To think the government can't force women to declare what their dp earns?

[ThreeLittlePandas]

I'm a SAHM and claim child benefit for my 3 children. What my dh earns is his business and the government can go whistle for it if they think that I'm going to declare his earning.

I claim CB not dh

In fact they can fuck the fuck off....

All those trying to keep CB by pulling some kind of flatmates with kids BS - good luck with that

The benefits fraud helpline will be red hot next April.

You are mistaken, Katandkit and others. Of course if you declare that you are living together as though married, you will be assessed together. But if you claim not to be, there is very little they can do to prove otherwise.

Does it not bother you that you will be committing benefit fraud?

No.

Changed name so I can admit to my situation - I am a SAHM (well I work very PT so it hardly counts) and my DH earns just enough for us to lose CB - I am not happy about it and we will have £188 less every month I will miss it and we will have to cut back but I have always felt that even when we were earning less we were too well off to deserve CB and it would be better off being shared with those who need it more - my dad feels the same about his winter fuel allowance - so although I would be happier to keep it I think it's perfectly fair for us lose it.
What doesn't seem fair is where there are others who will be earning more jointly than us who won't have to contribute to the mess this country is in - if we've all got to help bail out the country then I agree pepole with more money should help more - but the system has to be seen to be fair for all of us.
I am a qualified teacher , I could go back properly PT to make up for the loss in CB but I will have to work longer than before as my pay has been frozen and my pension contributions increased - therefore I will be hit on 3 accounts to help out the economy.
DH is a civil servant and he too has had a pay freeze, is losing rights to any further pay increases, has significantly increased pension contributions and is losing a lot of pension rights too.
So as a family we will be contributing greatly to the economy - we are comfortably off so can't complain - but what I can complain about is that some people better off than us who aren't hit by the public sector pay and pension changes - won't apparently be contributing at all - THAT'S NOT FAIR!

Indeed, no way would a married couple with a child be considered 'flatmates' when it comes to benefit entitlement. It just doesn't work that way.

Household income has been taken into account for benefit claimants for many many years - yes there are some grey areas, and yes some people do get away with claiming more than they're entitled to by lying about having a partner - but it's not as easy as you might think. Personally I wouldn't think it worth the risk of being prosecuted for fraud and having a criminal record.

I do not support this change and I think it's unfair and unnecessary - but I am starting to feel a bit at all the outrage at better-off couples being expected to do what others have had to do for a long time...

If you're so precious about privacy and your relationship and household arrangements being none of the government/revenue's business, you always have the choice of not claiming benefits!

bigmouth as I understand it, you will claim and your DH gets an income tax return (so they'll be reintroduced) and declares that you claim then they deduct the CB if need be.

Oh that won't cost more will it Osborne?

I agree ephiny - especially as I have witnessed my mother struggling to fill out long and intrusive claim forms for the pitiful amounts of benefit (HB and Ctax) she has been allowed and the stress of sorting out her pension... i best not go there as I makes me all ranty!

The thought of HRT households gleefully 'fooling' the tax man does not make me all warm and fuzzy about their rebellious stance I much prefer to focus on the inequity of the changes and the ridiculously complicated tax regime that will be required to administrate it - will their actually be any money raised from this new scheme?

arimaa. Seen as you are happy to be a benefit thief, please dong expect any sympathy when, next year, they work out you are a liar and claim all the money back.

It's lovely that you would rather your child grow up in a house where you would deny your relationship with her Father to claim handouts

Thanks Iggly so will every taxpayer get a tax return then? Great yep this is going to raise loads....

Still I might be able to get a job in the local tax office!

No only HRT will - because it doesn't matter if you're not a HRT one

I'm with you - it's going to cost more just to "prove" a point that supposedly we're all in this together yet we can still afford tax cuts when we should be getting every penny we can

Yes I am a bit sceptical about just how much will be raised from this scheme when you consider the costs of administering...in fact I thought that was the main rationale for CB being kept as a 'universal benefit' in the past (that and the fact that alienating middle-class families is a terrible move politically!)

Do you have to expressly declare your dh's salary though? When you apply for CHB you fill in the form who the child(ren)'s parents are so I thought the info would just be taken from there? i.e. Mr. X's currently salary according to HMRC is 60K+ so Mrs. X gets no CHB.

pinkdelight "I went to a talk by someone high up at the CAB once who said something interesting relating to this - that research showed, on balance, it was better to give blanket benefits (like CB for all) rather than making them means-tested. The cost of enforcing the means-testing cancelled out any savings made in not giving blanket benefits."

