...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!?!

No one has to earn over 50k to start losing it so 2 on 50k would be fine.It wouldn't totally go until 1 earned 60k.

So

1 on 40+1 on 30= 70k which is fine
2 on 40= 80k which is fine
2 on 50 = 100k which is fine

1 on 55 not fine

Fair- no!

Sovery which is why I empathise with working mums particularly those that don't want to be one.

We're all being shafted and told our children must come second to just about everything else in relation to cuts.

I don't agree with the new system, I think the threshold is too low and yes it is divisive. I can totally understand someone being miffed if they are earning just over the threshold and losing out. I just don't think you can compare two working two lower wages to one who is earning a higher bracket wage and enough to support one parent to stay at home.

It's not "fair"
But £55k = double the average salary, so y'know.
All this ire is misdirected.

We all should have fought and fought hard for it to remain a universal benefit

Child care costs also don't end when dc at school. In our area 3 x breakfast and afterschool club is about £35 per day.

I agree- childcare costs last well beyond the nursery years. True they start to go down when you're only paying for before and after school and school holidays but its still a significant sum for many years. To my mind there is just no comparison between families where one Parent can afford to not work at all and dual earner families. That's not SAHP bashing, or suggesting that being a SAHM is a round of lattes and the gym - I'm sure much of it is relentless and not always stimulating BUT it is still not comparable to families where both parents are working.

Meal. I agree however if it's half the average many of those will be getting tax credits,double the tax allowance,lower tax band etc. The difference between what is left in your pocket aint that great and tbh I don't think you can say somebody on the higher tax rate should be very similar to somebody getting benefits like tax credits.Either benefits are too high or the higher tax band is too low.

But yes we all should have fought,we didn't but we're free to moan.

Sorry it depends re childcare costs ending once they start school it really does.

Many secondary near here after the longer day,clubs and bus journey have a very short time before parents come home so wait.

Loads of my primary school mums use a mixture of 'play date' swops,grandparents,shifts etc.

Yes not all school parents have a halt to bills but many do.

But janey68 you're making the assumption that it costs a family to have one SAHP; that that means there is a reduction in household income. In the same way that some people say they have no choice but to go back to work in order to pay the bills, I have no choice but to become a SAHM- see my previous post on it costing us for me to work.

So I find the attitude that becoming a SAHM is a choice unfair. I also find the attitude that if we want more money as a household then I should go back to work just plain wrong. Unless you can find me a job where I earn more than the childcare costs?

Obviously things vary depending on school and locality but the bottom line is : if two parents are working they have to make provision for childcare which is a massive cost and responsibility. I certainly wouldn't feel happy to rely on a mish mash of play dates and favours- you can't do that in a serious job; it's just not possible. There are also school holidays to consider: once again , very few people can get by relying on 'favours'

As for those who use relatives for free childcare- well, you can't legislate for that. Some people will always get advantages- it's no different really to those who get gifted house deposits by rich parents. You have to look on it as a bonus,'not the norm, and tbh a lot of people wouldn't feel comfortable expecting their parents to bankroll them whether its through acting as a free childminder or giving house deposits etc

I always think that if working parents haven't got childcare costs, then tbh they are probably paying in other ways (it rarely seems to come without strings attached!) and even if it doesn't, so what ? No point being envious of it. There are other costs to working which are unavoidable anyway like commuting. At least in a single earning family it means only running one car or buying one season ticket.

Aren't half of working mums in part time work though which is perfectly ok for play date reciprocation etc.Some may not even work in the day or the working week or may work from home( that sums up most of my working friends).Then you get those who work in schools.

Even my sister who has a very good high powered career only works 4 days as does her husband so they only have 3 days to cover some of which is covered by grandparents.They only use a nanny one day a week.

I would imagine that's fairly exceptional. I worked 3 days a week when my children were small. I needed to be in work by 8 and would leave at 5 or 6... Not much hope of covering that through 'favours' and nor would I want to either... Children deserve consistent care , not being left with whoever is free or cheap. And even when they start school, do people seriously think you can rely on play date favours for an hour before school starts each morning and for up to 2 hours after each evening? That's before even thinking about school hols! I am really intrigued as to who all these women are who manage to work things so that they don't pay childcare . Of course, if women work evenings or weekends then they might be able to stagger shifts with their partner... But good on them, I'm sure that comes with as many downsides as there are upsides. Also , if you work from home you still need childcare. Not many employers are going to pay you to work at home while looking after your kids

The Tory's are absolute masters at turning people against each other - we are so busy feeling resentful about our own circumstances we are unable to see the bigger picture - divide and rule!
The CB policy is clearly unfair in the way it has been implemented, but do you know what is more unfair - the social care budget cuts that have left vulnerable people without the support they need to survive, welfare reform that is crippling people who desperately need support, the destruction of the NHS - changes in child benefit aren't fair but you aren't going to die if one partner earns £60k and you lose your child benefit, the same can't be said for those with disabilities, that is actually happening!

I agree Zubin.

I think there are too many factors to simply just make a blanket statement that being a SAHP is a luxury. Most SAHPs I know have made a lot of sacrifices to be at home, live in smaller houses, no foreign holidays or nights out, no new cars etc. I obviously know this is not the case and a lot of families need 2 parents working.

