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

YANBU - it's a ridiculous criteria - but ridiculous that people from a household with someone earning £50k are claiming poverty. Live off min wage and see how that feels.

Cut your bloody cloth!

Cutting you bloody cloth is damn near impossible.

People on minimum wage do not cut their cloth, they claim benefits, so clearly min wage is not a living wage at all and £36k which is the equivalent of what you'd need to earn to not need benefits is not a lot less than £50k after tax.

Yes, the administration will be expensive, especially once you realise that it is never in your interests not to claim, even if it will be clawed back. By claiming you ensure that:

1. if the claimant is not working their NI and therefore future state pension are protected
2. if your partner's income or your income change dramatically during the year unexpectedly (e.g. through redundancy) then you don't miss out on money you would become entitled to.

In relation to point 2, under the system they've designed, effectively whether or not you're eligible for child benefit for the whole year will be calculated retrospectively based on the parents' incomes for the whole year. So, to decide whether or not to bother claiming you have to very accurately be able to predict that. something that is never a certainty. If it turns out you were wrong and the charge through self-assessment would not in fact be applied at the end of the year, it is too late by that point to claim for the months gone by. So, the only sensible option is to always claim it, stick it in an account where it can accumulate interest and then expect to pay the charge through the tax return.

Bizarre system.

Having said that, this system of implementation does protect women where their husband hordes the money and won't share. The woman can still claim child benefit, and keep her state pension protected, and her husband will have to pay the charge himself. In theory. Assuming there's not abuse going on and she won't 'pay the penalty' when he finds out she's claimed it .

Good grief heswall clearly you have no concept of what it's like to live in actual poverty. Yes they do cut their cloth! They dojt get to spend on non-essentials (after school clubs, cluns in general, wine,) they often dont hwt to soend on essentials (home insurance, fuel, hear). Benefits don't make income up to £50k salary levels. (and before anyone says it - I'm on over a £50k salary and I know what that brings in net).

I agree with the op.

The issue about whether or not the withdrawal is affecting people equally, and is therefore fair, is valid.

But my interpretation of the benefit is as a safety net of funds available just for a child. I liked the fact that it was universal because so many of the people who most need benefits are the last to claim them. But people on high five figure salaries do just sound whiney.
However strapped people in the bracket affected may be it is about being strapped, not about being so impoverished that the benefit ensures your child is dressed and fed.

But I think I am out of kilter a bit. When I was a child benefits were seen as a means to help the poorest and the temporarily fucked. Not as a kind of salary top up.
In many ways it is good that things have changed, certainly I don't miss the shame I felt at getting free school meals, but in other ways it has bred a sort of 'but what do I get' attitude.

YABVU.

£50 isn't a massive amount more than many on benefits. Many don't know the realities of living on £50K with absolutely no benefits,massive mortgage,commuting bills etc.

On £100K you could move house,downsize.On £50K many will barely get a mortgage for a tiny house.

£100K is a whole world away from £50K. Personally I think £80-100K would have been far fairer but then £100K isn't the squeezed middle is it and the squeezed middle are the section of society the Tories are choosing to carry the brunt of the cuts.

Sadly for them they'll need some of the squeezed middle vote to get back in power and I don't think they'll have a chance in hell.

There have been threads comparing actual money in pockets between those on £42K and those on benefits-there was very little in it. Either benefits are too high or the higher tax band too low.You can't have it both ways.

Agree with nomoreparties.
Though I think fewer people would dare complain about the loss of CB with 100k income. Though I think they would be right to complain about any similar unfairness concerning single income households.

I think they should have made the cut off £80K so even so roughly equivilent to having two higher rate tax payers in the family (stealth boast - even at this level we would be loosing CB so I have no vested interest in suggesting this cut off).

I wonder if people living in the SE and London are over represented on this thread. In many parts of the country an income of £50K-£60K would make you a very high earner and your mortgage is less likely to be eyewateringly large.

I think the OP is right that people always complain about loosing something. However, in the current climate, seeing the pressure that others are under, I fully accept that our family does not need child benefit and the money would be better spent on people who do need it.

Unless you live in a shoe, dress your kids with paper napkins and eat grass every, you can't moan on here about having money taken off of you.

It always amazes me that people think that because you earn 50K (which if you live in the SE, have to pay to commute, have rent and or/mortgage as well as everything else that needs paying) people think you won't miss CB.

FWIW, I will lose CB, I am ok with this, but there are genuinely others on the cusp who actually need it.

Why is this so hard to understand?

"I'm not sure anybody needs more than 20K"

Is this a wind-up?

