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

[OldGreyWiffleTest]

Well, am I?

Hecubas I know what you mean

I saw posts on MSE where a guy said he gets £29k in benefits and another on net mums where one said they get about £28k

We still are trying to apply but when I went on the entitled to site is said we would only get about £7k

I don't understand it myself

The worst thing they ever did was rename it child benefit. Family allowance was a more accurate term. An allowance paid to every family after the first child regardless of income.

Call it benefit and everyone starts arguing about whether people are entitled to it or not.

The method of applying it is unfair. It is wrong to have the possibility of some higher income households still receiving it while some on a lower income are excluded.

I do agree that the actual sum of money will be less important to the higher earning households but it is something that everyone has been entitled to and it is now being taken away unfairly. I can see why higher earners are complaining.

It won't affect me but wrong is wrong.

Yes stealth I think my language offended him more.. He incidently was not one of the ones being made redundant.

I have a sister on JSA and no she doesn't have it easy. £67 per week doesn't go far. She actually feels quite bitter towards those on benefits with dc as they receive so much more than her. I can understand that. She worked for 20 years and was made redundant. She now has no savings as she didn't receive any benefits whilst she had savings. She only survived because our parents helped with her bills. Now they are no longer with us she is really struggling. She is not lazy and is actively seeking employment. Plus does about 15 hours of voluntary work per week. There are just no jobs out there.
Add in the double whammy of having her retirement age upped again.
So I suppose life is tough for everyone at the moment. (except the very rich of course who are being well looked after by the Govt.)

When i was growing up there were some people on benefits in our street who would 'moonlight,' - take on painting and decorating, cash in hand stuff to supplement their income.

Those with children don't always get more.. We have been turned down for benefits 3 times now.. It is rather stressful.

I think people on JSA should be able to top up with casual work legally

I mean your not going to give up guaranteed JSA for one job are you, that might make £30 that month as one off.

but why not legally get the chance to top up now and then? Good for the CV and the spirits too

You can top up on JSA as long as you work less than 16 hours a week.

Well I say top up. You don't get your JSA but you do get your earnings

That's illegal if you don't declare it albert. You have a point though. That is the only way I can see for someone to be well off on benefits.

That's illegal if you don't declare it albert. You have a point though. That is the only way I can see for someone to be well off on benefits.

But what's the incentive if you don't get your JSA too?!

No incentive Starwisher. I was in that position. I was getting contribution based JSA and did some contract work. Declared it, had my JSA suspended for a month. After the month was over I fought for 6 weeks to get it reinstated and then finally when I signed off I got a bill for over £400 in overpayments - money I'd actually never received.

I'd never advise anyone to do any part-time work on JSA :(

Jins

That's awful. Who said work pays eh?

The system punishes you when you try and do the right thing.

Well, I qualify for no benefits now (or will do when this is removed). I'm a single parent, work full time, higher rate tax payer. My DD has been in full time daycare since she was four months old because that was the only way that I could meet my commitments. This is my choice - obviously, I could have lost the house etc and changed my lifestyle to stay at home with her.

What I actually lament is the loss of a universal benefit to all parents. I feel that the money saved will be negligible - particularly after the admin.

What I have seen on here though is the horrible resentment to those of us paying higher rate taxes. It pisses me off. Too right that you get no "reward" or thanks for doing the right thing by working hard and paying your taxes.

One of my best friends was on income support which means many other benefits came along with it rent, some bills etc (to be fair this was a while ago so maybe a lot has changed).

She could afford to pay off catalogues at £75 per month (purchases incl Gucci sunglasses) holidays to Ibiza with the girls etc etc. She had a daughter who got free school dinners etc and free bus passes and many other allowances or free things and seemed to have enough money to go out whenever she liked. She did get a job to be fair to her but after losing the benefits she was £30 a month better off - not really worth it for all the stress of being a working mum so she went back onto benefits. I can't say I blame her though!

