...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!?!

I agree Sieze.

Don't understand why it's continuously swept under the carpet.

Is the reason for it something to do with everyone being an independent unit for tax purposes?

Nor do I understand why nobody mentions this to him or in the press - perhaps it is because we are all decent people who do not want to feel as if we are using his son to score a point? He and his family must have hurt, its a great loss to lose a child. It is also a great strain to have a disabled child or be a disabled adult and thanks to Cameron everybody who is disabled or has a child who is, now have to fight like dogs to get DLA. Its degrading and humiliating in most cases for the person involved. Its staggering his ignorance on this one issue when he has been in a position of having to talk and arrange care for his own child. He did not stay at home 24/7 to do the caring but, talking about it - that in itself is tough enough, no matter how much cash you have got as it involves emotions and love as this is your child you are talking about/dealing with....
But going back to the child benefit - I think there are actually baboons advising this Government... I have all but given up listening to the news these days as its just one hair brained idea after another...
To those of you who have lost your child benefit, I am sorry for you all.... Cheer yourself up with this thought - M Thatchers funeral cost 11 million.... 3 million of that was the actual funeral. The rest was a great big knees up for all the conservatives and others at the reception...
And go vote accordingly at the next election :)

ashoething I know I'm a million years late with this but I do know how taxation works, thanks all the same

Sieze

Single parents should be exempt and anyone with a disabled child.

I know a few women who are SAHMs because their child has a disability, my next door neighbour is one, she cannot get a childminder or after school/holiday care for her child so is forced to be a SAHM, her husband is a HRT so she loses her CB. I don't know what else she is losing through the other cuts.

I think 80K would have been much fairer or reduce it to 2 children only, a standard payment, much easier to administer, or group it in with CTC.

Vinegar - I mentioned how much it would be before tax as yes this is how much my DH will have to earn to make up for the loss (fat chance), we will certainly feel the loss and will cut back accordingly. But I cannot moan as I am a privileged SAHM who chose to have 4 children, I should only be allowed 2 and be back at work earning income tax for the government as that's the only use they see people having, if you cannot work and pay tax, you are a parasitic drain according to the Tories, unless you are a politician with an expense account or a multimillion pound business then you don't need to pay tax

It's only the start next it will be clawed back to 45K, then 30K then lost altogether

i think it's a luxury to have one patrtner earning enough to have the other sah and be on the higher wage bracket. not to be compared with two going out to work on a smaller wage.

I don't agree that single parents should be made exempt. The focus there should be on making NRPs pay for their children, and the figure they pay should be related to what it actually costs to bring up a child, rather than whatever the useless CSA currently base it on. Then single parents wouldn't need to be made exempt.

I do agree that families with disabled children should be made exempt, but I think it would be fairer all round if CB stayed a universal benefit payable for two children only.

Begonia I don't.

2 on less but the same as 60k are below the higher tax threshold so pay less tax because of that,have 2 tax allowances and will now have help towards their childcare.

They will be costing the country far more than 1 on 60k paying more tax in the higher tax band,with only 1 allowance and having no help with childcare.

And really it's a bit sad if a short career break is now seen as a luxury.

I'll admit I don't understand all the facts and figures as it doesn't really affect us but would two on 35 grand each get help with childcare and any extras?

Erm so on 70 K you'd have 2 tax allowances,neither will be paying the higher tax band, you'll keep your CB and you'll now get the childcare tax breaks.

On top of that you earn more.

Not sure why you deserve CB more than a family on say 50,55 or 60k or why a parent having a short career break to look after their tiny children is seen as a luxury.

well why doesn't the partner staying it home of the higher rate tax payer get a job as well and then they will have more income perhaps than the two lower paid partners where both go out to work and don't have someone staying at home? I'm not saying it's a great system but it's still a luxury to be a higher earner and able to support one staying at home when other households have to have two out working.

I know this is a thread about CB, but I want to correct the common misunderstanding about 'bedroom tax'. The people with a spare room were not receiving HB for that size of property - so, not getting more than they supposedly needed.

A single person or couple was only getting HB at one-bedroom rates, no matter how many rooms they had. Just by having a spare room, their HB has been reduced so they're now getting less than the one-bed rate of benefit.

This is why it's being called a tax. It has taken money away from their fair entitlement.

Evidently, there are insufficient small homes (leaving aside the problems of moving when you're on a breadline budget, and the other issues that have been raised) so its effect is an arbitrary reduction in support.

It's not a luxury it is what needs to be done for the individual best needs of a family.There are a whole host of reasons why a family might chose to do so.

Looking after your own baby is now a luxury,really when did that happen?

Why exactly should such a family do that when somebody on 100k just gets given CB?

Many will return to work after a relatively short period of time however really during that time I fail to see why they shouldn't receive CB when a many on a lot more are keeping it.

I agree not all families have help with childcare but many do or on't even need it.

Agree sahp is red herring. Its especially unfair on single parent households and those with 1 parent earning just over 60k and one on min wage. They still have to pay for childcare. Reason why i sahm.
And with 3dc chb is alot to lose.

try telling women who would loved to have been able to SAH but who had to go back to work as they needed their wage to pay bills, food etc that it's not a luxury - especially when talking about higher earners who do have more options.

It is crap. We've lost our CB, & we are feeling the loss. DH earns above the threshold, but he is a contractor. That means no sick pay, no holidays & no pension. Plus the risk that every 3 months his contract won't be renewed. He's also still paying his student loan repayments, which alone are just over £350 a month.

We have 2 children now. I went back to work after DC1 but can't go back this time once my mat leave finishes. Unfortunately I only earn just over £10k a year. Putting 2 children into nursery in order for me to go to work will actually cost us about £30 a day. As in, the childcare costs will be £30 more than I take home every day.

I find it very galling that if our incomes were equal we would be far better off. E.g. say at the moment out household income is £10k+£60k = £70k, then if we both earned £35k we would keep child benefit & pay a hell of a lot less tax and ni. DH currently loses over half of his gross pay in deductions.

Childcare for my 3dc would cost £50 per day so its not really a luxury me staying home. Actually i would probably have to pay to go out to work.

'Why exactly should such a family do that when somebody on 100k just gets given CB?'

I thought anyone one 100K would lose their CHB but i don't know all the figures.

What is really awful about this is how divisive it is.

Perhaps deliberately so. Its a brilliant way of distracting the "squeezed middle" (because if you are on £60, whoever earns it, you are not skint, even if you're not rolling in disposable income), form the things that will fuck them over more fundamentally later. Like NHS reform

I regard luxury as sumptuous living.

Being a sahp means going without,often a lot of boredom and drudgery.

It isn't a life of lattes and manicures.

Families with sahp don't have more choices far from it.When I go back we'll be hugely worse off and my career will be shot to pieces.

But yes you're right many would love to do it and can't and I think that's wrong.It broke my sister's heart and several of my friends.I think making it easier or helping families in some way wouldn't enable everybody but it would help some.It's such a short time,it's not as if families want years of help.