AIBU to be a bit shocked at some of the reactions to CB cuts on MN?

[kickmewhenimdown]

Yes, it will be a bit crappy to lose CB but some of the suggestions/views by some mners are imo no better than people who fiddle tax credits?

kickme, please comment on my thread if you wish to make a point. Starting a new thread is cowardly and against MN rules.

kickme, please comment on my thread if you wish to make a point. Starting a new thread is cowardly and against MN rules.

Agreed, kickmewhenimdown, you probably would have been.So if it's good enough for you to be berated, it's bloody well good enough and right that these people are berated now.
I agree that the principle is indeed different, but it's the same thing in effect-the humiliation of being seen as an appendage of another adult.
But then it tickled me several shades of pink when the poster from another thread seemed convinced that she would be able to get away with telling the authorities that her partner and her were just 'flatmates' when they had a child together!! Yeah right. They are so going to buy that one.

The difference is that CB is paid to a sole claimant.

It is not based on aggregated household income, like CTC/WTC which are jointly claimed benefits.

And it will continue to be a sole claimant benefit, and unrelated to aggregate household income.

But for the first time, one person will be compelled to include the financial affairs of another person in their (also individual) tax return.

I think the Government is counting on people not to see the difference. It is probably mainly women who will lose their current right to privacy and independence in their financial affairs.

If the Government were both honest and competent, they would not have come up with this system. But I suppose erosion of (mainly female) finance/tax isn't a important issue to them. Pity.

why can't the op do her own thread?

she can, but threads about threads aren't meant to happen

There actually is no rule about starting another thread.

Our cb is paid to our joint account, Edith and both our names went on the form.

it isn't a thread about a thread though, it is imo a thread about people's reactions ot loosing a benefit.

They should have scrapped it, would have been easier and fairer. Lying about not knowing earnings or trying to transfer to another claimant is fraud.

People should only have children if they can support them without state assistance. Yes people may lose their jobs and thats when short term welfare should help but rewarding people for having children was always madness.

It can be paid into any account you like: joint, single whatever.

It is however paid to one individual as a sole claimant, and that is clear on the form. Not least because only one person signs it.

And you do not have to include a second individual's personal information on the claim form unless you have a partner who is already receiving CB or waiting to hear the outcome of a claim.

I don't think they should have scrapped it, I think they hound have kept it universal but removed it from third and subsequent children.

Trying to transfer the claim to the other parent is not fraud.

"huge sense of entitlement"

A sense of entitlement to things you are entitled to is important.

Every family with children in the UK was entitled to CB until yesterday.

Now some are and some are not.

People are worryingly blasé about the government eroding the entitlements of other people.

We are all currently entitled to free healthcare on the NHS (although the government is doing its best to get rid of that.

We are entitled to free education for our children.

We should be pissed off when the government erodes these entitlements (while cutting tax for the top 1% of earners).

Our parents and grandparents fought hard for these entitlements. If we give them up too easily we may never get them back.

Some people want a small state and no safety net. But others seem to think you can remove all state benefits from the middle classes and still have s functioning welfare state for the very poor.

I would like an example of s society like that.

"People should only have children if they can support them without state assistance."

Including fully private healthcare and private education, I presume?

"I don't think they should have scrapped it, I think they hound have kept it universal but removed it from third and subsequent children."

That would have had some merit in terms of incentives.

Totally agree with those who say it has been poorly thought out. The mind boggles as to how this can happen when it is so unbalanced and unfair. How can two people earning 49k keep their benefit whilst one couple where the one spouse earns 60k lose it? It is so unbalanced and unfair it's unbelievable!

It's not fraud to think how within the terms of the benefit, you can best make the most of your situation.

I too have been shocked at the tone of the threads - but that's because I didn't realise how deeply 'high' earners were resented.

'People are worryingly blasé about the government eroding the entitlements of other people.'

Too true. Where's the threads outraged by the halving of the disability element of CTC for families with disabled children?
Or the loss of WTC for the working poor where the extra hours just cannot be found.
These are the poorest people, on less than 16K a year. Not the lucky and small % on 50K plus.

'People should only have children if they can support them without state assistance. '

Even multi millionaire Cameron felt the need to claim CB and DLA for his son.

Kal, you are right. But people who have lost the disability element of CTC haven't started threads about it, and there probably aren't as many confusing issues surrounding it to warrant questions coming up.

Isn't transferring CB to your partner a bit like flipping homes?

I thought they actually had/are stopping it for 4th and subsequent children?

Sorry, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, far from it, but what I'm about to say is just stating a fact: you can't tax the super rich because they have accountants to hide things (within the law) nor can you tax the poor as they've nothing to tax.
The only people who can be taxed are those in the middle. Nevertheless those on a good salary shouldn't whinge about being denied child benefit.
It's not about resentment-most of my family are going to be denied it-it's about common sense. What on god's earth does a high earner need child benefit for?

And I see HappyMummyofOne has shown up with her usual brain dead bollocks.

Presumably she has NEVER benefitted from state assistance for her "one".

No NHS trained midwives, Obstetricians, GPs.......
No child benefit ever claimed

Or am I wrong?

Stars - not as far as I know. You're not Mrs George Osbourne are you? Is he talking in his sleep?

Wamster - for the same things as you do! Personally I spend mine on shoes, school trips, uniform, toiletries, drama class, outings, a holiday, diesal, childcare and shopping for the family. Just as I do the rest of my income.