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.

" dedicated Tue 12-Oct-10 09:22:35

Everyone is talking about the £44k higher rate band but according to the Sunday press in April next year this threshold will actually be set at £38600 - so many more will be pulled into the higher rate threshold...how did we miss that one?
"

That's because you add the single person tax allowance on before you become a higher rate tax payer - hence the higher figure in the press and on the thread is correct.

wow I expected a mauling and came back to retract some of what I said after further thought.
I do see the odd pensioner who has a basket of food all on special offer or one buying the old classic tin of beans/loaf of white bread but it really is the odd one
I'm guessing round here they are asset rich and cash poor ie did some of the trad occupations (manual) and live in 500,000 pound houses but on little more than the state pension.
I still do think that is sad I just wish they would sell the house and spoil themselves a bit with some of the money

Agree with every word girlafraid. We're one of those families to be hit, as hubbie a HRtax earner and I'm earning less than 10k through choice concentrating on raising family. We may have to rethink this which I find really sad. Yes we can manage without that money but it's the only benefit of any kind we've had and I'm quite strict about that money being for our children. Even higher HRtax would be fairer (even if we loose more as a family)!

Add on top of this that to send our two to university is now going to cost (at todays prices) £14k per year...and that's before you factor in food, accommodation etc. goodness knows what'll cost by the time they get to university age!

Why is it always people in the middle who get squeezed?

@vespasian - yes "threshold" is reasonably painless, I wasn't suggesting it was difficult, merely trying to give people an insight into how the salary scales are arranged.

I suggest that my figures are much closer to the truth than the figures spouted by politicians, the reason being that I am very close the subject matter and they, demonstrably, are not.

@ArmyBarmyMummy - Even higher HRtax would be fairer (even if we lose more as a family)!

Yep, I think a lot of people are angry about the principle of this cut, perhaps even more than they are about the loss of the money!

Higher than 50% tax is not fairer at all. It's unfair as it stands on higher earners and the higher it goes the less the tax take is so the poor suffer any way.

This is an interesting point about the debate. People would rather even they had less money if things felt fair to them. Someone on £13k on the minimum wage probably doesn't think it fair anyone earns £44k and pays higher rate 40% tax.

I am very pleased the way the cut works. We want more women at work and fewer men at work and more men at home cleaning up and a cabinet like say Spain and boards like Norway with hugely more numbers of women on them. So anything whic makes it harder to be a housewife is great news. Perhaps increase the top tax rate for working fathers who have a wife at home by another 10% might help women's position more in society or no child benefit unless your wife works?

Child Benefit should be completey abolished for middle earners, and high earners.

Why should families on middle and high incomes get universial child benefit, when pensioners are means tested for State handouts ?

Pensioners have already paid into the system, so rich or poor, should be in receipt of at least £250 a week state pension, and they shouldnt have to pay tax either having already spent a working life paying tax.

Middle income families have only just started paying taxes, compared to the working life of the elderly

/////Why is it always people in the middle who get squeezed?//////

It isnt. The worst squeezed for the best part of 30 years are the elderly.

pensioners aren't means tested for the winter fuel allowance - I think they should .

I have worked and paid tax since I was 18 - 25 years - never claimed any benefit except CB, have my own pension sorted and have no debt - so have I just 'started to pay taxes' then ?

Sorry if this has been mentioned already (I've not had time to read the enitre thread) but why are they attacking universal benefits at all?

The amounts they save will be pretty much wiped out if the bring in the married tax break anyway, and could be found in far less vulnerable groups like increasing capital gains tax and trightening the strings on offhore tax evaders.

At the end of the day universal benefits are there for a reason, as others have mentioned CB is supposed to go to the main carer in order to ensure that any children have a minimum standard of living regardless of what the DP earns, as being in a higer rate tax band does not make you exempt from situations of control through financial means or domestic violence.

There are score of people who have only been able to find a way out of their marriage/feed and clothe their children because they get CB and get nothing from their DP

How can any cuts to universal or means tested benfits be justified when the ConDems continue to provide tax breaks for big businesses who whilt they may be large financially do not employ large volumes of people, and allow grand scale corprate tax evasion?

