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

[OldGreyWiffleTest]

Well, am I?

Jinsei, I meant the minute its in some peoples hands its straight to the pub. Whilst a minority its this I was referring to. Me and dh are low income but would never do this. I was considering fuel and food as well but I can spend all cb on other stuff for children without these.

FWIW as either wohm or sahm none of the recent cuts have affected my family. I know we are lucky and for some it is going to be hard, but I still agree with op, high earners don't need cb, if two people have that much money they can afford their own childcare so that isn't an issue. Surely the rich could do without some luxuries like holidays, one car, smaller house etc.

YABVU in that case I don't think I should be paying any tax towards anybody with a job ie only benefits for those without a job.

Those on £50K are paying a stonking amount on tax,they more than pay for a tiny bit of CB that makes all the difference.

If we're going to start saying what people should manage on perhaps those with less paid jobs should manage on their wages without top ups paid for by those with take home pay not a whole lot more.

How do the government propose to 'police' the payment of benefit and ensure everyone is claiming when they are entitled and not claiming when they earn too much. How much would this regulation cost? Already there are huge numbers of fraudulent benefit claims. Wouldn't that cost money to prevent or stop fraudulent claims?

My family will lose the CB when the new scheme comes into force. I will miss the money each month and I don't think it's fair. It's not fair now and and I don't believe it will be any more fair in the future either. How is the system to be made truly fair?

My CB covers the cost of childcare for my school age children, so that I can work part time. So I can make a contribution to society and show my kids that mum and dad can both work, even with a family.

BogeyNights, I agree entirely this system is not fair for the middle families, however, I don't think you have to work to make a contribution to society. Surely you are doing this by bringing your children up to be good caring citizens with good values and morals. I think you can be just a good role model by teaching your children the value of money and how to live within your means. That said what sort of government could do this to so many families?

elastamum Just out of nosiness - what do you do?

Love all these suggestions people should just move house.

Yeah.

obviously those on low incomes are having a fab time while hr taxpayers work their fingers to the bone

LittleAlbert I haven't read that whole thread, but having been brought up in a family where the man of the house always had meat to eat and the kids were sometimes fed egg and chips, because money was tight, I have seen poverty.

My mum had Provident loans to pay for shoes, bills, Christmas presents. She paid it off a bit at a time out of her meagre housekeeping money.

I think that people on here sometimes get a distorted view of finances and how well people in the UK are doing. You don't get many mums who are scraping the financial barrel who have the inclination to spend time on Mumsnet. Reading about how sending little Harry to this private school or the one down the road, whether to buy this £1200 handbag or the other at £1500, whether to get annoyed about one's husband buying a £60k car without telling us, when we were only expecting him to spend £50k, it kind of gets stuck in your craw.

I think that some of the people losing their CB are cross because of the inequity of it. The fact it isn't based on household income wrankles for some, but this is life. And when you look at threads where parents are clearly struggling to pay the bills, put food on the table and are living in the shittiest conditions you can imagine, so can't downgrade their lifestyles any more without living on the streets, you can see how nonsensical this all is.

And this is a Tory government that people didn't exactly, but sort of voted in. Why in the hell did anybody expect them to be fair???

Personally, I don't think people who earns bucket loads should get benefit but my issue is that you could be a stay at home mum and lose the benefit as your husband/partner earns just over the threshold or worse be a single working mum who earns just over the threshold and lose it but the couple next door have more coming in as they both work for just under the threshold. It should be based on household income or it should be decided that as that would cost more to means test then instead of allowing it automatically ensure that people have to apply for it then those that feel that they do not deserve it won't apply....I know that is going to upset people...

The idea behind child benefot was that children should not have to sufer any economic disadvantages of their parents. When it began, it was always paid to the mother. It was applied for, not automatic, and in the earliest days of the welfare state. Those who felt they did not need it simply did not apply. A means test was thus not necessary. Fast forward 60 years and everything has changed. This is an entitlement society. I have not had the time to read all of the posts but people think that if you work hard you should get more benefits is a bit contrary to the idea of the welfare state. I definitely think that there should be a cut off point, gradual, but then I also think that people should take a long look at themselves and their situation and if they don't need a benefit, they shouldn't claim it. And I am talking genuine need here, not wishing to take a family holiday or buy organic. The only daft think about this is that it isn't considered on joint income. It is ludicrous that some families will earn £98000 before losing any, while a single parent only £49000. My earnings don't even come close. But if I was able to work and support myself and my children adequately with my own earnings, I'd simply not claim the benefit. That's how a welfare system is supposed to work. There are benefits to which I am entitled, that I do not claim, as I feel I do not need them. I haven't had a holiday for 6 years, and I could probably afford one if I claimed a bit more, but why should the taxpayer pay for me to have a holiday?

A few years ago, Child Benefit was called "Family Allowance". We all have a tax free allowance. (well unless you earn over c. £114K) People over 75 still get a married person's allowance.

The government manages tax in all sorts of ways to encourage/discourage activities and maximise revenue. Much of this system doesn't make sense (tax on biscuits but not cakes), and some of it seems to have some logic (tax on cigarettes).

Is it fair that somebody who earns £960 receives child benefit? Well the maximum housing benefit you can claim is £400 a week, which, even under a conservative government recognises that housing is pretty expensive, and somebody earning 960 a week only takes home £688 a week after taxes, so I think yes, it is fair.

It is also true that many SAHP's are staying at home not because they are going to the gym, but because they are caring for children who don't fit into the normal school/after school care/child minder system and therefore find it difficult to go out to work. Not everybody can benefit from the free child care provided by the education system that others take advantage of, and this isn't 'fair' either.

Personally, I believe that everybody with children should be entitled to Family Allowance, in the same way that everybody with children should be entitled to a child's library card, the NHS and schools. It's a tax allowance that recognises the additional cost of having children. However, I realise that some people might just say don't have children.

well said Merry Mouse.

Yes indeed, very well said. And to anyone who would retort "don't have children", well I hope you have private health insurance and your own means because I sure as hell don't want MY children's taxes paying for your upkeep.