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

We will lose our CB (three DC) as DH is over the threshold. I am self employed and work school hours/evenings/weekends but I don't earn much, last tax return showed about £7000 turnover.

People are mistaken if they think families like us won't notice it going. The money arrives late in the month when things are getting a bit tight so it will be conspicious by its absence for a few months. However it's not going to put us on the bread line so I guess we will adjust accordingly.

I may look to get another job or work more hours but as I have a child with SN (the reason I prefer not to work out of school hours if possible) I might have a go at applying for DLA, I have not done this before as i felt we were comfortable enough to suck up the additional costs.

Most people dangling over the threshold will feel it initially in some way but i figure forget about it and move on rather than be consumed by bitterness (the system is unjust but hey ho! As a family we hopefully have prospects and will recoup the loss within a few years).

Re the debate about spending choices. A proportion of our expenditure is about choice and if I had to I could cut down monthly costs but so could my Dsis whose family exist on benefits. I wouldn't trade lifestyles with her in a month of Sundays, it's not a pleasant life and they have very little disposable income but what they do have they spend on cigarettes and other things I would consider a waste. Everyone makes expenditure choices that may backfire whatever end of the spectrum they are.

HR tax payers losing child benefit may not be deserving of sympathy but vitriol and schadenfreude is imo uncalled for. As Dave said, we are in this together, who knows what benefits/services will be cut next. This is likely to continue for a number of years.

'i would get a job closer to home so no travel costs' That's OK MotherPanda if you happen to live in a town/city with adequate public transport.

Two buses a day in my village, and neither go in the direction in which I used to work. Neither would have got my husband to work on time either.

Cumulatively, with the lowering of the 40% threshold, the pay freeze, the rise in MQ rents and CTAX contribution, the cutting of overseas allowances, and losing CB we will be £400 worse off from January next year. We are £250 a month worse off from May this year. We are posted abroad by HMG, so me working is difficult as I don't speak the three languages required to work here. Income isn't always as easy to replace as you seem to think.

Scaryteacher - i don't mean tone rude but surely it is a choice to live in a village with no public transport?

All i'm saying is that if you can't afford your life you will HAVE to make these changes.

I'd love to live in a village, but running a car would cost half our annual income so its middle of a town for me.

Ok guys, fine - say i accept your arguments and you are all now struggling in poverty.

What are you going to do about your situation to make it better?

Nobody said they were struggling in poverty, they just said £20k isn't enough and that moving home/work isn't as easy as you were implying.

What are those receiving top ups from the gov going to do?Surely they should simply move,get another job so us higher tax payers could get to keep more of our wages like those on lower tax do?

Personally with us dp will have to turn down overtime which his company will feel when they have a massive project on,this will stop us from going over £50K and loosing £200 a month.

Dp is also going to look at London jobs for midweek.

Bar CB we've never claimed any benefits,have always moved,educated ourselves etc to keep in employment.

Sorry after reading some of the nasty vitriol on these threads I don't think we should pay tax credits at all.If we're not going to give a stuff about anybody other than ourselves and those on salaries such as £42K are going to be taxed ridiculously high it's time we put a stop to forking out as a country on tax credits,social housing or anything else on those that have jobs.Only those without a job should get benefits-everybody else be thankful or move and get a better job.

I think removing it from HRTs is purely an ideological decision. It will make almost no saving once the admin costs are deducted. However it will sever a large part of the population completely from the benefit/ welfare system. And once they have got used to getting nothing from the welfare state it will be easier to start really cutting benefits to the poorest members of our society. Once people lose their connection to the welfare state they won't care what happens to it.

It's the start of a very divisive time for our society. So to me the question is where are we going? Where is this baby step leading?

'Scaryteacher - i don't mean tone rude but surely it is a choice to live in a village with no public transport' Yes for us it was. However, for many it isn't. The entire population of the UK isn't urban you know. Farmers and others who live in the countryside have kids, and they want jobs, but can't afford to move out of home, so are stuck in rural areas, without public transport.

Before living in a village we lived in Plymouth. I got the bus into work and back. Difficult for dh though, as his job was elsewhere in the country and he had to drive to get there. Life isn't as simple as you like to think. Dh at one point was trying to commute from Brussels to Cornwall. That's a pig of a journey on public transport; it was both cheaper and easier by car.

I wouldn't mind if it applied to HOUSEHOLD income but spending on childcare was deducted from gross earnings.

It bloody pisses me off that my brother and his partner have a household income of 80k and will keep theirs whereas me and DH will lose ours.

Living in London with three children on the equivalent of two (not very senior) nurses incomes does not make you rich. Especially when a quarter of that income is taxed at 40%, and when one of you is at home with the heating on all day in winter....

We live in a big town in a rural area-its £5 for a 5 min journey.£8 return to the main city.Many families only have 1 car,we do,can't afford 2.Public transport is a necessity.

My huuuuuge gripe is that "Dave" specifically said, in the run up to the election, that he wouldn't do this !

He is no doubt rewriting history in his own mind by believing that he mean't he wouldn't get rid of it altogether.

The Tories presumably believe that all people are fair and decent individuals, particularly if they earn >£50,000 and will share their income with their SAH spouses so that non working spouse and children do not suffer financially as a result of this policy !

