...to still be sooooo angry at the UNFAIR way the Government has decided who does and doesn't get Child Benefit!

[candyandyoga]

I know it's done and dusted but I'm so fucking annoyed. How can they get away with their bonkers policy that if two people in a relationship earn just under the threshold they keep their CB but if one person earns over the threshold they lose it!?!

Glad it gets better More.

Sorry, I must add.

Unless I am mistaken nobody has said that a sahp should be funded. I'm sure many have taken tax credits as have I, but thats different to arguing that you deserve to be funded.

And Janey who has been asking the gov for money(you seem to age tumbled on the wrong thread)- just fairness re CB but actually now you come to think of it Swedish minimum standards for all families wouldn't be a bad thing.

Eh? I'm not asking the govt for money on this or any other thread

I don't understand how this debate turned to whether women should go to work or stay at home?

Surely it is about the unfairness of CB being removed arbitrarily if one persomn pays higher rate tax, regardless of how many earners in the household and what any total household income might be.

Because the same people with an axe to grind(one in particular who hates SAHMs)rock up and turn it into that exact debate when really at the end of the day a family with 50k -60k losing CB whilst those on 100k keep it is utterly unfair.

I haven't read most of the other replies to this but my dh earns £57k a year, we were delighted when he got this job and assumed (wrongly) we would be really loaded! This year he has a bonus of £4500 which has taken him over the £60k a year threshold so now we won't be getting any child benefit at all.
He brings home £3500 a month (40% tax and company car) Our rent is £1000 a month, council tax £200 a month and we also have a loan £280 a month and my car which is £250 a month. As well as other bills, fuel, food, etc.
We are not loaded by any means, we go £1000 overdrawn every month and quite often we have to wait until pay day to buy things.
I work part time, this wage is not enough for me to be a SAHM.
I don't have designer clothes, we don't even have nice furniture. I used to have a horse but had to sell him as we couldn't afford it.
Our child benefit actually made a difference to us, we have 2 children so we got £120 a month. This bought them clothes, paid for gymnastics and swimming etc.
We get no other help at all, no tax credits, no nothing. We can't even save up for a deposit for our own bloody house ffs!
So it's not all plain sailing at all, we are not loaded and we are just making ends meet as it is :(

I don't have any teenagers so have just assumed teenagers are more expensive than smaller children, maybe parents of teenagers can correct me but I thought food, clothes, activities, educational stuff would be more as they get older.

I don't see anyone who hates SAHM. That's a ridiculous assertion to make. It's also a pretty feeble way to attack those who think its reasonable that CB tapers off for HR tax payers

sweetkitty teenagers do indeed cost a fortune, you might not have to pay for childcare but clothes are more expensive, they eat more, they want a mobile (and in all fairness I want to be able to contact her when she's out by herself) train tickets/days out etc are adult price, revision books are needed for school, they're much harder to entertain and so you end up paying for extra curricular activities to preoccupy them, give them a focus and keep them out of mischief (I'm currently gaping in horror at the cost of pre-pointe shoes ) And that's just the things I've encountered in a couple of months of having DFD!

Sorry but I and others have come across your attitude on other threads.

And it's been pointed out countless times on this thread and elsewhere exactly why it's unfair.

My apologies, according to DFD it's demi pointe, not pre pointe

I have a fifteen year old foster son, his living costs are much higher than my four year olds. He eats the same, if not more than my husband, gets at least ten pounds a week pocket money, plus another £2.50 a day for school lunches, he is in adult clothes and goes through school shoes, trainers and uniform at an alarming rate, his mobile is £35 a month and his holiday was the same cost as an adult fare, plus all other school holiday activities involve outdoor pursuits so are much more expensive!

Don't accuse me of hating SAHM. It's untrue. Just because I don't agree with your stance on CB it doesn't mean I hate SAHM. And if you're doing it as a cheap shot to try to imply that any mums who work somehow don't enjoy being with their children as much as SAHM do, then it's actually quite nasty.

sweetkitty - teenagers don't need childcare or a SAHM, so are in reality much cheaper. Plus they can potentially work PT.

Am I right in thinking that the very same families with two working parents currently still allowed to keep their CB up to a joint income of £98K will soon also be eligible for the new childcare tax break announced recently?

Ah that old chestnut - arguing against sahm being treated unfairly means you're trying to make working mothers feel guilty. Re.dic.u.lous!

As seesensepeople says, this thread isn't and never was about WOHM vs SAHM. I don't understand why it always has to turn into this debate. The argument was re the fairness of the single income vs. double income families and the huge anomalies this has created. seesense is sadly in the situation where her dh is no longer alive. How can any of you say that it is right that she should lose CB? Also, I wasn't aware that CB was a benefit that the government paid to help working women with the cost of child care. I thought it was a universal recognition to all families that having children costs more than not having them. Every time I come onto a thread regarding CB, there is always the same pack of vitriolic spew from the SAHM haters. This thread is about the OP expressing that she is still pissed off about the issues of fairness surrounding the removal of child benefit from one family who earns less than another family. This could still be removed from a family where both parents work and earn significantly less than another family where both parents work.

I'm in a similar position to you wouldilie, with regards to income and still renting as can't afford a deposit for a house. We're not all living the high life.

Well said George.

The policy is not about SAHM. You're the one trying to turn it into that. It's about people on HRT no longer getting full CB. And many of us will never in a million years feel sorry for people who are bringing up children with no childcare costs and a single earner on over 50k. That's way down many people's list of priorities- certainly after the elderly the disabled and families juggling childcare costs.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it janey

Second that squarepebbles - I think george put it very succinctly

For the record, I don't give a fig about the SAHM issue. My issue is with regards to the household income aspect. I am just as much pissed off for families where one parent earns 60k and the other earns 10k. They still have childcare costs. I am also sorry for the single parents who are working and in this situation. I haven't taken it upon myself to speak solely for SAHM's you know. I'm speaking for anyone who is losing it and earning less than families who aren't.

Thanks Savanna and Square

Do you always ignore posts on threads?

Not all dual income families have childcare.

The families who do use childcare will get tax breaks.

Families on far more eg 100k are keeping it.

The HTB is waaaay too low(actually re money in your pocket not a world away from families on benefits in receipt of TC)and will go on getting lower so discussing it as if it's some super rich status is disingenuous.

I could go on.