AIBU to think if the cut off point for child benefits was £100k then there would still be people here complaining and figuring out ways to still claim it??

[ssd]

cos I'm fed up reading of people saying they can't cope and should their dh get pain 49999.99 instead if 50k? or should they just lie on the forms?

I know its unfair in the aspect that its not based on household income, but 50k limit seems ok, people moaning just sound greedy

Yes I am sure people would still be moaning if it was 100k. But I don't think people sound greedy. I do think they sound slightly out of touch with reality though tbh. And I say that as someone on a comfortable income.

If the cut off was 250K there would be people complaining.

The point is, that whatever the cut off is there will be people just on the wrong side of it.

It is very easy to look at someone further up the income scale and say 'oh well of course they don't need it' on the assumption that the difference in your incomes translates into disposable income.

Yes, some are out of touch with reality. I caused confusion on another thread by saying that having enough money to eat at every meal and still pay your fuel bills seemed like luxury to me.

Ali - i think most people on here are not stupid. They know its not disposable income. We have paid off our mortgage but have had years when our mortgage payments have been very high. But people rightly think that every family makes choices about where they spend their money. And anyone earning 40k plus does have enough money not to need government handouts.

No they may not be "rich" and may have to cut back on things they don't think they should have to. But they are hardly in poverty either.

Whenever something which has been a benefit is going to be removed, you'll have people complaining.

The fact is, with a HR tax payer in the household, the majority don't actually need the money, but have got used to it for providing non essentials.

Anyone who is going to lose their CB but is claiming that they actually need it, has either chosen to have a very large family on the basis of continuing to receive a benefit, which is a risky strategy. Or they have got used to living well beyond their means, and need to increase the earning of the 'second' partner. Unfortunately some women either don't earn at all for years or get used to working very part time in very low paid jobs (in contrast to their HR tax payer husband) which isn't always a realistic way to live

I think people would definitely still complain if single earner families on 101,000 stopped getting it whilst dual earners on 198,000 still received it.

I personally wouldn't; I'm not complaining at the moment, but you'd definitely still get people moaning that a) 100,000 isn't that much really and b) it's a matter of principle because it's NOT FAIR.

Lesley - you see again and again people vastly underestimating the amount of tax that people just into the 40% rate pay, and even how much people earning £35k ish earn. When you combine it with the loss of any TCs, free prescriptions or whatever then the gap can actually end up being quite small.

People see a headline number and think 'oh they have twice as much money'.

But I am not disagreeing with the cut off point, although we will lose ours whichever way we slice it.
If the government would work out another way for me to earn my NI stamp then I wouldn't claim at all. But until they do I will claim, because my income is dividend income so I pay no NI.

I don't think people sound greedy when they complain about this, anyone would complain about having money taken away from them. Just because some people have less than others doesn't mean anyone should be made to feel that they can't have a moan about the government making sill descisons.

Alibaba - precisely. I earn about 38k. Seems loads on paper. Would have been getting very close to the limit if they had used the 42k ish point.

However once tax, student loan, pension, car parking etc has come out my pay packet is then around £1900 a month. Again sounds loads but take out childcare and diesel to work and I have about £400 left over.

It would have seemed more sensible to cut it for older children (unless in some circumstances) or just let everyone with preschool children keep it regardless of income or something.

I think what annoys me is how very unfair it is. It will affect sahms the most. I feel as though I am being penalized for staying home with my child. Yes we will manage without it but I know plenty of people with a higher household income than ours who will keep it and that it what makes me cross. How can it be fair for is to be just over 50k and lose it and yet people with household incomes of 80k can keep it? We are right on the cusp too, only just over. So whilst it won't push us into abject poverty it will mean that we will have to cut back.

I think the problem with this attempt was the clear unfairness of joint income ( aka married) people being nailed at 40k whereas sepearate income partners could get away with 80k

My salary is £15k, dh is sahd, add in tax credits and cb and what we actually get coming in is closer to 19k - and we feel loaded! The rent is paid, bills are all on time... And maybe £100 left over for clothes, maybe even a trip to the zoo. I'm not sure anyone needs more than 20k ( for a one child family). If you want to run cars, shop at waitrose, etc that's fine but don't plead poverty. I hope in a couple of years i will earn 20k and we won't need government support - i want to be self sufficient - don't you?

Whatme - it should be based on household income, you are right.

Totally agree with you, fed up with people whinging about the subject on MN . As many other posters have pointed out, very, very few of us really know the meaning of 'poverty' in this country.

MotherPanda, your post is very unfair. Some people don't have a choice but to run a car, it's a neccesity. You are very lucky if you can get to work on public transport, not everyone can. I wouldn't be able to work without my car, for more than one reason. As has been pointed out, some people pay into pensions, are you doing that? Some people have higher rents than others.

It is very short sighted to say that if one person can manage then another should be able to. Not everyone has the same circumstances.

But it is a choice where you work, isn't it? Its a choice where you live, its a choice how much pension you pay (yes i do). People seem to be so scared of change - but the fact is if the government wern't so generous then we would all be forced to live within our means. And that might mean giving up the car and taking the train, or finding a job closer to home.

Yanbu - and it seems quite ironic that the calls are to apply the cuts to the rich - but they don't mean "themselves".

Often HR taxpayers are able to earn their salaries because they have spent longer in education. They have not been earning for as many years as someone who left education earlier on and are less likely to have started paying off a mortgage etc, and they will also have to factor student loans (and for some professions, postgraduate loans too) into their outgoings. Their salaries may be high but they also will have higher outgoings that are not necessarily linked to luxury.

My industry is currently working to centralize tax/all info, so it would be really fucking stupid to lie about your income.

I'd love to know how your system works.

In Australia it's household income regardless if there are step children. Tax statements line up with the welfare system and you are billed if you underestimated or repaid money owing each year.

My DH is the step dad to my children and his income pays for all their expenses except childcare ( my lower pay covers this). I had more money as a single parent, it sucks but I consider benefits a safety net not entitlement.

I think that the cutoff is missing the point of the allowance entirely, which was to ensure that the carer of a child always had enough money to care for that child, even if they had an abusive partner who drank/gambled/refused to share their salaries.

I've complained about it and we have joint salary of approx £50k.

It's not greed it's exasperation that we are having money taken from all directions. We both work in public sector and there are so many debates about changes to pay and pensions that when all the cuts are added up then it adds up to a sizable chunk.

I can appreciate that we are in a more than fortunate position compared to others but it doesn't mean we can't complain about any cuts.

"I'm not sure anyone needs more than 20k "

Well, we do. All non-negotiable outgoings come to just under £18k a year (normal house, normal bills, small amout for car)

We couldn't have afforded a house near where I work, so no - not a choice where we live really