A cut to CB is also a moral one if you put it along side the married tax break proposal, is panders to Daily Fail thinking that single/unmarried parents deserve nothing and that nice married people should be given an extra boost... But that's a whole other topic

/////Sorry if this has been mentioned already (I've not had time to read the enitre thread) but why are they attacking universal benefits at all?/////

The right wing like to attack benefits, because they know its a vote winner particularly among the oldest pensioners who worked at a time where there wass no welfare state.

Also it's a vote winner among many in the middle classes who are too wrapped up in "self" to give a damn about anybody else.

/////Just raise income tax if you need more revenue -//////

Ahhhh, the first common sense suggestion sinse ive been on this site.

The right wing dont like to increase income tax on middle and high earners.

///////pensioners aren't means tested for the winter fuel allowance - I think they should ./////

So then it is right for middle class families who are on a lot more than £5,000 a year, be means tested for Child Benefit ?

My inlaws have just built a £800,000 house , they have at least 3 trips abroad a year - a long one 4 weeks January / Feb .

I really dont think that they dont need the winter fuel allowance - in fact they say so themselves - we have suggested that they donate it to 'help the aged' but it fell on deaf ears .

People like above dont need it therefore it should be means tested .

I have no problem with CB being means tested but the way they have gone about it is so wrong, espcailly when a family with one earner just above the threshold loses it , but a family with two earners each below threshold but joint income well over - gets to keep it ???

Avantia, How much a week do you think the state pension should be, baring in mind your aparantly wealthy in laws receive it ?

I am not taking about state pension , I am talking about winter fuel allowance which pensioners like my inlaws dont need. So if government can hit young families then I see no reason why they can't do something about the winter fuel allowance.

My parents (now deceased) need the winter fuel allowance as they only had state pension and a very small pension from Dads work , he was 85 when he died , so pension not going far and he felt cold very much so heating on all the time in winter.

I am not having a go at all pensioners believe me , but like families some are far better off than others .

Right at the beginning of this thread, Girlafraid wrote:

'Just raise income tax if you need more revenue - then you fairly target everyone (not just families with young children) and the rich pay more

Benefit cuts generally hit the poor

Cutting so called middle class benefits unfairly targets those on a particular income bracket

You could also tax bankers bonuses at, say 75% or even - shock horror - make them pay their bloody taxes in the first place'

Thought it was worth repeating.

Yes but what about low earners? You raise Income tax for someone earning £16K pa, who is already paying 20% tax...how much more can low earners bear? Income tax has already been doubled for people like us, from 10% to 20%.

Yes - taxes should be gradually increased - don't like unfair cut-off points - so that the rich pay more, and families on £16K get left alone.

////You could also tax bankers bonuses at, say 75% or even - shock horror - make them pay their bloody taxes in the first place'////

Thatcher's deregulation in the first place in the 80's included the deregulation of the banks.

New Labour did nothing to reverse Thatcher's free market deregulation.

There do need to be changes to the benefits system but they need to be seem to be justly made, how can you say that if a household has one earner who is £1 into the 40% tax bracket should loose their CB when a household with two income earners who bring in £40K between them but are not in the higher tax bracket keep theirs? This is very very wrong. They have a system in place for Tax Credits that could address this problem and make the system fair by including the whole family income therefore making the system fairer. My husband is only just in the 40% bracket we have three children and I stay at home to raise them we believe this will give them the childhood they need. But we are loosing our tax credits and if we loose all the child benefit we will be £1000 worse off each year. My girlfriend and her husband both work so have lost their Tax Credits but as neither are in higher rate tax they will keep their CB even though their joint income is £76K a year. This is very very wrong and unjust. I know people on lower incomes suffer as well and maybe they think my family is well off, think again we have an old car, dont have holidays our children dont go to clubs etc we struggle because of where we have to live for my husbands work.

Come on LibCons sort the system out so that it is fair and just to all familys.....

xenia - why are you against women staying home or men for that matter to raise their children. I want to raise my children myself I have a good job before them and when they dont need me i will work again. If I have to work I will but it is not for others or the gvnmt to say whether I should work or stay at home - choice is for all. and benefits need to be fair and the changes proposed are not fair accross the board.

I've not read the entire thread, but girlafraid got it right with the very first reply:

"Just raise income tax if you need more revenue - then you fairly target everyone (not just families with young children) and the rich pay more"

This would be the easiest, most efficient and the fairest solution. But since when did that bother politicians?