Why would it be a wind up? I just think people should look at their choices and be grateful for what they have been given in the past. You can choose where you work, how much you earn, where you live. If you are unhappy, make changes. I am very very grateful for the money my family has been given, but it is a gift and i don't take it for granted and wouldn't dream of stamping my feet if it was taken away - i would get a job closer to home so no travel costs, maybe get a smaller house etc.

It probably isn't a wind up. I'm on about £20k with dh not working right now and if we were on benefits we'd be firstly better off and secondly if I didn't want to work DH would still be in two minds as to whether to accept a £49k job as it would touch and go whether it would be worth it compared to benefits. Benefits are not too high wages are too low or tax is too high.

20k before with a family of 5 in the SE?

Err, ok then?

You are deluded! You can choose where you work? How much you earn?

.
Do you have a fever?

You would get a job closer to home! What if there were no jobs close to your home? My DH was out of work for the best part of a year and finally landed a great job, for which we had to move to (more money needed there which most people don't have spare).

You are clueless MotherPanda, clueless.

My post said 20k for a family with one child.

What really hacks me off this increase in the tax threshold at the bottom yet again the squeezed middle don't enjoy as they lowered the higher tax threshold again so we lost any benefit(unlike everybody else).The rich got their 50p tax thing,the lowest get looked after and oaps get their pension increased but the middle yet again get squeezed.

The amount you get taxed on £40 odd K it's eye watering,the amount left is a joke. When you see how much of that tax each year goes on benefits for other families to enjoy an equal /better(no stress)lifestyle it pisses me off greatly and actually think you know what those around £50K bloody deserve a measly bit of CB-they more than bloody well pay for it.

You know if everybody wants to squeeze the already badly off middle how about we pay less tax on benefits so the money we earn we get to keep more of-that way we wouldn't need CB that everybody begrudges us having so much.

oh yeah cos people on low incomes arn't being squeezed.
they get discounts on all things that cost more like petrol......not

Regardless of how many children... to say you can just choose where you live, move, downsize etc.. at a moments notice is insane.

Get a job closer to home, I bet there are so many unemployed people out there wishing this was the case.

Choosing how much you earn? LOL

I am actually chuckling at this.

Who said people on low incomes weren't being squeezed 2shoes?

YABU. It was set up as a universal benefit, the clue being in the name child benefit. So whether it is benefitting the child/ children in the family who earn 20k or 100k is irrelevant. We do not know either theoritical families disposable income after all essentials are paid for. Both families work hard to contribute to the tax system. It's the principal and the way it has been done that is so wrong. As can be seen from these boards it is such a divisive subject, and I'm starting to wonder if that was the government's motive as the changes are going to cost so much to administer the savings will we a drop in the ocean compared to the national debt.

this idea that you can move house/job in order to reduce your cost of living is quite ridiculous for most people - and it is certainly not something that can be done as a quick reaction to the fact that your income has been reduced.

sell your house? ok, could take 10 weeks - but more likely 10 months or even longer. and unless you have a substantial amount of equity you may not even have enough for the deposit/mortgage on the new house. so I guess you could rent - oh and then maybe be entitled to housing benefit?

get a new job somewhere else, closer to your new house so you dont have to pay so much in fuel/fares? erm, ok; that'll be in one of those places where housing costs are much lower - maybe that's something to do with fewer opportunities for employment. so then perhaps you could take a lower paid job and get WTC, or even not find one and claim JSA?

and that's leaving aside things like elderly parents who you might be supporting, kids in significant stages of schooling etc etc.

YANBU. People like to complain. However, there are people whose incomes on the surface look great but who need CB. I have a friend who escaped an abusive relationship a few years ago. Her H earned about £200K p/a, had over half a million in the bank, and gave her an allowance of £60 p/w to feed and clothe herself and their sixchildren. They lived in a lovely big house but she was wearing shoes with holes in and scraping by whilst her husband raked it in and stashed it all away where she couldn't get at it so that he could retire early. If it's the only money the mother has access to, it can be a lifeline.

twolittlemonkeys you contradict yourself by saying YANBU. The example of your friend is exactly why it should continue to be a universal credit, and one of the reasons it was set up.

Look at the breakdown from the gov on what our tax goes on.The amount each family pay on benefits is shocking compared to say education.

Now as part of a society I except we need to look after the needy but I resent being told I don't deserve a piffling bit of much needed money for my kids when I already give above and beyond what many others do and proportionately feel it far more than the uber rich and the those on far lower salaries who get help to bring their standard of living up to very near the same.

I really resent paying a higher tax band on £42K,it's not a huge salary and those below get lower tax and top ups from the gov.

Either cut our tax or except those in the middle will need help just like many others.