I'm not saying the right people shouldn't get benefits but I think it is often given to the wrong people, in the wrong situation in the wrong way.

Benefits should not be an ambition - ie leave school get pregnant so I get a free house! It should be there for those who really need it!

DH got made redundant and all we got was the £67 per week which they wouldn't back date to the day he got made redundant (his appt at the job centre was a week after). I earnt just over the threshold for any extra help - £24k at the time so we had just lost £36k in earnings.

Luckily we don't really stretch ourselves with a big mortgage or anything but if we had done that why shouldn't we, we worked hard for our money and if we wanted to spend it on a big house why should we?! Apparently according to the government we probably shouldn't as because we are working people we will get stiffed if one of us loses our job!

I still don't understand how they manage holidays etc. Mind you since they have rejected all our claims we only have £30 a week left after rent, CT and gas/ electric bill. So we are not exactly splashing out on ridiculous stuff. I may just be thick but can't see how we could afford nights out, holidays etc. BTW that calculation is taking CB into account.

I haven't read all 20 pages of this thread so sorry if I'm repeating anything.

There's a big difference in relative income between someone living in the Midlands earning £46k with one child and someone in London earning £52k with 3 children.

Surely the latter deserve the tax break/benefit/allowance/whatever you want to call it as much as the former.

I don't understand it either but to be honest it doesn't really change my view that a universal benefit/allowance will now effectively be means tested.

It's the thin end of the wedge

Just listening to MoneyBox on the Radio and it's saying something about SAHM with partners earning over the threshold having to fill in a form to claim for Child Benefit but then to elect not to receive it ( otherwise it would get it added to partner's tax bill).

Otherwise SAHM will lose government NI pension contributions.

Or something like that - sorry not more clear, but I can't ever even remember if it's better to be in or out of SERPS, state pension 1 & 2 or whatever. They've all changed the rules so often.

I don't think anyone earning 42k per annum should get cb, and agree that if you have an expensive lifestyle you should fund it yourself, if your childcare bill is expensive you can afford to pay it on this wage. I say this as all too often parents hear the comments well if you have children you should be financially responsible well you can't have it for some and not for others.

I suppose you could look at it another way and ask why someone on a low income should subsidise someone earning HR via child benefit.

morethan you are forgetting. Only the poor are irresponsible, lazy too apparently.

Find it amazing that a person chooses to have children then expects other tax payers to contribute towards child benefit anyway...The sense of entitlement many many parents display regarding benefits, special parking or child spaces, expecting others to move out of their pushchairs way on pavements then fail to thank or even acknowledge this....It's an ugly state of mind. Nobody made them have children especially that second or third child which clearly many cannot really afford.

Losing one's job and needing other state benefits is a different situation because this can happen to any one of us. Having children is not compulsory.

And I have children so am not an embittered child free tax payer, rather one who chose not to claim child benefit. And we are not wealthy.

morethanpotatoprints - but what about those families who never bother working or CHOOSE to have 7 children knowing they will have to rely on benefits! Why do they deserve child benefit more than hard working families who's only additional benefit is CB? I do agree that you should definitely be able to be financially responsible for your family and lifestyle but unfortunately many people do not set out to do this so they make us bitter and twisted about the whole system.

We chose to only have 2 Dcs and live in a reasonable (smallish) house so we can afford our lifestyle without benefits, we decided we would never do otherwise but I guess I just disagree how the whole system works. I don't necessarily think we should get CB but I also don't think some other families should get it if we don't!

We chose to have me stay at home with the DCs and got no help whatsoever then and now I choose to work we get no help whatsoever either. If we had left school and not bothered to get further qualifications we would be entitled to all sorts it seems.

Some people earn lots some people don't, a lot of it is through choice and sometimes its through awful circumstances and bad luck.

We will never have a fair benefits system. If it worked on individual cases then people would lie and cheat it even more than they do now.