Hellooooo DC, what colour is the sky in your world today ?

This is a vicious policy and some women and children will suffer terribly as a result. The cost of administering it is likely to be substantial so savings will be minimal. It ain't about the money, it's some form of political manipulation as part of a bigger plan.

Shag.. The heating on all winter? This winter? I think your house is lacking in insulation and cardigans

The original intention of child benefit was to ensure that every child would at least be fed, warm and clothed i.e. that they had the basics. Given that average household income is approx £50,000 in the UK, I think that the new levels have been set at fair levels to ensure that those children in households with less income have the basics. Those are the ones who really need the income. There was plenty of bashing the rich over the past couple of weeks on here, but when it really comes to it, it seems like middle england (i.e. those with household incomes over £50k) isnt willing to give up what they are "entitled" to in order to ensure that the poorest 50% still have their benefits etc.

With the changes made in the budget we won't lose all of ours now. Of course I am relieved about that as for three dcs it's nearly £200 every 4 weeks and I do use that money. However It is of course massively unfair that we still get it with dh's income + mine and my friends with similar slightly higher incomes for their partner but who are sahp will lose it all. That is the craziness with this policy.

The other issue is that CB is frozen atm isn't it? No sign of a change in that afaik so regardless of your income the attack on CB is affecting you because the value of the benefit is being steadily eroded. If you are earning 20 grand or 80 grand - this aspect of government policy WILL render you worse off.

I have always been of the opinion that those who are "wealthy" can afford to lose their CB. But having read all the posts on here, yes, I can see people's points of view I really can.

But "we" (as a nation) are in deep shit financially. Cuts have to be made and CB for many is really not essential. I earn about £35K net and my DH does not work. I will not lose CB but if I were honest, I could probably afford to lose it and not be massively worse off. Yes, it might mean cutting back on a few things but it is not the difference between paying the leccy and being cold!

As always in these sorts of things, it's the people at the cut off point who suffer. I don't think anyone earning six figures would feel the loss of CB surely?

"I think that the new levels have been set at fair levels to ensure that those children in households with less income have the basics." Er... so how come someone next door to us with more income can have the "basics" for their dcs but we can't?

I really don't think that the word "basics" applies to anyone earning 2 X £50K. But fairness applies to all. I want to live in a fair society and what I'm seeing here is constant grabbing and fleecing of the part of society that historically turns the other cheek (or at least the other bum cheek).

"Personally with us dp will have to turn down overtime which his company will feel when they have a massive project on,this will stop us from going over £50K and loosing £200 a month."

It's tapered. So if you fall just over the threshold via overtime, you will only lose a small percentage of child benefit. I find it hard to believe that your husband's hourly overtime rate is so low that you are likely to lose more than you gain here.

I can just imagine my bosses face if I refused to help out on big projects because I might get taxed more. It would be like this . I certainly wouldn't think I'd ever get a pay rise again!

The higher the cut off the fewer people are affected and therefore there are less who would complain

However most people dislike losing benefits or paying more tax themselves so not much of a suprise on this one. Its always easier to stomach that stuff when it affects others

I an see the irritation with the anomaly of it all BUT when people on here are saying that the £26k benefit cap "is more than enough to live on" while whinging about the loss of their £20 a week because DH or they earn £60k I do get a tad impatient. And YES I am aware that the benefit claimant might not have a mortgage etc but their income will still be considerably less.

But it's all immaterial anyway - the fact remains that this Govt (without mandate remember) are doing all manner of things that they said they would not. THAT is the real issue here.

So, what are the Tories playing at? Cutting child benefit for the better off will save a piddling amount of money. It will be expensive and fiddly to administer. It will really piss off a whole load of people who are in middle-income households (as demonstrated by comments above).

So why do it? Are they insane?

MrsHeffley - surely he will earn more overtime than the corresponding loss - it is tapered you know?

And in terms of future overtime, pay rises, promotions etc he would want to be on his employer's good side?

I know you are upset, but think clearly here and don't cut off your nose.

Er... so how come someone next door to us with more income can have the "basics" for their dcs but we can't? The Government have said that this will affect only a relatively small number of people. You can either compare yourself to your equally well off neighbours (based on gross income) and feel hard done by or you can compare yourself to the 50% of households that have less income than you.

Unless Mrs Heffley has 8+ kids then yes, he will earn more despite the gradual loss of CB. However, for a family with 4 children, after pension, tax & loss of CB the amount of extra money you see in your pocket between 50K and 60K is about £20 of every £100 earned. So, if overtime also has a big impact on family life, it may not seem worth the extra hours for the very small gain in money.

hackmum - I have been wondering this.

With the rise in the threshold to £50k and the taper, the number of people affected is actually going to be relatively small. And the number of people who are really going to feel it in their pockets even smaller, because as is being argued here - anyone with a household income of £100k+ isn't going to feel the loss.

I am very anti this cut - not only because it can be the only money a woman has but also because it is so divisive. If you are living in London then £80 a month is a lot to lose.

But it is not only the middle classes being swueezed, everyone is feeling the pinch. DLA is changing for the disabled and despite Govt promises it WILL leave some people worse off, arers are being looked at and ESA claimants are being targeted - all usually much worse off than the middle classes.

Still as long as Gideon's buddies got their tax cut all is well eh?