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

[OldGreyWiffleTest]

Well, am I?

Not necessarily, Marie - some will have family, many will have children in school and so reduced childcare cost. It is all a bit random and ill thought through.

Yabu - some measure needs to be used to calculate who gets some tax relief. What are your suggestions as to what should be used to calculate this??

It's not just the money though is it, its the fact you'll get no state pension without it.

We're in the same position as Determined, and we live in a modest semi on the outskirts of the city (we were gutted to have to move out) with a mortgage of around £1k because we couldn't afford any more. No first class flights - no flights at all, these days. Not a private school, but an expensive nursery that we have no real choice but to send DD to so that we can both work.
When she's at school, my years on the treadmill will start paying dividends and then hopefully we will se CB as peanuts.
Right now, it's incredibly helpful as it pays for DS' after school club.

I would rather it was either kept for all, or scrapped for all.

It cannot be applied to household income as there is no way of tracking household income, the tax system does not link households or even (I think) married couples. The cost of making this change would be prohibitive.

And how do we define household income? Is it based on the people who live with the child (this could include Grandparents, siblings, step-parents), is it the combined income of the people with parental responsibility for the child? What about maintenance payments? What if siblings have different fathers? Who goes past the magic marker and who doesn't?

"I would rather it was either kept for all, or scrapped for all. " Agree.

What has been announced? Can't find anything!

YANBU but it is a difficult cut off. I think the majority would agree that people earning over £1000 a week do not need child benefit, but people earning below £40pw do. But what about people earning £700pw, or £100pw. Where would you personally draw the line?

Agree that household income is key, but then I guess actual childcare costs too. Did tax credits work like this?

The only unfair issue OP was that a single earner over 49k would lose child benefit and yet two joint earners on 49k each would keep it - how on earth would that be fair?

DH earns plenty not to 'need' CB but if why the hell shouldn't we have it if two people can earn thousands more than us, yet keep it?!!

The pension thing...

To be entitled to state pension you need to have paid NI for a certain number of years. You only pay NI if you are in work.

If you are a SAHM mum for any period of time you will not have accumulated enough NI contributory years to be entitled to state pension.

But, if you are in receipt of CB, this also means that your NI contributions are effectively being paid for you so that you have enough contributory years to recieve state pension.

No, but should a household earning 960 a week not get it when a household earning 1500 still does? It's inequitable and that's what pisses me off.

Depends on outgoings. CB is for the child. The wages may be exhausted paying for mortgage, childcare, bills, debts etc.

Some will need it.

Why pick just on child benefit, why not also look at other benefits given out freely that are not means tested?

Well I think they should scrap child benefit and allow working mothers, through their employer, to pay for nursery costs with pretax income. For SAHM, the breadwinner should be able to use the tax allowance of the person they are supporting. Again, this should be done through the employer and wouldn't be too difficult/expensive to administer.

Actually, being a SAHM entitles you to earn Home Responsibilities Protection alllowance itsallgoing.

We don't have a bad life - we eat well, get out and about a bit, but we have been quite poor during these nursery years. I'm freelance, and over the past year my career's taken an upturn, but I earn nowhere near what DP does yet.
I'm glad he's upped the cut-off point - not just for ourselves, but for many other people in the "squeezed middle".
Once DD's at school, I may renounce my claim for CB, or give it over to a charity, but right now, with big outgoings and an uncertain back-up income (mine)....it's a reliable amount of money each month that I can use to make sure I can stay working enough hours to get somewhere.

Is that figure what a single parent or sole earner who will no longer be entitled to child benefit gets before tax?

If so, the most unjust thing is that a couple who earn that EACH and can share childcare / school-holidays (major expense) get to keep it.

Sorry loopy, I know I got the name wrong, but I thought that it was effectively protecting your pension?

Assuming you mean before tax then after tax is only £556.61 per week (assuming student loan deductions)

Assuming that an entire families income that's not a huge amount to live off considering skyhigh living costs and that they will receive no other benefit

No I don't think it should be scrapped at that cut off point

Not really but they will be on later pleading poverty and how tabitha will not be able to eat unless they get their £17 a week.

I was under the impression that the absolute cut off is £70 and in between £50-70k it'll be reduced according to some sliding scale.