...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!?!

As sweetkitty says, it's the single parents I feel for most, as they don't have someone who could take up the slack through work. The point I think Kitty is making vinegar, is that her dh would have to earn an extra 5k to make up for the loss of CB through being currently over the threshold. He may as well make sure that his earnings never exceed 50k, unless he receives a massive pay increase which takes him over 60k. As you say kitty, the sick and the disabled are also getting a kicking. Still, never mind, so long as those earning over 150k get a 5% tax cut, we'll all be alright

Also George the self assessment is onerous argument doesn't work because if you didn't claim it, your DH wouldn't have to do SA.

yanbu. And the child benefit changes don't affect me.

To allow a 2 parent family earning £45k each to keep it while taking it off a single parent on £60k is nasty.

It should have remained a universal benefit

I do claim it though Little, as it's my only income at present and quite frankly I don't trust the government not to reneg on it's promise to pay NI contributions to those who no longer claim. I feel much safer doing it this way, as I just don't trust them (can't think why)!

But you don't lose it totally when you hit 50k, it's a sliding scale.

Btw I agree totally with raising the issue of single parents being hardest hit, that's much more of an issue than high earner/SAHP families imho.

Firstly yanbu op, it's clearly a bonkers piece of policy.

But looking at other comments how many of the women who 'had' to go back to work really had to, and WHY did they have to? I'm fairly sure 'to pay the mortgage' will come up on this thread a heck of a lot more times than 'to pay the rent'. As 'unfair' as it may be It's a lifestyle choice to own a house in this country.

Although rents are now rising and will make my next point moot eventually, the choice we made was for me to be a sahm and rent instead of buying as it was much cheaper to do so at the time. A choice that has probably put us out of reach of the property ladder altogether in terms of a family home ( so we just carry on renting and buy a little 2 bedded for retirement.) it bugs me slightly to hear a lot of middle class people moaning about having ot go back to work when it's just to find a certain (luxury) lifestyle. the English obsession with home ownership is a fairly recent phenomenon, and one that seems to have screwed up our society and the choices we 'have' to make to fulfill the desire for it quite a bit.

Our mortgage is lower than our previous rent repayments (only 2 years ago) and definitely lower than renting the same size place now, despite hideous interest rates. This is London though, where rents are insane.

OrWellyAnn, we rent too as we can't afford to buy either. We thought we were being sensible not borrowing 6x our salary 10 years ago, but clearly we should have done, as the government would have bailed us out and we would have a much cheaper mortgage than the rent we currently pay.

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
not entirely an English Obsession.]]

i also think that if only one parent is working once the youngest child reaches the age of say 10 it should be removed. Unless the parent is disabled. I don't see why I, or a low paid worker, should have to help fund someone's lifestyle choice of not working.

YANBU op, we've lost ours, it's the total unfairness of it. I hope to god that the Tories knock on my door in the next few weeks, it'll feel good to get it of my chest and tell them exactly what I think.

Good on you GoldDust. I plan to do the same.

we've lost ours - but i think this is the right thing, as benefits should be paid to people who are hard up and we really couldn't claim to be that.

sovery - agree ref pensioners. it was interesting to see a recent TV programme on the subject - the rich pensioners felt that they deserved these things as they'd paid in all their lives (though i'm not convinced all the wives had). obviously everyone else could use this arguement and nothing would be cut.

There are too many people who think they are entitled to benefits in this country.

Fargo, I don't think anyone on this thread is saying they are entitled to benefits. I think people are just a bit puzzled about why the government thinks that people on a certain income should no longer be in receipt of something that people on significantly higher incomes are still eligible to receive. I think that's what this post is about.

Sovery we have 3 so it's £180 and we will miss it a lot.

We're very frugal.

However for various reasons we came back into the hosing market late,have 3 dc of mixed sexes,pretty average house in an expensive area the high mortgage of which is still lower than the equivalent in rent.

Had my 3 in 15 months just coming to the end of 41/2 years off which financially takes it's toll if you're on one income with 1 tax allowance.Also dp wasn't earning over the threshold when the dc were born.Through sheer hard work,changing job and me being at home he has been able to go up in salary recently.

Don't forget 1 income has 1 tax allowance and a higher tax rate over the threshold.

If we're going to feel it personally I think it would be impossible for many now not in receipt of TC etc to be a sahp, which I think is sad and is taking away a huge amount if choice for a lot of families.Some kids benefit from being at home as babies,it is often only temp.Some jobs are very demanding and it isn't always poss to have two equally lower demanding jobs.Personally now for us I think dp should have taken a lower paid less stressful job so I could have gone back part time earlier.Sad as he does a good job and enjoys it.

£180 a month is not to be sniffed at and it's not a one size fits all thing.Some people have assets,savings,tiny mortgage if they had help or bought earlier or not.Some families may have debts,other outgoings etc

Food,shoes whatever.

£40 isn't to be sniffed at.

Fine most will make do however it's the unfairness particularly for those just over/ under the threshold there is no incentive to work harder and it's gauling to see those on £100 k still getting it.

You could say nobody earning 80- 100k would miss it either so why should they keep it?

It is the unfairness the op is referring to.

I'm not effected by this but think its wrong also....
But - David Cameron was the father of a disabled son and he came to power and decided to take DLA off a lot of people, didn't he? You'd think, give all his little son went through he could at least appreciate the disabled children and adults in this country... He does not. So what makes anybody think he is going to appreciate any other thing regarding children and families and money and struggle..?
I'm yet to see one policy this man has been involved in that has any ounce of decency in it let alone fairness.

Very true siezethenight