Philip off This Morning

[NorthernWreck]

Just said that he thinks Child Benefit for higher earners should be cut, and then he went, incredulously "I mean, I get child benefit! It's nuts!"

AIBU in thinking that you don't get CB unless you actually apply for it?
You don't have to apply for it if you don't need it, do you?

Because my husbands income just tipped into the higher tax band last year we have not received child benefit this year. With 3 children that is £2500 difference. It probably did not pay him to earn more because we lost out on £2500! The system is completely unfair and should be based on joint income, why should two parents still get CB and earn circ £80k when someone earns £40k and loses out.

Sorry to hear that yummum, it sometimes seems like they can't get the balance right

I agree with Kayonos point in that he probably applied for it when his work had dried up and maybe his wife was a sahm or what ever and back then it wasnt seen as a benefit. I dont think any less of him for receiving it, I do believe there needs to be a huge over haul, based on a combined household income rather than one single salary.

I imagine footballers etc are all eligible to apply for child benefit. I wonder how many of them do it, as it hasnt been means tested until now. i understand that 1.2 million families will be effected by this change?

The very fact of anyone who is actually loaded claiming a state benefit pisses me off actually.
Being in the position where you can put the CB in a trust fund for your child just makes the playing field even less level.

I have a very bright child. If I can't manage to earn (a lot) more very soon, he is not going to be able to go to University, because I won't be able to pay his fees. Unless he wants to be 30 k in debt at the age of 22.

A parent on 40 k a year would still struggle a bit to save that kind of money to send her children to uni.
A person on 150k a year would not.
Why should Philips kids get another advantage, on top of the ones they already have?
And i like Phil. I am not really having a go at him in particular.

I read so much about people on benefits pissing away the country's money.
If everyone was entitled to say, housing benefit, whether they needed it or not, would all the people who are usually anti-welfare state suddenly be happily claiming HB and squirelling it away in swiss bank accounts?

Is the oft stated moral objection to benefits actually down to the fact that not everyone is entitled to them?
I think this is why we need to protect the benefits we do have.
Because once they are removed, many people will decide that no-one really needs them.

We - as higher rate tax payers do receive it - I tend to fall into the bracket that says it was set up for women and as a sahm I get it and spend on kids...

I think as its a universal thing it's fair enough. All a bit pointless as the Tories have stopped it anyway

What we need is those graphs they publish saying what % of earners pay what percentage of tax and then the other graphs showing what % of earners take what % out of the system. They shocked me and I think they would silence many on this thread

Northern - you don't pay the fees
The child does

30k in debt by 22 is the thin end of the wedge - I expect my dd to be much more than that by 22 with 9k fees

the overhaul of the system is well over due then! yes benefits need to be protected, but some need to be axed or means tested.

But people take different amounts out of the system, and put different amounts into it at different times in their lives.
And saying CB "is for women" is just a bit daft imo.
So what? Women earn money too!
Does that mean that the single dad I know isn't allowed it because he is a man?
What I am objecting to is the way CB is seen differently somehow from other benefits.
People claim it who object to the very idea of the welfare state. But an extra grand in their pocket? Yes please!
It is a benefit. If you claim it you are "on benefits."

I dont want my kid to start his working life with a debt that is larger than the national average salary.

I do actually thing CB should be means tested.
Its a shame that it has to be though.
Maybe if more people had the self control and moral fibre to not take more than they need, it wouldn't need to be.

Everyone is entitled to child benefit. Not everyone is entitled to child tax credits, is that what you mean yum?

I don't think many people, over generations, have seen Family Allowance as a benefit though. When dh and I first got married he got married persons tax allowance or something which was about £80 a month and then that was stopped and tax credits were introduced and we got less in tax credit than we did in the married persons allowance (which if iirc was tax relief) It's all about how it is dressed up.

There are lots of us as well in our late 30s, early 40s who have struggled on far less and now only just tip the higher rate tax % and will lose out to a system we have contributed to. That said, me and dh used to earn 20k between us when our first was born and didn't claim anything apart from CB (that was 12 years ago)

I am not sure celebrities like Phillip Schofield having an opinion on the matter is useful though. He is a tv presenter not a politician

Like with many things people who earn good money contribute massively in tax, if some is being given back to you for whatever reason.i.e CB then bloody take it! Why pay in just for skanks to sit on their bums watching Jeremy Kyle all day.

Child benefit, or Family Allowance as it was known, was for women though. It was historically introduced to encourage women to have more children and so that the money was given to the 'wife' so she had money to buy food/stuff for the children. It's not a bit daft, it's what it was invented for!

Of course. Because that is what all people who claim state benefits do all day isn't it? Except the ones on Child Benefit obvs.

I am not saying the existence back in the day of a benefit that enabled women to pay for groceries in case the husband pissed his wages away in the pub is daft.

The way things are set up now in terms of men/women is different than it was when CB was introduced. But the idea in itself of having it is good.I loves my CB.

I just dont think that someone earning a shitload of money should claim it-male or female.

it was invented as back in the day, it was mainly the husband that went out to work, and so this guaranteed the wife hds money in her pocket. It wasnt a benefit then. It does need an overhaul, long over due.

introduced, not invented!

Northern the statistics showing what people put in and take out are actually breathtaking IMO

They shut me up about a lot of stuff

Child benefit/ family allowance is so inconsequential in the scheme of these figures

You've just explained exactly WHY CB was set up as a universal benefit though, Northern. It was partly to help with the increased costs that having children means so that low earners could afford to feed their kids but also because income is not a universal indicator of decentness. Someone earning £120k a year is just as likely to be an entitled bastard who thought that because he earned it, he should be able to spend it on himself as he saw fit and leave the scraps, if there were any, to the wife and kids as someone who earnt £12k. Universal child benefit meant that everyone had the ability to at least feed their children without being utterly beholden to the man of the house.

Just because times have changed and duel income households are more common doesn't mean that there aren't households where the above still holds true. For the protection of (often) women and children who might be living with such an entitled bastard, I would happily pay the extra few pence a month required to fund keeping child benefit for all.

Actually Pious, I have changed my mind that CB should be means tested.
I think it should be universal.
I also think that people should decide to not claim it if they don't need it. That would be the decent thing to do.
I suppose my point in the first place was realy about the hypocrisy of the whole benefit debate as is.
Why is one benefit "deserved" and another not?

And NonOtter-the way I see it the welfare state is a pot that you put in what you can, and take out when you need.
Some people will always take out more than they put in, and some will put in way way more than they take out.
However, the people earning a great deal, who are not taking out of the pot, are reaping huge rewards anyway, in terms of quality of life, opportunities for their children and stability.

The playing field is currently very unlevel from the very start of children's lives, and people just using benefits to feather their already very comfy nests doesn't help.

My DH claims ours. So its not for "mums" or "women"

We will lose it in October which is fine as I dont think we should really get it but I did claim it as I thought "well I can invest it for my DS" so as it is going to him not me for the 10 months or so he is entitled to it I didnt feel guilty

Also - my uncle (and this is a long time ago) never claimed his as he thought it would be very wrong, but then found out he was being taxed as if he was claming it, so he did.

I dont know how that worked but apparantly that was what happened taxwise and maybe still does?

would everyone here really renounce CB as soon as they hit the higher tax bracket? I wonder if they would when it came to it, talk can be cheap.