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

Pesto that is a daft argument once you are talking about some earning £50k+, because it becomes less about the moment and more about career earnings.

I do think that this won't be the end of it, once the mechanisms are in place then the same will happen with this as with other thresholds. More and more people will be pulled into it by fiscal drag, or the cut off will be lowered.
Anyone on the borderline should consider it a temporary reprieve at best and look to alter their situation to cope without CB.

Agree, hackmum. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it at all. I'm sure I could have gone through the nation's accounts and trimmed a few pounds off myself in a fairer way.

Eg I was in a governors' meeting this morning. The absolute criminal waste of time, energy, resources spent on endless daft new schemes, initiatives and whatnot... Anyone remember receiving that Ed Balls cookbook? How many people are diligently cooking 5-a-day based dinners out of it every evening? Quite. And so the ridiculous money-wasting goes on. But never mind, there's the cash cow of hard-working idiots who work 60 hours a week - they'll pick up the tab.

Hmm, I wonder if £50 or £60K will be used as a benchmark to cut other 'benefits'... no NHS dentistry for example... or even no NHS treatment at all. Perhaps no state schooling...

gramercy, I doubt that the majority of people work "60+ hour" weeks but I totally agree about the waste of funds at times.

Why not say pay it for the first three children then stop? It used to be only the first child anyway.
It's your choice to have more than three children in the same way it is someone's choice to live where they do.

And given that my dh does not split his wage especially fairly and it is the only money in my name it will impact on me and my DS.

Beth with respect, that is for you to sort out with your DH.

But actually, it will impact him not you, because you still claim and he then has to pay more tax.

True. But I bet I'm not the only one in this position.

I'm sure you're not Beth - and of course many women will have to deal with the resentment from husbands who will now see their income reduced by the related taxation.

Alibaba FFS.

What do you mean it's her problem.

Her husband is an arse and it's her problem? It is anybody else's problem that some dad's fuck off and don't pay for their kids too?

Why is she less entitled to get money when she needs it than somebody else who also needs it? The fact that he earns the money is immaterial here!

I love this whole "what are they moaning abou" attitude.

I'll be watching and waiting when the threshold drops again and we'll see who else starts to moan about this and how it's not fair.

And starting a sentence "with respect" is probably the clearest sign of disrespect there is.

Yes I certainly shan't be loose any sleep when they lower the max level of benefits and tax credits again.

I disagree with the cut because child benefit was introduced as an emancipating, non means tested benefit, uniquely paid automatically to the mother and it replaced the old married man's tax allowance which has never been replaced. That tax allowance recognised that families had higher outgoings and it was a universal allowance that has never been replaced.

It is wrong to take it away, regardless of the household income. I shall miss it for what it stood for and the small amount of freedom it gave directly to women. Personally I think it should have been capped after two children and anything in addition to that should be means tested.

I on the other hand as a new benefit claimant (who incidentally has NEVER claimed before because I have always had work) WILL lose sleep. But nice to know others will be happy about it.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I'm gleefully waiting for more people to get caught up in fiscal drag, lose benefits etc... (I'll be losing my CB and whilst I'd like not to lose approx £2200 per year, I will cope and I understand).

But it's the whole smugness and the "what are they whining about" to those who have given clear reasons as to why they will miss it even if they earn slightly more.

I shan't be hoping for anything but I certainly won't loose sleep over people with a me,me,me attitude that clearly couldn't give a stuff about anybody other than themselves.

Motherpanda's thread is interesting - nobody needs more than £20k per year?
Our rent is £15k a year on its own (thats for a 2up 2down - not a mansion)
And i do find it a bit rich that sombody who has their income suplemented by tax credits thinks it's ok to lecture those who don't on whether or not they can shop in waitrose!

Agree totally Nancy75

If ypu are just over the cut off, put the extra overtime in a pension instead

Exactly,why should the state give money to people who have a job full stop if we're going down that route?

Re CB given the extortionate amount somebody on £50K will pay in tax towards welfare they must pay more in tax on welfare(let alone education etc) alone than they get in CB.

cb did not relace the maried man's tax allowance. CB was introduced after the war to encourage procreation. Married man's tax allowance was cut much more recently.

Of coures anyone is going to be unhappy about a cut in their income. But if at this level of income a £20 cut a week is a real problem, then frankly you were sailing too close to the wind budgetingw ise. Aftera ll other costs such as mortgage can always go up unexpectedly.

I am not saying that people on this level of income are rich, but if you are sensible it should be enough money. And I say that as someone who 3 months ago had hours drastically reduced so went from 42k to 21k.

Child Benefit, paid to the mother was introduced in about 1976.

A lot of people are sailing too close to the wind due to pay freezes,inflation,rising food bills,rising petrol............ not a whole lot one can do about it,it's not exactly the time to demand a pay rise.

It was previously called family allowance. In 1976 it changed its name - but still same benefit basically.

Also if you have 3 kids it's £50 a week which is a lot of money,half our food bill actually.It's great if that isn't a lot for you but for some it is.