I know I am, but I can't help it. Child benefit.

[Pinkjenny]

I am from a working class family, dh and I both have good jobs, two dc and a 3 bed semi. I suppose you could say we are comfortable. I work 4 days p/wk, dh obv full time, we are both degree educated, and I would call us lower middle class. If you like that kind of thing.

I would probably argue that we don't really need child benefit. But, what irks me, is that it's really the only thing we do get - we don't qualify for anything else. Now, I completely agree that welfare should go to those who need it most, but it almost seems like you are penalised for being marginally successful.

We have nursery fees to pay, a reasonably big mortgage, yada yada yada. Although we both earn ok money, we're hardly sitting at home counting our money either.

I can't quite put my finger on why the removal of child benefit is irritating me so much.

Perhaps I need a slap, I don't know.

I know I

so its what? £35 a week and you are going to struggle losing that..?

what did/does it pay for? hardly makes a dent in your childcare fee's.

YANBU IMO (but I do love the image of your arse being flamed with a bunsen burner )

£35 isn't an insignificant sum, TopTulips. I put our CB towards essentials like food, utilities, you know, living? We certainly don't spend it on wine and chorizo like many people assume that we do!

TopTulip - I never said we were going to struggle without it, and no, it won't make much of a dent in our childcare costs. But every little helps, so Tesco tell me.

£35/week is £1820/year... and if you're a 40% tax-payer that means you need a pay-rise of over £3,000 gross just to stand still. Most losing it will not be going hungry or their children going barefoot to school - let's not be melodramatic - but it is a substantial amount of money nevertheless.

YANBU - irritates me too.

We've got a couple of years to sort out finances etc and get 'used to it' but I am almightily peed off as it's not based on HOUSEHOLD income as most other child related benefits are.

OK it never was based on household income and was lovely free money (well DHs tax bill more than covers it...) but I feel annoyed at the unfair way the change is being administered - while trying to stay focussed on just how much we DO still get from the Govt and how low the taxes are in this country to start with.

We're looking at a tax hike for DH, plus a pension contributions increase, plus a fixed rate mortgage (so we're not even making money on the interest rates) and (hopefully) a new arrival early next year.

Oh well, apparently you can make about £4000 if you sell ALL your body parts, although mine may not go for quite that much...

"£35/week is £1820/year... and if you're a 40% tax-payer that means you need a pay-rise of over £3,000 gross just to stand still."

Precisely. DH will get a pay-rise of about this much next year (deservedly so after the year he's had) and we will be poorer because of VAT increases etc. I will up my hours at work to make up the CB loss provided I can get the childcare. Seems a shame though that I will be taking paid hours that could be given to someone without any job at all. Still, that's Ravey Davey for you. Thick as treacle.

Also, and this will sound very bitter, but I am tired of people deciding that it's "okay for you" because we earn more than they do i.e my friend's mum berating me because we earn more than she does working at Asda. Well, DH and I didn't land in our jobs by pure fucking luck. We worked hard to get there.

We are losing CB too.

Well, ok, tighten our belts and all that. But what about this:

"Figures released to Parliament last month show that child benefit is being paid to the UK-based parents of 28,760 children living in Poland.
The cost is estimated at £23.8 million. On top of that 2,051 children in Slovakia benefit from the payments, along with 1,012 in Lithuania, 295 in the Czech Republic and 113 in Bulgaria"

JeezyPeeps that's a good thought (not that we are affected but I work for an IFA and on mat leave at mo so it hadn't occurred to me)- would it definitely work?

"I am tired of people deciding that it's "okay for you" "

Managing the economy in the state it is in (whether you agree with the specifics or not) will affect everyone. It is going to affect the poorest in society with the reduction in public services, the middle/upper end of society by the reduction in allowances and increase in taxes. The very rich will be cushioned because they have money, the very poor will be protected by continuing to receive whatever benefits we can still afford and those of us in the middle will have to economise and adjust as best as we are able.

It's always been that way.

I won't lose a penny but even I think it's totally unfair.

Neither DH nor I earn enough to pay higher rate tax but our joint income would bring us over the threshold.

How can a couple with one higher rate tax payer (whose net income is less than ours because we benefit from two lots of tax free allowances) lose out when we don't?

It's madness.

