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.

The government need to make cuts across the board, this NEEDS to happen. It's due to our frivilous spending and all the credit our society consumed in excess of our means. There is zero point in complaining. I think the governemt are making cuts that hit everyone and that's fair. Everyone spent and everyone pays. We need to take responsibility for our actions the buck had to stop somewhere and it takes balls to be the person to make the big decisions let's face it who ever it is isn't going to be popular. The benefits system is there to help people and we should count ourselves lucky to have it. I am fed up with people complaining about it. People expect it and abuse it, that's just wrong!

Cymbal flourish for Roxy26

"I am angered by the tone of some of these misogynist posts , they are abusive and sexist and should be deleted"

"For woman, that income remains part of a RIGHT not a privilege. Woman who stay at home as well as woman who go out to work have an entitlement from the State for all the hard work they do and the multi-tasking that has to be done every single day while rearing the next generation"

For someon who condemns sexism and mysogynistic postings, you appear immune to you own critisicm.

Now get the kettle on luv, I'm parched.

I havn't read the whole thread but CTC isn't fair in the same way (or possiby the exact opposite) as the CB proposals.

ie a couple who both work and earn say 30k each will have (most likely) huge childcare expenses that in the SE certainly will eat up all of one salary and possibly into the other, yet will get no CTC/WTC/help with childcare costs.

A couple where one earns 60k and the other stays at home will get CTC.

there are other cases I posted earlier like some self employed/cash in hand jobs etc.

I'm really anti this because of what it says about women (and children) as well as the HRP.
Personally I favour a banking tax to raise the 3 billion, (any one remember the Robin Hood tax proposed earlier -wasn't it levied at 0.5% or something similar)

However that wont happen so how about stoppping CB at 16 and limiting it to 2 children seems fair

Can I also say that someone should tell David/George that the phrase 'we're all in it together' really does not come well from the lips of people so monied

Obnoxio,
Your examples of car, house and wine collection have one flaw...if you can no longer afford them you can sell them and not be responsible for them any more.

Roll up, roll up, 15 month old girl going cheap, may have slight genetic issue as her father is a lying, cheating bastard but roll up, roll up, who'll give me a tenner. You sir, with the lack of empathy or real life experience?

And you can make your own cuppa, you want my kids to starve, I'll return you the favour.

I hope everyone who is upset about the inequality of single-income families having CB taken away but dual-income families on higher household income not, are taking it up somehow with their MPs.

And possibly every newspaper.

ReuElBeaMum

'I work full time, pay 40% tax and have 3 childremn, one at school and 2 in nursery. I pay £15k a year in childcare costs at the moment so the CB comes in very useful. I don't mind the idea of losing the CB when they are all in full time schooling but I disagree with the idea that all higher rate tax payers can afford to lose this CB. I am considering going part time as I would be financially on the same footing as I am now and the exchequer will lose 3 fold, one as I would benefit from child benefit, 2 as I may get tax credits and 3 I would pay less tax. Bonkers.'

EXACTLY

If you have two DC's in childcare and have a family income of around 35 - 55k I reckon, as a family you would be better off one of you staying at home - especially as you would then qualify to TC and CB again.

Two children in full time childcare is the equivalent of around a 27k salary. Therefore families where one partner earns 17k and one 27k have the same income at the end as a family with one SAHP and one on 17k. In fact the family with only 17k coming in from work are probably better off financially.

Therefore 44k on two salaries is not some kind of pipe dream to have - you would be worse off so please stop telling these families they are rolling in it and can afford to lose their CB.

Of course this changes when the DC's go to school. The two income families will be even better off as they have remained in the job market. So then, fine, remove the benefits.

Just out of interest, if a divorced couple claim CB for one child each, do they both qualify for the higher rate as an "only child"?

*Obnoxio go back to school, get yourself educated and then you can come back and talk with the grown ups.

I have not seen anybody mention Home Resposibilities Protection which was credited to mothers who did not work but received Child Benefit.This allowed these mothers to build up pension entitlement while looking after their children.

This ended in April 2010 but credits are still paid to mothers who do not work but receive Child Benefit until their children are twelve.

Mothers with a higher tax paying partner will not only lose their Child Bemefit but also years of pension emtitlement.

Hi,
Surely the only fair way to implement this policy is to consider dual income and raise the threshold slightly. This would surely still result in a massive saving indeed possibly more than the current proposal.

I don't believe that calculating household income is that hard, i.e. working out if the combined salaries of a household exceed the threshold.

Sure you might get some falling through the net, but you'd catch the majority. It'd be more fair than this current proposal where a huge chunk of households fall through the net due to a so-called "anomaly"!

I also think the cut-off threshold should be higher, in some areas of the country £45k doesn't mean an easy life and taking away nearly £2k a year (from a family with 2 children) will push them into a tricky spot.

I am aware that many people struggle on much smaller incomes but we should be trying to level the playing field 'upwards' not 'downwards'!

Perhaps if we could reduce the cost of living then everyone across the board would feel some relief? (nobody ever seems to talk about this!)

Stop CB after two children, it's simples!

Newdaddy, it may well be difficult to calculate the combined salaries of a househould. What is a household? Everyone at the same address? Including older siblings now at work, grandparents, lodgers? Or should this be based on the combined salaries of the children's parents, who may no longer live together? Also, at the moment my partner has no right (or need) to know how much I earn, whereas your suggestion is creeping back towards the joint taxation of the past.

Hi everyone- Im a stay at home mum and my partner works full time and earns just above the cut off point to receive CB. So come 2013, we will get nowt.

Currently, as I am getting CB and do not work, I automatically get Home Responsibilities Protection, which pays my NI contribution so that I will get my pension once I reach retirement age. All stay at home parents get this if they are the ones being paid CB.

My questions is this - If my CB stops, will I stop getting this Home responsibilities protection? Consequently will I now not get a full pension?

@Obnoxio

Have you tried UPDATE STATISTICS?

In the papers today : George Osborne 'reserves the right' to abolish CB for ALL families with a child at age 16yo.

My DD has learning dificulties, and is expected to fail her GCSE's. The only chance she has of getting a job and paying taxes is to go to college to learn a trade such as hairdressing or catering. You can't even get a checkout job nowadays without a C-grade GCSE in Maths and English.

THey stop CB for DD when she hits 16yo, thee will be no money to feed her with. Am I meant to send her to the workhouse? I am beyond sad that all the work and effort I have put into DD may be shot up in flames because the government thinks everyone has the money to support their DC through college with no income to feed them or get them to college.

EMA of £30 a week does not cover food and transport, and due to her LD, she will be unlikely to get even a PT job to help. No CB means no TC's either.

And can I ask about the HRP stopping at 12yo. I didn't know about that. Is that when your eldest reaches 12yo or your youngest? I'm now worried that if it's when your eldest reaches 12yo, that my HRP may have stopped.

Just that GO hasn't considered the implications of stopping CB at 16yo for ALL families regardles of income, how are poor people meant to ensure that their dc are better educated than themselves, if they can't aford to keep them at school/college. It's just ensuring that the poor stay poor, there's no social mobility, and even poor people who want better for their dc will be able to do nothing about it. GOes back to when only rich people could get a decent education. Very elitist.

How about cutting it for families who are earning 100k and above and limit it to two children.