...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!?!

To Janey and you're welcome George,my thoughts exactly.

Teenagers can work part-time past 16 even in full-time education. Many do because they have to.

According to Daycare Trust and the Family and Parenting Institute?s Childcare Costs Survey 2013

?The average nursery cost for a child under 2 has risen by 4.2 per cent to £106.38 per week for a part-time place (25 hours). A full-time place costs £11,000 for a year. Costs for over-2s have gone up even more ? by 6.6 per cent to an average of £103.96 per week for a part-time place.
?Childminder costs in Britain have increased by 5.9 per cent for a child under 2, to £98.15 and 5.2 per cent, to £96.67 for a child aged 2 and over.

So, if you're spending that much on your teenagers, you might want to have a look at what you're spending it on.

It's not my opinion- it's a fact . The policy is not about SAHM. The SAHM complaining on here aren't going to get CB if they go and get a job tomorrow. ( All they'll get is a load of nursery fees!)

It seems that it's not so much that some SAHM are annoyed at what they are losing- they're just annoyed because some families choose to have two earners and that if they are Each under the HR threshold they'll still get it.

george we are one of those families. My DH works away all week to earn his very heavily taxed £60K and I work PT. My little part time salary just about covers DH commuting costs and our lost CB. After all the bills - food, electricity, gas, council tax, mortgage, school uniform, school bus fares, trainers, holiday childcare etc etc - there really is not much left over to live this supposed life of luxury many people on these threads seem to think folk on £60K (gross) live!

You know what? As a WOHM whose entire income was wiped out by childcare fees in the early years , I still never felt envious of WOHP who got free childcare . I was just very happy that my children got to go to a fabulous nursery which enabled me to work

I therefore find it a tad ironic that the people who seem most envious of WOHP who don't have to pay for childcare are ... Wait for it- SAHM!,

Sweetkitty

Mine cost quite a bit when they were teenagers but most of it was the cost of sport club membership. it is true that they can work for a certain amount of hours from 16+ but many colleges frown upon it if there isn't sufficient time for study outside college. Of course clothes and food are more expensive too.
In terms of time, we wanted to give our dc the things they couldn't have accessed if we had both worked full time. Getting them to their interests and hobbies would have been impossible or at best considerably difficult.
Yes it does get better, honestly. Mine are 21, 18 and dd who is 9.

crashdoll given the ridiculous amount of time and effort DFD and I have had to put in just to get her a hope in hell of getting Cs in her GCSEs, I dread to think where she would be if she had a part-time job. I accept that for some teenagers it's easily doable, but for others it just isn't if they're going to do the best they can in education at the same time.

Janey.

I think this is probably because many women didn't return to work because they couldn't earn enough to pay childcare. So maybe the fact that some people don't have to pay for childcare and are able to go to work seems unfair to them. Maybe your household income could afford for one wage to be spent on childcare, giving you the choice.

I know Savannah. Similar situation here. We sit here in our tiny rented house, with crappy furniture and wonder just who exactly is living the high life on 60k

Not envious but not happy that families on joint incomes of 80, 100k many who may have tiny or zero childcare costs (thus making the childcare argument void) and who will get tax breaks keep their CB whilst those on an awful lot less lose it.

Not fair.

And why exactly should the state responsible for childcare costs?

We all know the deal when we have children so if being a sahp is a lifestyle choice so is being a wp.

It really is all about making people argue amongst themselves.

When I told a close friend we were losing CB she told me "well serves you right for having a DH earning so much" I think this sums it up, if you have a HRT payer in your house you are not even allowed to moan about the unfairness of the new rules as you are obviously loaded. Yes if I earned 5K a year I would still lose it, it's not about SAHMs it's about the unfairness.

Two families one parents on 60K one on 12K

Two parents both on 49K one child keep it

Where is the fairness in that both families have 2 working full time parents, both have same childcare issues but because the split of earnings means there is one HRT payer in one family they lose it.

But the clever thing the government had done is say if you earn 50k you don't need your child benefit hey that's twice the average salary and everyone earning under that goes "yes that's right yes they should lose it"
Then it will be dropped to 45k and everyone under 45K will say well yes you should lose it your earning too much.

Then 35K, then 30K see where I'm going?

Same thing with the welfare cuts and the "bedroom tax" well why should you go out and work and pay tax when next door has a 7 bed council house and lives on 217K worth of benefits a year for their 25 children.

And the disabled cuts well they don't affect many people do they so no one really cares about them not like they are like the rest of us working and paying tax is it so there won't be a mass outcry about then either? And by the time the next election comes around they'll not be able to afford to go out and vote anyway.

Divide and conquer

Crashdoll.

I have never used childcare, my dc cost more as teenagers.
Childcare is not a cost of having children as most are lucky enough to have at least one parent to provide care. Childcare is associated with working.

Morethan- but in response to your last post, childcare is a joint expense between parents so its hard to believe that with one parent on an income over 50k, the other is forced to stay at home even if they desperately want to work. Certainly with one child it should be affordable. How many children people have and how they choose to space them will of course affect affordability . These are the people who are complaining- the ones with a partner earning over 50k.

When the cuts to CB were announced, I read an article written by an MP who had seen a family losing CB. Their situation was that the dh earned 60k. The mother was disabled and couldn't work, although the government didn't deem her disabled enough and stopped her DLA. They had 2 dc, one with downs syndrome. Even if the mother didn't have a disability, the dc with downs would always need round the clock care. There may have been other complications too. This family are really in the shit now

Ihategeorgeosbourne - but all people will see is a DH earning 60k nothing else

Squarepebbles

I totally agree with wp being a choice if all one wage is going on childcare, because then they are not working out of financial necessity but choice. I do know though that some parents have to work for financial reason and both parents gain financially. Without the extra income they couldn't survive or it would be hard.
I find it difficult to understand people who say they couldn't survive on one min wage with TC top up, as this is what we have done, so completely possible. Perhaps not many peoples choice though

Yup got it in one Janey those of us with a parent over 50k are complaining because it isn't fair.

Oh and re spacing kids it's not an exact science many women are leaving having kids until later so need to squash them in quick,some families want short gaps as it may be better career wise,some women may be like me and end up with multiples.

square one would hope that those families who will be entitled to tax breaks for childcare will have to prove they are actually paying for childcare otherwise it really would take the if they were just given a tax break regardless of their childcare commitments

crashdoll you are not taking into account the childcare tax credits for childcare.

There are no childcare tax credits for teenagers' school lunches, uniforms, clothes, educational trips and books, food, and transport costs to school and college.

I have never used childcare, my dc cost more as teenagers.

Well, bully for you, many families need 2 parents to work.

Yes you're right kitty. It is divide and conquer and it seems to be working well. Funny how MPs haven't had to downgrade their tax payer funded lifestyle.

janey

Of course, silly me I forgot its about 42k isn't it before people lose part of cb? Is that right?
I don't think we need worry. Although with ds2 soon to leave FT ed we will only be getting it for dd anyway.

Yes it's about 42k when it starts to taper off.

CB starts to taper off at 50k. It is removed at 1% increments, i.e. for every £100 earned over the threshold, until 100% removal at 60k.