I've heard this before, and I'm pretty sure it's true or as nearly true as makes no difference. This is why child benefit has been a universal benefit for such a long time - however grouchy people get about the fact that it goes to high income families, it's easier to do that than to start fussing around collecting information about how much people earn. It also has the advantage, not to be underestimated, of giving well-off people a stake in the welfare state, so they don't complain so much about feckless poor people being given handouts.

I realise Ephiny has made the same point - sorry, didn't read all the posts!

Well dh earns very close to the £60k cut-off, but does NOT have the hassle of filling in a tax return each year as he's on PAYE. We will not therefore bother claiming CB anymore if it means dh has to do an annual return. Just not worth it for a few quid a year

It will be a nightmare to administer. And I feel very sorry for SAHM in financially abusive relationships who may well not have any income of their own inthe futre.

"Child Benefit itself is not being made liable to tax and the amount that can be claimed is unaffected by the new charge. It can continue to be paid in full to the claimant even if they or their partner have a liability to the new charge. Child Benefit claimants will be able to elect not to receive the Child Benefit to which they are entitled if they or their partner do not wish to pay the new charge. The claimant may subsequently decide to withdraw that election if they or their partner are no longer liable to pay the charge. "

Above quote taken from MSE website.

So I can still claim CB and DH will be charged it back (nice paycut for someone in public sector payfreeze ) - but at least it will be possible to maintain qualifying years for NI/ pension purposes.

it will be necessary to claim it only if you are not paying NI yourself.

If you claim child benefit for a child under 12 years of age or are an approved foster carer then you should automatically accrue National Insurance credits.

National Insurance credits replace annual National Insurance contributions meaning you would not need to top up for any years you receive them.

Read more: www.money.co.uk/article/1006500-should-i-make-up-my-national-insurance-contributions.htm#ixzz1pqTgWaDh

My understanding is that there will be a question on the tax form about whether a partner receives child benefit. And if the answer is yes, then they will be taxed additionally accordingly. DH and I were mulling this over as a few years ago he was advised he no longer needed to fill out a tax return. So, if he isn't asked he wouldn't declare it voluntarily we thought. Then this week he got a letter saying he would have to complete a return going forward.

Of course, I get CB into my account and he has no access to that, so he could say "no" as he doesn't necessarily know. But we would be honest.

However, how they enforce it is another matter. The whole CB thing is a shambles. They should remove it completely IMHO and add extra to tax credits if necessary.

Yabu. Totally unreasonable. What did you think you were doing by getting married? You are declaring that you and your dh wish to be seen as a financial and legal unit.
'His business'. Indeed. No, you are a household, not an individual. A lot of people get narked about being 'considered as married' when only in (what they reasonably view in their eyes) to be a temporary relationship and perhaps they've got a point, but as a married person you are CLEARLY by your own choice in a couple-relationship (boak- I hate that phrase) so they are right to assess you as such.

RemainsOfTheDay and others, just because you want to think that unmarried people getting round this will be caught in their droves, doesn't mean that it is going to happen.

In practice it is very difficult to prove and there is no public pressure for draconian enforcement unlike JSA etc. FWIW this was also the opinion of someone in the know I asked about it.

It sounds to me like an administrative nightmare and I wouldn't be surprised if it costs more to implement than it saves.

Sorry haven't read whole thread, what is happening about maintaining NI conts for people who are not eligible to claim CB.

There are married couples though, who maintain completely separate financial affairs (like my DH's parents used to). How can one person in the marriage be asked to declare what the other is claiming (CB), when they might not necessarily know?

Karmabeliever - they could ask?

arimaa, I don't quite get where you are coming from here? Forgive me because I am not yet a breeder but surely to be denied CB you will have a partner who is earning a good salary?
How many households are there where one of the partner's has a really good salary are going to be of the 'we're just good mates' variety.
I should imagine that people who in the income bracket that will be denied benefit will have a proper family set-up going on.

I actually think that to mislead the government in such a way if this is the case is more morally wrong than some poor woman who is claiming income support while her deadbeat partner is living with her.

What's the excuse if somebody's partner is on a good income?