A lot of people bought big houses that required 2 incomes, then when the children come along they still need those 2 incomes. A lot of people could be SAHMs but choose not to downgrade their lifestyle and that's fine, it's their choice but don't then tell a SAHP that it's alright for them they don't need to work whilst bragging about your latest car or holiday.

Some SAHPs chose to be at home as the cost of childcare wipes out one salary completely, even working at a loss and it's just not worth the stress of rushing children here there and everywhere to then go and work at a loss. Or your DH works irregular hours or abroad and isn't home for weeks at a time. Or you have a disabled child and cannot get childcare for them

Then you have the WOHM parents whose parents are the childcare so they get it for free, I know you cannot legislate for that.
Or they only work term time and have school age DC do don't actually need childcare.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not as simple as saying SAHP with a HRT stop moaning and get out to work, two working parents spend pounds on childcare so they need their CB and you don't.

Yes it needed capped, people on 250K for example don't need £20 a week, but it should be done fairly on household income with an additional tax break on childcare for those requiring it. CB for the poorest families should also be increased.

bionic - after a certain age you don't have to be at home to look after your kids - ie 12ish. at this stage you choose to be a SAHM and therefore i think the CB should be removed, unless your total household income remains very low and then you will obviously still need financial help.

you shouldn't expect handouts paid for by other mums working - especially those on low incomes

I agree sweetkitty- but there are equally many variables for working parents too. It's a bit galling when it's implied that all dual earner families are raking it in, and that their cjildren are looked after by a mish mash of play dates and freebies from rellies! Keeping my career going when rhe children were tiny was the hardest thing I've ever done, and also very costly. And that's not knocking anyone else - I also think being at home with pre schoolers is hard too ( I was home 4 days a week) and I also think being a working parent of school age kids is no picnic either, but in terms of the sheer expense and effort , working while your children are tiny is really tough. I don't regret it for a moment- and now our kids are almost at the stage where they can be left for short periods we're getting the payback, as our childcare bills are going down.

SweetKitty

I totally agree about being a sahp not being a luxury, if your household are relying on one lowish income, its hardly luxurious.
I gave up a good career to be sahm and until UC comes in will have received Tax credits for most of the 20 years. I am not complaining that I will not be entitled to UC as I choose not to work, unless I become a bookkeeper for my dh's business then I get to keep it.
I do object to people being able to earn up to 100k and still get cb, when other households lose it at 42k, even though this doesn't affect us.
I also object to the cuts in general to welfare and feel that the wrong people are going to lose out for e.g disabled, carers, etc.
This government are no better than Thatchers and I think we haven't yet seen the tip of the iceberg.

It's funny really reading these as mil doesnt believe we are harder up than sil (her dd).

Both families have same same combined income, she gets cb as she and her dh are under the threshold, dh and I don't. Oddly their take home is more than ours

Mil does all their cc for free, all school pick ups and occasionally their weekly shop (off tangent sorry), her dh works close to home so is back at reasonable time. We pay for all cc as don't have that luxury (mil wouldnt consider looking after her ds' children) dh works a faif distance and occasionally gets breakfast or bedtime with the dc never both. I do all my weekly shops

If you take the cc costs and etc in they are at least £700 better off than us from that angle, (per month) as I pay at least that out before receiving cb.

Of course I mind, but then having it rubbed in my face by mil makes my blood fizz.

Bloody coalition

Agree that once your youngest is 12 then you do not need childcare and being a SAHM is a luxury then.

I think there should be subsidised childcare as in other countries, that's why 2 working parents who require childcare should get it subsidised as its different that relatives doing it for free.

CB is just the tip of the iceberg of totally destroying the welfare state, unless you are working and paying a lot of tax ie well paid you do not matter to the present government oh unless your a wealthy voting pensioner of course. That's the only non working group they seem to like.

sweetkitty - actually my labour voting IL's have done allright out of this government - none of their benefits have been touched. And also my low earning BIL, as he probably doesn't have to pay any tax now.

But what are people's thought for couples or single people with no children that get taxed to heaven and get no tax breaks of any sort? Nothing, zilch not unless I missed something! The forgotten voters as my boss refers to them!

Totally agree, Little.

Couples and singles without children are treated far worse by the tax and benefits system.

That's why some of the points being made in this thread don't stack up against government policy.

I'm sure the government know exactly how unpopular the CB threshold is among those affected.

The fact is, though, there are an awul lot of people who pay an awful lot more into the system than they will ever get back out, who are quite happy to see CB cut for those who earn well.

The proportion of the electorate who are earning over the threshold and have children of CB-claiming age is relatively small and sympathy from the vast majority of voters, who won't be affected, will be limited.

It could be worse. My salary makes me eligible for child benefit, my child is 16 but still in full time education so she also qualifies. However, she's not my child, I'm just looking after her. It's not even classed as private fostering because she's 16, it's just a living arrangement.

Had I pushed her into accepting a place at a halfway house, which she didn't want, she would get a whole host of support. If I was an official foster parent, I would get child benefit. If I adopted her, I would get child benefit. If I was her mum, I would get child benefit.

As it is, I'm her guardian but I don't fall into any of these particular categories, so despite being within the salary range and having a child who fits the criteria, I get nothing.