Having said that I'm not principled enough to not carry on claiming it. My DDs are 16 and 13 so we won't qualify for much longer anyway and then we'll have £££££s to pay to help them out with uni living costs.

I set up an ISA a few years ago to pay for their uni fees. It will finally realise about £6k, which was enough to cover full fees for both of them when I set it up .

Well, I'm sick of being one of the many families that help prop up society then get kicked in the teeth as a thank you.

The benefits system in this country does need a FAIR overhaul. For instance, why is it fair that we have decided to stop at one child because of money worries yet many unemployed idiots continue to breed at rabbit-like rates? Oh yeah, cos idiots like us will pay for them. Am aware that I am sounding very DM here but honestly am sick and tired of being shit on for having a work ethic and a moral compass.

I was listening to someone on R2 who suggested just stopping it at 16 instead, when children are able to start earning their own money.

Clearly as my dc are only 10mo and 3.6, I think this is a much better idea

unemployed idiot here too, Riven

Erm, but were you popping out kids left, right and centre when you were unemployed or employed?

If you choose to have children when you have no income other than benefits, then that makes you an irresponsible tit.

Please read what I said instead of taking offence at something that wasn't there :)

I too am .

We have 3 dcs and will lose about 2.5k annually. Whilst we are not on the breadline, and I am a sahm through choice for which I will be eternally grateful for my DH earning enough money to do that, we are not rolling in it. He will be just over the threshold.

What grates is that both sets of next door neighbours bring home more between them and will keep it.

The money is not inconsiderable and pays for extras such as music lessons. Before anyone flames me for having such middle class attitudes, at our school, if you are in recepit of any benefit other than CB you get the lessons free. So some parents will continue to get benefits, continue to get CB and then continue to get free music lessons.

If the economy is in such a state that they cannot afford to pay us, then surely they cannot afford to pay my neighbours too? That is the real problem - we will have to cut our cloth to fit our new income. But so should everyone else.

Although I think it should be based on household income and not individuals incomes, I actually think taking away CB away from higher earners is fair.

And yes, we are going to be affected. My husband is just over the treshold and we have 3 children. But I can manage without it. If you can't, you living beyond your means and you just have to budget a bit better. Is that really so bad?

I don't get why people are so upset. Did you really think that all these cuts weren't going to affect you? Or is it only ok to make cuts for other people? But then we can't cut anywhere, can we?

Oh and Iain Duncan Smith got right up my nose. When questioned about this personal / household income discrepancy he said that it would be paid to two earner families as they (presumably the concervatives) had always supported those who were striving). Git. Obviously me giving up any career hopes means I'm sitting on my not-inconsiderable arse all day doing nothing useful.

Because MN is obviously v useful!!

conservatives

cupcakesand bunting, I really agree, and OP, if YABU then I am too. The middle classes are getting their teeth kicked in and I'm really sick of it. From experience of the annoying rich, I think rich people like Cameron and Clegg actually despise us more than anyone. They can have a big Pity Party about the Deserving Poor (which seems to consist of about three families) but we are scum, because fundamentally they have no more idea of what it's ACTUALLY like to bring up a fmaily on 45,000 than what it's like to live on 9, 000. They think if we worked hard and tried a bit harder we could all earn more, as they have. They despiuse us and they are sticking us twice over - CB and university fees.

BM - not upset about losing it (of course, ANY money is welcome) Upset about the unfairness of the administration of the loss of it.

Plus what about my pension protection? If I don't claim CB then how will they know I am raising children and that's why I'm not currently a tax payer, it's not because I'm polishing my diamonds...

WOW - missed the IDS comment, never thought that HRTs would be described as not striving must tell DH he is far too unambitious and failing to strive...

If you really are "just" over the threshold you can put some money into your pension instead and still get the child benefit.

Say if you are £100 over the threshold. Put an extra £150 into your pension; that is deducted from your taxable income I think.

You then fall under the threshold, and will be eligible for child benefit.

However, if you are a long way above the threshold you will have to put an awful lot into your pension; in which case it won't be worthwhile.

"However, if you are a long way above the threshold you will have to put an awful lot into your pension; in which case it won't be worthwhile."

I agree and I'd add that if your salary is a long way above the higher rate threshold then you probably don't need CB anyway.