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.

@ really bored - I actually reckon she's a civil servant - earning a lovely salary thanks very much, with a final salary pension scheme paid for by us suckers who work in the private sector.

Firemansam, I am very sorry to hear about your friend. Any situation where a child has cancer is obviously tragic and heartbreaking beyond words.

However... 'they still scrimp and save, go without 2 cars, sky etc'. Seriously??? Sorry, but that just about sums it all up to me.

Here's me thinking we have a very comfortable life. But no, we only have one (12 yr old) car and Freeview so we are obviously on the poverty line.

I think the OP is exactly what her name says bored at work, and enjoying a big wind up. I do think the discussion is worth having though as many people are concerned about how they will manage large morgage payments when they lose several hundred pounds a month. It's one thing never to have had that money but when you have budgeted for it and been given loans/ mortgages on teh basis of it then it changes things quite dramatically.

Sorry, got the OP's name muddle up, but I still think that's what she's doing

Yes remortgaging will be harder for many.

I think this will hit a lot of blended families and contribute to relationship breakdown and the already happening increase in people living alone.

For example, what about a woman with children from a previous relationship, who works full time and earns enough not to claim any other benefits but not enough to cope without CB. Her DP earns £60,000 and they are discussing moving in together. Yes their combined income should mean they are able to cope with the loss of BCB, but both of them may have issues with it that result in them choosing not to - at least for a few years until say her DC are old enough for her earnings to compensate for the loss.

It could easily become a flashpoint of resentment - on both sides. He's paying for someone else's children and she's sacrificed her children's income and her independence.

It is totally counterproductive to the Coalition's claims to prioritise families.

I shall miss mine as the 'free' money was always nice. Frankly it means I might have to down grade my vino choice or ski in a slightly less nice resort... a bit of a bummer, but not really what the benefit system is designed for.

It's being used for a lot of things it wasn't designed for. I'd like to keep this one.

"down grade vino and ski resort"

Ditto Brycie. What you spend it on is down to personal choice, but I imagine we've all cut our cloth according to what's coming in. You're going to NOTICE it's not there, no matter what it's used for.

Dahlen this has been happening to poor women for years. Before I struck lucky and earnt good money using a specific talent, I lived with a man while fresh out of uni; he was a graduate too but this was back in the 80s when jobs were scarce. He earned minimum wage in a supermarket. Because HE earned I could not claim any money at all. He earned a fraction of 60k-we could not afford to eat some days.

I may be OK now, but I will never forget my anger at this.

THAT was unjustified; denying CB to those on 60k or more is NOT. If he earned 60k I would NOT have complained at all!!

Just goes to show the sense of entitlement that some people have. And I bet these are the sort of people who hate 'welfare scum', too.

Maybe I didn't word it right as it's rude to pry into her exact financial status. However, even on your comfortable lifestyle irregular can you stillsqueeze in 3 trips a week plus childcare costs for her other kids who can't go to the isolation unit at the hospital?

when the living wage is £7.20 an hour anyone £60k is making lifestyle choices.

Prarieflower that's my point, it's ridiculous for everyone to get this benefit. We as a family don't NEED it, but yeah I'm not mad, I LIKE it. I will notice when it's gone, but not because we won't eat!

But it's not a benefit as such, it's a tax allowance in respect of the fact having children is costly. The people this is affecting aren't the dole scroungers the government want us all to hate but hard working people already paying 15K a year in tax. They might have student loans, a huge mortgage because in order to earn that money they have had to relocate, commuting costs, childcare costs etc.

A phased reduction would have been fairer as well, for a lot of people it's a 4-5K gross reduction in salary.

As someone else said this is just the start, the level at which it stops will be whittled down until its only the dole scroungers who get it, then it will be incorporated into the universal credit and lost forever.

Notmade you're talking Tosh-it's not about lifestyle choices for many.For many there is no more scrimping to be done.Ski-ing don't make me laugh!!!!

Omg omg omg, so pats you have a "specific talent." and do you have "clients" too? LOL LOL LOL I can't type I'm laughing so much!

he was a graduate too but this was back in the 80s when jobs were scarce

Unlike now, when jobs are growing on trees and you quite literally cannot walk through a wooded glade without being hit on the head with a job?

patsara - I don't think it's a sense of entitlement to not want your partner to have to pay for your children that are from another relationship.

While it's one thing to pool money into a family pot and expect a father to support his partner and children as a household, it's quite different for blended families where there are often arrangements outside the household unit that have a significant bearing (e.g. the new man may have children from a previous relationship himself who is he rightly paying maintenance for).

No way would I be happy relying on a man who wasn't the father of my DC to pay for those children. I would feel beholden in a way I simply wouldn't as a SAHM to children who were fathered by the man I was living with and who thus had equal responsibility for them.

And if said man was in any way, shape or form abusive (and let's bear in mind that they don't show their colours to start with), this would be a great stick to beat his partner with.

It seems to have been all dh and I have talked about for the past two years. I had hoped the government would make it fairer, but clearly that won't happen now. I really don't know where we'll find an extra £200 a month though and time is running out . Current rent and bills take us up to the limit, not to mention dh's commuter costs which are increasing again in January. I used CB for dc's shoes, clothes, school trips (which seem to be never ending and getting more expensive). I have been trying to work out how we can cut down on food, but we already try and shop as cheaply as we can. We also have one 11 year old car, which is becoming a liability TBH. Holidays are something we dream about having one day . Why do people assume that if you earn 60k you own multiple houses, holiday 3 times a year in your own gite and dine out every day? Where am I going wrong? Perhaps dh is on the wrong tax code or something? (clutches at many straws)!

I think the point about blended families is really important as well. Luckily we are no longer supporting my stepdaughter financially as she is an adult or we would have really struggled so it does work all ways but someone at some point will suggest that people don't have more children with someone else if they cannot support the family they already have, which is what usually happens

Prarieflower I was talking about my situation, not yours. We don't need it, but we get it. Taking it away is right in my opinion.

However, think about it - £7.20 an hour is a living wage ! ! ! WTF! Seriously £7.20. £50k means someone earns over £24 an hour. If you don't feel well of, well it's all relative and if you earned less you'd manage on less.

My DSD's mother claimed child benefit for her, of course, as was her right, but my DP paid for everything else - mortgage, utilities, food, the works. We won't be eligible for CB now. It does seem strange that he could wholly support a child (and have CB claimed for that child) yet the child that he jointly has and supports with me can't have CB. Essentially it's two children coming out of the one income, iyswim. Again, it's the fact that the changes are unfair that bugs me, not the fact that we won't be eligible for CB.

Genius? How is it genius to give CB to families with a joint income of well over £60k and take it away from families with 1 income of £60k?

I don't hate 'welfare scum', I am not impressed that families earning almost double our household income are still claiming CB and we can't.

40K & 40K = keep all CB
60K & 20K = lose it

Regardless of whether a family on 80K needs it in the first case, it's so unfair that one family keeps it and one loses it just on what one person earns.

Err notmade those on minimum wage in many cases won't be taxed ,will have benefits and top ups such as TC.

Somebody on a higher wage may also have hugely bigger living expenses and costs.At the end of the day it's money left in the pocket that counts and for a lot of people in the middle on 1 salary that is zero.