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

If losing child benefit is going to push anyone over the edge then they must've been sailing pretty close to the wind anyway. How were they replacing a broken washing machine for example?

It's the unfairness of it that upsets me, feels like a fuck you. A family where one person earns 60k pays more tax than a couple earning 30k each, so are already on a lower take home income, and they're the ones to be penalised. Just feels shit.

yanbu
and whilst people who have plenty are missing the fact that vulnerable disabled people are going to hit bloody hard, and god help carers

I think in some cases the sole earner/dual earner thing is a total smokescreen.

So it's "Well obviously I don't mind that the money is going but its the lack of fairness that upsets me" appears to be "I really really mind about me losing the money, but know I'm well off, so I'm going to complain about the fairness instead so I don't seem like like I'm Lady muck.

I think there is also a lack of reality about what consitutes struggling and hardship and an unwillingness to accept that just because your finances are stretched to the limit doesn't mean that you're not well off, just that you're spending more money and have better stuff than someone who earns less. Which is actually most of the UK population.

Also, being a sahm is a choice, for most people, especially if you were working before and chose to quit that job to stay at home. If I'd done that, I would have had to cut my outgoings and probably give up renting the house we're in and move somewhere cheaper. That's life, but I don't think that benefits should allow more well off people to make that choice when the majority of the population can't.

Those who have to stay at home to look after children with SN are a different catagory. But that is a failure of carer's allowance (which should be higher) and support for children with SN in general (which should be much more), it's not child benefit specifically.

I think we have to consider why Child Benefit was created in the first place. As far as I know, the universality and it being paid to the individual with care of the children (almost always the mother, then) was because it was recognised that just because there was household income, it didn't necessarily get spent on the children. Or the non-earning spouse. And whilst the factory worker blowing his pay-packet at the pub and the bookies before rolling home skint to a house with no food was one stereotype, there must also have been an awareness of tight-fisted middle-class dominators ruling with an iron fist behind the net curtains.

I don't see much having changed today. I've read many a thread here about financial abuse, and Child Benefit being just about the only money the abused has access to.

Regardless of the nominal household income, I believe Child Benefit should still be a universal benefit.

"It will affect sahms the most"

It affects single parents the most. At least, where there is a couple, the non-working parent theoretically has the option to look for a job and bring in money to cover the amount lost in CB. A single parent can't quit work & doesn't have the luxury of a partner to fall back on. Staying home with children has always been the preserve of those who can afford it.

YANBU OP.

Maybe I'm getting confused but from what I have read, nobody will have CB removed from them, the higher rate person will have extra tax to make up for it. So in the above example of the non salaried SAHP would still get it regardless, even if the WOHP refused to provide with a reasonable amount to get by on. Surely it is better this way than out and out removal although I still thinit should be universal for all in an ideal world.

Well, I am a SAHM - DH pays HR tax and we'll lose our CB. After being made redundant, our CB was to be put towards our childcare fees to assist my return to work (which incidentally would amount to circa £2500 per month for 3 children, 2 of which would be in nursery). After taking out rent, bills, student AND graduate loans x 2 etc. we have little money to live off monthly. For those of you who think £60k is big bucks, it really isn't when you have to pay through the nose for fees which others get help towards. CB would make a real difference to us as even with it, it is at best hard to get a job where paying childcare fees would enable me/us to break even on a monthly basis.

And no annual hols, wine equalling at best, 1 bottle per week. We can't afford luxuries. Everyone has different income brackets, and different priorities for outgoings, so not all incomes are in direct correlation to outgoings.

CogitoErgoSometimes There are some people like me who can't afford to work. I would make a loss after childcare. I think lots of people don't realise how lucky they are.

Yes, I agree it will be lone parents who ultimately stand to lose the most :(

It affects single parents the most. At least, where there is a couple, the non-working parent theoretically has the option to look for a job and bring in money to cover the amount lost in CB

I think a single parent on higher rate tax is not a major area of worry.

"why Child Benefit was created in the first place. "

It was created because women were the 'property' of their husbands, reliant on men for their income and often barred from getting paid employment by husbands that thought a woman's place was in the home. Because of this institutional and cultural dependency they often had no means of supporting their children. That was back in the forties. These days, women can still be married to financially abusive men if they are unlucky, but we can be far less reliant if we earn our own money

"a single parent on higher rate tax is not a major area of worry"

Agreed... And neither is a couple on higher rate tax.

Agreed... And neither is a couple on higher rate tax.

While I agree, it was never going to fly while 2 single earners living together could earn £80k and still get it.

"I think a single parent on higher rate tax is not a major area of worry."

Errr, why not? They have a huge percentage more outgoing in terms of childcare etc. Why are they not to be worried about?

How does this affect lone parents the most?

The people it affects the most are those where one parent earns just over the cut off amount, regardless of whether they are a lone parent or part of a couple.

Soupdragon - it's tapered though, so there isn't that drop off point.

I can't figure out what Osborne is up to. There was an article in The Guardian today about how it's going to work - essentially lots of people who didn't previously have to fill in a self-assessment form now will do, so that while you could go through the year claiming child benefit, it can then get clawed back in tax. (I'm sorry if everybody else already understood this - I haven't followed it closely enough.) So in the end it's going to make the whole process more fiddly and complicated and probably cost the government money.

There's a reason child benefit has been a universal benefit for so long, and that reason is simplicity. Osborne seems now to be getting the worst of both worlds - it's going to be means-tested, and therefore complicated to administer, but the cut will only affect higher earners, so will save less money than when it was going to affect those earning over £40k.

"it's tapered though, so there isn't that drop off point"

that makes no difference to who it affects the most.

He's going to save money, because many people won't claim. Including those who need it.

The trouble is that most people tend to live up to their means. So if you are earning 100K then you most likely do have a bigger/more expensive house which means bigger mortgage payments, higher council tax, more to heat it etc. Plus you may well have your children in private school. And a lot of those are things that cannot be changed at the drop of a hat to allow more disposable income.

Well, it does. For example If I earn just enough to push me into the HRT bracket then I only lose 5% of the benefit, meaning I lose say 0.5% of my yearly income. But if 'm up at the 60K end, I lose more, but I earn more, so it should be easier to cope as I lose a lower percentage of my yearly income, e.g. so 100% of the benefit is gone, but it's only 0.1% of my yearly income. So basedon % of earnings lost it should be the same.

(No idea what the actual % would be, these are just examples I plucked out of the air)

"he trouble is that most people tend to live up to their means. So if you are earning 100K then you most likely do have a bigger/more expensive house which means bigger mortgage payments, higher council tax, more to heat it etc. Plus you may well have your children in private school."

I have a tiny violin to play sad songs for people who have all of that AND have no savings to cushion the blow AND are moaning because the government isn't paying them benefits anymore.

Their feet probably hurt because of their diamond shoes being too tight as well, poor dears :)

I'm not bothered about CB going, but I'm very miffed that next door, who have similar outgoings to us, 2 kids, 2 working parents, and earn more than us, will continue to get child benefit.