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

[OldGreyWiffleTest]

Well, am I?

callmemrs - that may be, but the point is actually irrelevant. It doesn't address the problem that widows/widowers will face for example - I don't think there's a CSA upstairs.

Why can't people just accept that this policy is fundamentally unjust to single earner households of all types - especially those with only one parent - and be done with it? It is so obvious.

They should callme

But that doesn't mean they do

Also, why exactly should elastamum, for example, be penalised if her partner doesn't pay his way?

I'm amazed to suddenly find so many Tory supporters on Mumsnet. It's amazing what being on the winning side can do eh?

Speak for yourself Gaelic, if you want to talk party politics

If you read my posts, I referred very deliberately to lone parents where the other parent is LIVING. Which is the vast majority of LP. Obviously if the LP is a widow/er then there isn't another parent who can earn.

Just because some absent parents think they can piss off and not support their children doesn't make it ok. If recognising that fact makes someone a 'Tory' then you have a strange view of the world. I think it's about being on the side of the children

It is not being on the side of the children, or single mothers, to say that it is OK for lone parents to lose out from this policy because of what their partners should/shouldn't be doing.

Following your argument through, both parents are of course also contributing in two earner households. Why then should they keep the CB, whilst in elastamum's situation - the same except that she doesn't live with her partner and therefore has more to juggle - she loses it?

Please explain.

I have explained if you care to read the thread, rather than just jumping down my throat.

You are not comparing like with like. 2 people earning is twice the man hours for the income. If you put the two earner family of 45k each in the same position as the single earner family (ie one person gives up to stay home) then they would fall below the single earner family income. Why should the dual family income be penalised for the 'second' parent (for want of a better term) getting off their backside and earning?

As others have said it sounds loads but in reality it isn't - depending on outgoings, 50k is about £2900 after tax. £800 mortgage (small 2 bed terrace in a not great area) £600 fares, £400 food, gas, leccy, water, car, etc. We aren't on the breadline, but also certainly aren't flying first class anywhere!

I am talking about lone parents here. We'll have to agree to differ on the single earner point. You are stating that the main carer in a two earner "family" whose parents happen to have separated, should not be entitled to CB. Whereas the main carer in a two earner family that lives together should. I don't understand the logic.

On the single earner point, quite obviously that family is also putting in two lots of man hours. Unless you are saying that providing paid childcare is also not work? And quite obviously a family on £90k, with two earners, needs the CB a whole lot less than a family with one earner on £50k.

A SAHP does not provide paid childcare! They are not putting in the same hours of paid employment- that's the whole point. I am not saying being home isn't hard work at times but it is absolutely categorically not providing paid childcare!

And I also totally disagree that a two earner family on 90k "obviously" need CB a whole lot less than a single earner family on 50k. The dual earners might well be paying 2 grand a month on childcare if they have more than one child, plus running an extra car (insurance, tax, petrol etc)

There will always be divided opinion on this because people are coming at it from very different angles.

One result of this policy is that it encourages couples to perhaps have similarly matched (but not huge) incomes. Eg a couple with good, professional, but not hugely paid jobs, each working a 4 day week and earning 30k, keep their CB. Whereas a couple where one works all hours and earns over 60k lose theirs. Now- I prefer the first model. I think children benefit a lot from having two parents who aren't ridiculously stressed out with having to chase promotions and be the sole earner of the family income. However, if you prefer the traditional model of one earner and one SAHP you're naturally going to be against the idea. I do, however, feel that whatever ones personal views, a model which promotes more of a sense of equality across the genders with regard to earning and parenting, is a better reflection of the 21st century. And please don't anyone misinterpret that as SAHP bashing. As I say, each to their own. But the way the world is now is not necessarily going to reflect ones individual choice

Aaargh! The second family doesn't always have a SAHP in it, it might consist of two earners. Family A: dad 49k mum 49k (keep their benefit)

Family B: dad: £15k mum: £60k. Lose their benefit. How is that fair?

This doesn't even apply to me but it just bugs the hell out of me that everyone accepts it has being fair when it is quite clearly blatantly frickin unfair. I really hope that middle England turn out in massive numbers at the next election and give those smug Tories a clear message.

The Tories do not care about fairness, it's all about looking after their own. Once they get away with implementing such a blatantly unfair policy they will use this approach for everything else.

As I said, it benefits couples with similarly matched, but not huge incomes. Whether you perceive that as 'fair' or not depends on where you're coming from.

It isn't fair, no matter which way you look at it. As hazie has said, not all couples who lose out will have a SAHP and they may still have childcare costs etc. Also, a single earner on £50k pays a lot more tax already than two earners on £25k.

I don't think that everyone earning £50k is wealthy but they probably could afford to lose the CB if necessary. It's the unfairness of the way in which this is implemented that is upsetting people.

The dual income family are using childcare though (thus contributing economically) - yes, the policy definitely encourages people to work, I entirely agree

But couples with one high earner and one low earner may also be using childcare. And they will also be contributing economically.

This won't actually affect us, so have no personal axe to grind. My salary is over the £50k threshold but I participate in a salary sacrifice scheme for my pension, and this will take me back under the limit.

But I still think it's unfair that a couple earning, say, £60k + £12k should get no CB whereas a couple earning £49k + £49k would get the whole lot.

DP and I are on relatively low incomes (by mumsnet standards) but I don't think either of us begrudge our taxes going to child benefit for HR tax payrs.

There are plenty of things our taxes are spent on that I have a major problem with though. I have a problem with big business using our educated workforce and infrastructure to make profits but avoiding paying a fair amount of tax.

I fon't like the view that we are 'subsidising' each others children. Child benefit is for children to ensure a basic standard of care for the next generation.

callmemrs- there is a big problem with some of your posts- there aren't actually any jobs out there.
So I think you are talking about "in an ideal world", not this world

I think everyone who wants cb should have to provide receipts for the items bought with the money. I know some people are wealthy and some poorer but as long as it goes on the children I don't see a problem. Some poorer families who receive cb don't always use the money for children, to me this is just as bad.

Some poorer families who receive cb don't always use the money for children, to me this is just as bad.

Well, it depends, doesn't it? If they're spending it on booze, fags and Sky TV, you may well have a point. But many more will be spending it on rent, fuel and food. This may not be obviously child-related, but the kids would suffer if it wasn't spent that way.

provide receipts ?!?! Good grief.

This really is one of the most depressing threads I've read. I despair.

Lostboys - there aren't many jobs, no, but that affects us all doesn't it? I probably only have a job now because I kept working even when childcare cost more than my income

I find the attitude displayed by the people involved disgusting quite frankly. You get a job, get your pay and cut your cloth according to that. You don't stand with your hand out expecting a treat from the government for doing this - it's what you should be doing to support your family anyway. Considering the poverty around the world it's grotesque!!? I hate laziness and benefits dependency as much as the next person, but don't stoop to their level by demanding to cling on to my £20 out of principle or some wierd notion of 'fairness'!?

providing vouchers for decent food and child's clothing etc. would possibly be an easier system than getting everyone to submit receipts...

Step family

Total income = 63k
1 FT earner on 52 one PT earner on 11.

Couple next door 3 kids, and earn more than us combined, they keep CB we lose a percentage of it.

Not fair. Simples. Made even more unfair that the 52k earner pays higher rate tax where as the two 35k earners don't.
Made yet yet more unfair in that they're not his kids!