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.

Hi WhistlersMum,

I used the term household as a common 'handle' to describe a family situation...what is a family you ask? (and this line of conversation can go on ad-infinitum)

On what 'unit' would you set the threshold? (family, household, individual, anyone contributing financially to a child etc. etc. etc.)

Taking your point about the child's parents no longer living together you come up against the same issues i.e. calculating who is earning a salary against which CB eligibility is to be tested? The parent living with the child or the parent not living with the child? Which one pays more, which one has the most responsibility etc. etc.

This could go on forever and we'd never arrive at any kind of solution.

I think most of the time using common sense principles we could work out who needs it and who doesn't without expending huge amounts means testing.

Just needs a bit of cross-referencing applied to appropriate data.

How are they going to work out whether or not your eligible under the current proposal? Should I move out?!

*doh, "you're" not "your"

i know it was a while back on this thread but alot of school term time jobs pay rubbish salaries and they are in the bracket of about 9K to 15K but people do them to fit round their families

i am one of them and am grateful to have my job.

i don't think we will lose our CB but 43K in greater london is not alot to live on.

Even in cases right now where the parents have split up / divorced, even where there is 'shared care' CB is only paid to the parent that is classed as the 'resident parent'. That is taken to mean the parent that the child stays the most nights with throughout the year. Even if it's only one extra night.

So in a case where the (for example) non-resident father was a HRT payer, and the resident mother wasn't, the CB would be paid to the mother. If the child was ordinarily resident with the mother, and she was a HRT payer, no CB would be paid,even if the non-resident father wasn't a HRT payer.

They have a fairly simple system in place to cover issues like this (but is more relavent at the moment for TC's).

If a mother was getting CB for her dc, based on the fact that she wasn't a HRT payer, and she re-married/ started cohabiting with a new partner, who was a HRT payer, then they would stop the CB. I assume.

So I just need to stay somewhere else 1 night a year?!

Not being facetious, is that seriously how it works?!

...oh and get divorced.

(just re-read your post)

If you are divorced, and one parent has the dc for 182 nights a year, and the other has them for 183 nights per year, the CB (and CTC if income is low enough) will go to the parent that has the dc for 183 nights per year. So I'm guessing that it would stay that way for the purposes of deciding if there should be any CB paid, based on income...of the parent who has the dc for more nights out of the year.

I have no problem with the decision, it is a benefit not a right - other benefits are being slashed and just wait til the spending review.

The only people I feel sorry for are single parents who will lose this money. Stay at home mothers - don't expect the state to pay for your lifestyle choice, many of us have to work and pay tax, including actually paying into the pension pot! Ask your partner/husband to give you pocket money - save child benefit for people who really need it. If you can't manage on what your 'household' earn get a job - like the rest of us.

They should scrap Trident & go after all the tax avoiding high fliers, how much would they get from that???....... CB should be that, a benefit from which the child benefits

how about cutting some of the public sector excess? like the nursery bleating in the evening standard that having spent 40K of your and my cash on 2 architects drawing up plans to revamp the outdoor area the LA had now pulled the cash to do it up.

I mean seriously you can buy a house for 40k.

thesecondcoming - I fully believe they are doing this I really do. In fact its one reason stopping me from giving my job up!

I have just got on mumsnet today for the first time in ages so forgive me for probably repeating what you have all been saying for the last few days - but just thought i'd share my thoughts, for what they are worth.

I am the classic stay at home mum whose husband earns enough to pay 40% tax. I have 3 kids and he has 3 kids both from first marriages. His ex works but I doubt she pays higher rate tax, but imagine she will lose her child benefit too as her new husband has a reasonably well paid job.

I am amazed - as most people are - that someone like me will lose £188 a month for my 3 kids whereas my brother and his wife with their 2 kids and 2 incomes each lower than higher rate will carry on recieving theirs.

I actually voted Tory and believe strongly in clearing up the financial mess but THIS new change is mad. Just cut child benefit for a combined family income of £x!!!!!!

OR is there some future change coming ie that people will in fact lose working and child tax credits - to a degree that will actually mean the 2 income families like my brother will end up in the same boat as me?

i suspect more is coming.....

"I have no problem with the decision, it is a benefit not a right"

Agreed, I believe that some services like health care, education and even free bus passes for the over 60s absolutely should be universal, but benefits should only be those who can't cope.

I understand it's a benefit, not a right.

At the moment I do feel like I'm being treated like a bottomless pit of money, there are many people better off than me who won't feel this pinch. (and yes, many that aren't better off that already struggle)

I worked hard to achieve a comfortable income, it seems the government is determined to drag me back inch by inch towards an uncomfortable level.

It's not just CB, I'm being squeezed from all angles, I don't earn so little that I escape the changes and I don't earn enough to ignore them.

The limit needs to be higher.

What's going to happen to the stay at home parents' pension? If you currently recieve CB and do not work, you automatically qualify for Home responsibilities protection. This pays your NI contributions whilst you are not working. Is this going to stop as well?

This affects me - So, am I expected to spend my old age in poverty, whilst some scum bag who hasn't ever worked, will be entitled to a full pension?

More like the limit needs to be tapered. That 40% tax break has a marginal rate that is ridiculous. earning £1 into it and losing benefit for 3 kids is not going to feel the same to the 100K earner. Earnings are only taxed above the rate so why not benefits.

"I mean seriously you can buy a house for 40k" Maybe so, but not where i live in the south. We live in a really tiny house with a door that opens onto a busy road. The back has a tiny yard with enough space for a bike. Inside is really really small. We don't live in a posh area. Picture those roads the BBC uses in photos to represent "poor areas", that look like coronation street. Our kitchen is the size of a tiny utility room. One person can stand up in it. Our house cost £300,000.

aibu to be considering a fake divorce? DH and I are happily married, but our kids would be SOOOOO much better off if we were divorced. I earn nothing (very part time job) and look after the children. He earns just over higher rate threshold - in fact bang on.

Am so tired of all my divorced friends' children earning every benefit known to mankind despite their ex-husbands being accountants, lawyers etc. Really quite sickening. And now we will lose CB on three children while couples earning £86,000 will still get it.

@fothergill - that sounds like sensible thinking

yes, good plan.

Im new on here so hello everyone.

My husband went to a coalition conference last night in London and apparently there was talk of scrapping CB totally up to the age of 16 for some families - thats all I know though, he told me quickly over the phone earlier. Does not affect us though as we are in the additional tax band 50% plus so never knew why we got it in the first place!! Should only be for the very needy in my view.

In response to supersmashinggreat: being a stay at home mum is not always a lifestyle choice there are many circumstances which may lead to this eg childcare being so expensive that a family may end up worse off if both parents work. If it is a lifestyle choice then lets not diminish the contribution stay at home mums make to society.

Also one partner may earn within the higher tax bracket but the other may in fact have a fulltime job with a very low income thus their combined salary may fall far short of a family with a higher combined income (possibly in excess of £80000)yet the later get to keep their CB.

Few are really disputing that yes it is necessary to introduce changes but such changes should be implemented in a fair manner.

Or indeed stay at home dads.

radiohead1.

Your name's not Samantha by any chance is it?