to think that child benefit changes to those on over 60k is genius?

[patsara]

And a bloody good idea? I mean those on under this aren't going to have sympathy and the REALLY rich and powerful? Well, it's nothing to them.

It's also really funny to hear stories of couples trying to think of ways to say they're not a family. So you're living with a man who is the father of your child but you're not a family? Riii-ght...

I think people should just forget subterfuge and suck it up. I earn 100k a year and losing it will mean nothing to me. Rather it went to feed some REALLY poor kid myself.

Also lets not forget the higher level of tax those on 32K pay or the TC and other benefits others get on less than 32K on top of the less tax couples pay if both earning.

50K if earned by 1 person is not a fortune particularly if you live in an expensive area and have high travel costs.

"38K is pretty normal salary for a graduate with a few years work experience. Most spouses of men earning 60K will be in that category."

Wow. Just wow.

Are you really suggesting that men who earn at least £60k deliberately seek out and choose graduates as their partners ? ...... and in particular graduates who earn £38k or more ?

Rubbish.

Notwithstanding the fact that as has been pointed out by several other posters many graduates have to settle for a lot lot less - if they're lucky enough to have a job. This is in part due to it being an employer's market right now and arguably, the devaluation of degrees in the last few years, but it is also true that having a degree, even a very good one, is not an automatic guarantee of a high income. It all depends - on the degree, on the availability of work, on your particular sector and so on.

Consider for a moment that some SAHMs who may appear to have chosen to remain at home do in fact have little real choice in the matter if they are not capable of earning enough to cover childcare and commuting costs. Depending on how many kids, how old they are and how far you have to travel to where the work is (and you can't move any closer because housing costs get more expensive) even a seemingly reasonable-ish salary can be completely wiped out.

As you wish. Maybe my corner of the world looks very different from everyone else's. But as I mentally look around me, I cannot think of a single mother of my generation, married to a man earning over 60K, who wasn't basically on the same path as him before they had children and couldn't have continued on that path had she chosen to.

Actually, I think it's a tricky one. Is it fairer to calculate benefits based on individual or household income? The 'right' answer is a) probably somewhere inbetween and b)hugely dependent on many other factors.

'Depending on how many kids, how old they are and how far you have to travel to where the work is (and you can't move any closer because housing costs get more expensive) even a seemingly reasonable-ish salary can be completely wiped out.'

Exactly my point!!! That's why a two earner household on 98K is not so different from a single earner household on a lot less.

8if8 they pay childcare.If they don't they're laughing!

if

Im constantly amused by the idea that money taken from claimants will go to other as-yet-unspecified more 'needy' people.

Does anyone really believe this?

Jesus Christ.

Not another one.

A more genius approach - as so many others have said - would be a household income cap, rather than a single earner cap.

Is it NI class 2 or 4 contributions that cb pays? Am self-employed, sometime sahm, sometime wahm and am confused!

I agree really and lets face it anybody on 100K joint is loaded childcare or no childcare which beggars the question-exactly why are they keeping CB when others on a lot less aren't?

Tethers. Naive beyond belief.

Most of the people that suffer the cuts will NOT benefit by the deficit being paid off.

Brilliant post reallyboredatwork

You should be banned for goading op.

Changes to CB will means an extra £1.7 billion

Stopping corporate tax avoidance £25 billion.

60K is a whole world away from 100K as has already been said time and again.

Well if we're calling people dumb bints you should have said earlier, saved an awful lot of people patiently and eloquenlty pointing out why you're op was a bit needlessly dim

Oh and I hate the expression "hubby" .I don't have a "hubby" I have a partner and we're not rich,unlike you obviously as we will really feel it when it's gone and are not on 100K(dual or single income).

Dim? ANYBODY with a household income of 60k or more should NOT get child benefit. One of the few sensible things this government has done.

Rich? Rich at £60k, really? Are you having a laugh?

We have four children and we could not survive on £60k and eat and be warm.

Not rich, well-off is more apt.

Nice OP

I can see why the squeezed middle are squeezed now. People on lower incomes think that they are rich beyond belief and can see no reason why they should keep CB and now people on nearly twice what they bring in gloating because they are going to lose it and notice.

Really nice.

It's like someone on 20k gloating that someone on 12k is going to suffer more than they are.

As I've said many times I'm not affected by these proposals but from the examples of sheer nastiness aimed at the people who are on MN and elsewhere I'm shocked by how easily the Government has got people on board with this

38K is pretty normal salary for a graduate with a few years work experience. Most spouses of men earning 60K will be in that category.

This is so not true.

Hardly!