work outs at her flat whilst someone minds the baby in the other room and I do tons of stuff from home. I'm not saying it is easy and sometimes you need to spend a lot of time trying to generate work and run a business of your own but it's not impossible.

Ah yes, but I have three DC in a 3 bed house, and an age gap of 6.5 years between eldest and youngest.

And yes, I'm planning on working at a loss for the foreseeable future. But if it means I get a pension, then at least I'll be warm while watching daytime TV in my old age.

I am not too far off that. I do chair something non work related and support 5 (now 4) children alone as a single mother but it's the money that really makes that easier than with other jobs. I am a very good singer if I'm allowed to say that. Had I chosen that career as a teenager my life would be very different now. Worse.

Xenia

Before talking about all the wonderful options and ignoring childcare (becasue an au pair is not an option-huge mortgage but also wtf happens when she gets sick?) think about four families with two kids (I'll use people I know here, with apologies): my sister and her partner are medical professionals, they earn 100k+ per year and she works one and a half days a week; a close female friend dumped by her husband earns 50k, but needs childcare 51 weeks a year; my partner and I earn a total of 51k, but pay out 17k in childcare costs even with me working weekends; and a sort of friend whose wife stays at home whilst he earns just under 40k. Obvious losers and winners here, but adding up total income don't help.

Clearly the alternative is to use actual figures which reflect the choices we make, as the tax credit system does, but that's too hard apparently. If not, one earning partner ain't actually that bad. And as for the two 40k earners next door to the one 41k earner thing, it's crap. Only 6% of households with no higher rate taxpayer even top 41k total, and less than 0.5% top 70k. Median income for families with one earner is 75k, not 41k! So, if you do, as the Mail or Telegraph have it, have a partner earning exactly on the threshold and two neighbours earning just below it, pelase tell us, because you are one of the most improbable people alive today.

Correction: median income for households with one HIGHER RATE earner is 75k. Makes sense then

But life isn't fair. We will never have a system which is fair and I do wish people would think more about the sin of envy and consider within thesmelves why they mind if someone has more than they do. I often think they'd rather no one has some money than someone else has it and they don't. WHy does it matter if someone has more or someone has better health or someone a ncier care or a better tax treatment? If it wiould cost us more to make it fairer than we would save I'd rather those couples with 2 x £40k had the money than we wasted it on compliance issues (and I'm writing here as a single parent of 5 who will lose child benefit in 2013).

I don't mind if someone has more than I do.
(There are millions of people on this planet who have far less than I do)

What I do care about is living in a country where there government introduce a ridiculously unfair system of benefits.

We won't be losing our child benefit, but it doesn't stop me being cross that the Conservatives being so short sighted about who they plan to pay it to.

Raising the inheritance tax take on large estates is one way of making a big difference - instead of focusing all the cuts on families. The under-taxation of inherited wealth in this country is a national scandal. However, I am not sure how it would fit with the somewhat elastic definition of fairness of our new ruling elite, given the personal and voting cost. If I heard a bit more focus on the inherited wealth of the "undeserving rich", rather than the mendacious grasping of the "undeserving poor" it might be easier to take seriously all these suggestions that we are (cue cynical laughter) "all in this together".

I would be in favour of abolishing IHT so I doubt we are gong to be agreeing on that one. It does not bring in much revenue and the fewer taxes we have the better.

Loudlass - are you going to be helping your eldest son/daughter at university now that the tuition fees are going up to £10,000? (the student loans are only going to pay for £3,000)

We listened this morning and my husband said 'if they mention 'higher earners again I will jump off the nearest bridge', how do you think I felt? I nearly lost him last year in a terrible accident when he fell 80 foot down a mountain. These cuts are going to mean we will not have any money for ourselves as we will be paying the rest of his loan.

Yes we may be getting 45K net but we certainly don't see it and we are going to struggle if they do this to university students as our daughter is hoping to go to university next year. Why do they want our kids who want to better themselves in more and more debt? If they have any sense they will move abroad when they graduate and not have to pay their taxes for the ones who moan about people who take time off to look after their own children. I thought this government wanted families to look after their own children - how wrong I was!

No student has to pay any fees immediately. Most even now take out the loans

Taking out a loan means paying interest and starting working life in debt. I wouldn't want my children to start their working life with huge debts. It would be better if the university system went back to how it was 20 yrs ago with fewer people going, proper academic subjects and funded in the main by taxation. What was wrong with the old polys for shorter more practical courses?

The argument keeps coming up that it isn't fair for people on low incomes to pay child benefit for higher incomes (not that they are) and people on low incomes shouldn't have to pay for others to go to university..where is this nonsense coming from? Society as a whole benefits from all children being well looked after and well educated. People who choose not to have children or can't have children will still prefer to be looked after in hospital by some one who is well educated. If a graduate gets a decent job and a high income they will end up paying more tax which will eventually cover the cost of their education anyway.

It appears those people saying middle class parents should fund the cost of higher education are people who had a free university education themselves - vince cable and others.
Some people on low incomes may not have had a university education but they will benefit from the state in other ways in the course of their lives.

I think we just need a shift in thinking, we will just have to accept that those students who get degrees and go on to earna good wage will be paying back into the pot.

I do think that less people need to be going to university as well.

Having said that it has made Dh and I question the wisdom of having a second child.

I am a higher rate tax payer who is on the PTA, chairs various churchy and society groups, studying for a degree, works full time, and cares for elderly relatives. I am slowly losing my marbles though. I also would never choose this life, it just kind of happened.

The issue of possibly means testing Child Benefit has left a nasty taste in my mouth, and ille tell you all why.

Because our elderly people have been living on a meagre State pensions since the earnings link was cut in the 80's, but their benefits are means tested.

Britain's middle classes are living on a lot more than pensioners, so why the moaning ?

Or is this moaning just an example of the moaning minnies among middle England ?????

ivanhoe - what pensioner benefits are means tested..pensioners all get the fuel payment, bus pass etc even if they are millionaires.

Of course those living on the state pension are living very frugally, and should receive more than they do. However there are many very wealthy pensioners who retired in their late 50s/early 60s on very generous final salary pensions and are living in some of the largest houses in the country.

By the time those in their 30s now retire I can't imagine there will be bus passes or fuel allowance etc and the pension will be even lower yet we are expected to pay now for millionaire pensioners to have a fuel allowance.

I won't be financially helping my DS through university, I can't!...he will have to start his post-university life with cripplingly huge eye-watering debts. Because they are saying that "all but the poorest students will have to pay the new tuition fees". And the poorest - the dc whose parents are on JSA/IS, NOT those on a low income that don't qualify for free school meals.

I feel awfully sorry for him, especially as he is insistant (since age 3) that he wants to study medicine.

He will have to live here for bloody ever rather a long time after he graduates in order to pay off his debts. WHich will bring with it its own problems.

An Au-pair is not an option - my dc already share rooms. There IS no room for an Au-pair. Do you automatically assume that everyone has a room for each of their dc? And fitting in a job around my DP's is never going to happen. He works all different shifts, 8.30am-5pm, 11.30am-8pm, 2pm-10.30pm. Try fitting in a job with those hours??

I don't feel 'jealous' towards those with more than me, I just recognise that they obviously had more opportunities when they were growing up than I did, and with those increased opportunities come increased opportunities to earn more money and get a better job. Why shouldn't they pay more tax? I don't think they have worked any harder than me, and even if they had to work hard at university, I would have gladly worked my socks off at uni if given a chance to go. I wasn't even allowed to stay on and do A-levels despite getting no GCSE's lower than a 'B'. I had to go out to work.