AIBU to think that people earning £960 per week don't really need Child Benefit?

[OldGreyWiffleTest]

Well, am I?

You know, it would be nice if people would stop looking at what other people get and feeling hard done by.

I am so sick of this on MN. All the jealousy and bitterness directed at higher rate tax payers really pisses me off. We pay a huge amont in and get fuck all out so yes, please feel smug that a universal benefit has been removed.

starwisher - ha ha ha I presume you are joking. Last time I checked there wasn't a cash payment from the government to everyone in London!

hecubas - benefits to stop people starving are not the same as universal benefits, You are obviously in a difficult spot but quite frankly that is due to the system not being administered properly.

London weighting is given by employers to recognise the cost of living

Should that be taken away too? After all their choice to work there

I don't give a toss what employers do! I am concerned by the government!

Haven't read all of the thread but I agree with the earlier poster - I wouldn't mind losing it if it was calculated fairly. Which it can't possibly be unless it's done on household income, which isn't going to happen as it is prohibitively expensive therefore they should scrap it for everyone and make it up through tax credits or leave it well alone.

As it stands I'm not sure if we will or won't lose it as my main income is below the threshold but I also get car allowance and territorial allowance which would take me over.

It does piss me off when I look at older people who have had (say) 3- 4 kids, always earnt a 'decent' (60k+ salary), wife who stays at home so no childcare costs, final salary pension scheme, no university fees, huge equity in their house as it was bought in the 70's/80's and have been paid £200-£300 per month in CB for however many years. I've had £82 for 5yrs and will most likely lose it never to be seen again, never had wtc or ctc, still have student debt being paid back at £300 pcm, a house where the 20k deposit we saved for years for has probably disappeared, a pension scheme I have to pay hugely into monthly and huge childcare costs. Suddenly my 45k salary doesn't look all that rosy. Sucks to be under 30!!

Yet you don't think employers should give maternity pay! I see

Starwisher - Read the thread I said it is up to employers what they want to do, that is not my concern, be it maternity pay, london weighting, enormous bonuses - I don't care.

I do care how the government spends money,

It was and should be a universal benefit. The logical progression of your question would be to question if everybody really needs a state pension or a £9000 tax allowance.

Firstly - DH works damn hard for his money, and has done his whole life (from school, through uni and every single day of his career). He earns every penny of his income, and it drives me mad when people start berating him because of this: it's jealousy. He has got to this point through his own hard work and sacrifice.

And secondly - what about the alternative argument (not sure if it's been made already, and not necessarily one I agree with) that you shouldn't be having children if you can't afford them. That maybe CB should be there as a safety net, rather than a regular payment to keep heads above water. I totally agree and appreciate that children should not suffer because of parental misfortune, but I think that this is an interesting argument. Why should the better off fund the less well-off's child-bearing decisions?

The problem is someone works hard, gets up the ladder... Only to find income has been reduced to less than before through something been taken away
Unless you can guarantee a signifucant jump half the time not worth the bother even trying to get promoted through work or qualifications

grimes - those are good questions and there are reasons for and against both, but that would probably be a different thread, Like I said before, I doubt the state pension in its present form will be around when I retire.

Lots of people work hard pepperyrocket.

Some people have children when they can afford it then circumstances change.

Sorry if this has already been posted only read first couple of pages.
SAHM's won't lose NI contributions by being ineligble for CB, you still have to apply for CB and will receive NI contributions without CB, it was covered on one of Bufget programmes today.

It won't affect us, both low earners, but I agree that it is being applied unfairly. it should be based on total household income imo.

Indeed, grimes.

Now both our DC are at school we could manage without CB - we certainly couldn't when they were both at nursery though.

For what it is worth, I think it should be universal for children under 5 and then phased out for higher earning households with older children.

Because we are a civilised country, perhaps?
I was a higher rate tax payer before having children, my DH is now.
Neither of us have ever begrudged our taxes being used to help people who need it. I'm a big believer in the welfare state. The better off have a responsibility to help those worse off than them.

MrFluffy - I agree

Pushit - Not read the whole thread but I'll tell you what he problem is. It's not that people earning over that amount are annoyed they wont be getting CB it is that in this country we are obsessed with what other people are getting. We are constantly looking around whining saying "not fair" "not fair".

Agree

I still think that it should be worked out on household income and not on whether 1 person earns over £50,000.

We are very lucky in the sense that DH has a good job which he has worked himself into the ground for over the last few years to get where he is and because of this earns above the £50,000 limit. We have both worked full time since leaving school until I had DS1 when I took a part time weekend job and then when I had DS2 I had to give up work because DH has to travel with his job and because of the countries where he has to travel this takes place on a weekend so he wasn't there for childcare and we have no family near by to ask for help.

We have never claimed any benefits at all apart from CB and now it seems this is going to be taken away from us as well.

Yes he earns a decent wage but I can assure you we are most definitely not well off...DH travels a great deal with work but our last family holiday was in caravan 3 years ago. Our mortgage isn't even that big and we certainly don't have a huge house or posh car...his wages go on bills and food etc and the CB went on clothes for boys,shoes,nappies etc.

I agree with another poster at the beginning of the thread who said by the time those in the higher tax bracket have been taxed they actually "take home'" a similar amount to those on full benefits with housing benefits etc yet those families get to actually see their DH's and their children get to see their dad's. Dh usually leaves for work before the boys are up and gets home after the youngest one has gone to bed...he is usually away for at least 10 days a month as well. So yes we are "lucky" in the sense that he does have a good job and he is well paid for what he does but it's not exactly expensive holidays and designer clothes is it?? There is a huge difference between people working their arses off for a decent job to provide a decent life for their families and those people who earn £70,80,90,000 and that difference should be recognised by the government.

It is being unfairly administered. It should be based on household income minus any costs incurred in the earning of that income - i.e. household income minus childcare costs.

Why should a family earning £49K with one parent being a SAHP be entitled to more help than a family earning £51K with both parents working full-time and childcare costs of £1K+ a month?

Agree Librarian I think this thread shows Georgey boy has a lot more thinking to do before administering this

Fwiw - I think it's unfair when it's based on one higher earner. In my case, it's me. And thankfully I still have a job as dh was made redundant last summer. He's set up on his own and doing pretty well but in his career the payoffs aren't that fast so we are still a single income family. Thankfully it's moved up to the £50k mark but I'll still be paying higher tax.

We have 2 dc and we pay £80/day for nursery. Thankfully dc1 goes to school in September. We live in the se and our 3bed semi costs us £721/month. We paid a 25%deposit through savings over 8 years on average double incomes. No parental help.

Now with one income we have cut down drastically our spending (and even then it was mostly supermarkets and fuel).

We have friends with 3dc who are seriously considering going part time to get back the CB. That must surely be a drain on the economy (brain drain etc)?

There are other countries where they give generous tax relief to families who have children. And those that want population growth will give greater tax incentives to those with 3+ kids.

Lots of people work hard. You can work hard for years and still be chucked on the scrap heap.. You cannot assume that someone doesn't work hard just because they are poor. I don't think anyone has suggested that higher earners haven't worked for or don't deserve their pay.

I don't understand why people were saying that it'd be harder to administrate if it was on household income? Surely we're going to have to declare the household income anyway...or am I being a bit thick?