Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

320 replies

candyandyoga · 27/04/2013 22:09

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!?!

OP posts:
Squarepebbles · 28/04/2013 18:11

Not sure I agree Shelley,I know loads who are coming up to the threshold,those not effected but who earn more and even those like my parents who found it very useful in the early years that do sympathise and quite frankly don't respect the lack of fairness.

There is a kind of weariness of ideas drawn up on the back of a fag packet and a worry as to what a party with obviously zero concept of fairness might do next.

Ie next time it might very well be them at then arse end of blatantly unfair and ill thought out policies.

GrendelsMum · 28/04/2013 18:17

Mmm - I think that ShelleyBoobs might well be right. It may well be quite a small percentage of the population affected by this policy (although well paid people with young children are obviously particularly likely to be on Mumsnet), and the majority of those unaffected may well think it sounds absolutely fine.

For example, my DH and I are a couple without kids, and it sounds reasonable to me. I don't think that I'd feel short-changed not to receive money from the government if I were to have a baby.

sweetkitty · 28/04/2013 18:17

Most people in this country do have hidden at some point though. CB was seen as a tax break as having children is so expensive.

Two wealthy tax payers probably do not care about a lot of things welfare cuts wise.

When I was young and child free I didn't give CB a second though or welfare in the most part really.

I think the threshold is going to drop and drop though.Hmm

soverylucky · 28/04/2013 18:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ShellyBoobs · 28/04/2013 18:25

Yes, I think the threshold will drop and drop, too.

It's probably going to be like the 40% tax point which never keeps up with inflation and catches more people each year.

morethanpotatoprints · 28/04/2013 18:37

SweetKitty

Why do you think that having your youngest at 12 and having a sahp is a luxury? On what grounds is it luxurious?

If you mean that older dc should look out for younger ones and that because there is no need for childcare so you should work, then I disagree.
There is no way I could have fit in a job when my older 2 were this age. I think they needed me to do more for them during their teen years. Also there are still the holidays, and no amount of money would have had me leave them during the holidays. They are a time for family surely?

scarlettsmummy2 · 28/04/2013 18:44

For goodness sake- if you earn 60k you don't need child benefit, and if you do need it, clearly being a sahm is not an option. I think it is perfectly reasonable to let those earning a combined income of more than 60k keep it if they are paying childcare costs, something those not working don't have to.

sweetkitty · 28/04/2013 18:49

I think that by the time your youngest is 12 you do not need formal childcare for them like you do with say a 5 year old? Hey others on here have said being at home at all is a luxury Wink

Some posters were saying that CB should stop at 12 I disagree as I think teenagers are more costly than little ones regardless of needing childcare.

janey68 · 28/04/2013 18:56

If you've decided that no amount of money would make you leave your 12 year old children during the school holidays because its a time for family , then that's a perfectly valid choice but not one which should be used as some kind of 'argument' in favour of state funds . It really isnt. I think it's totally up to families how they organise themselves- some parents raise healthy happy children while both continuing to work, some parents have one parent stop working for a few years, and some never work again. They can do what they like- but they have no entitlement to a benefit based on their choice

soverylucky · 28/04/2013 18:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NC78 · 28/04/2013 19:00

More unfair how they are treating sick and disabled people who rely on benefits, making people homeless, and cutting benefits for low earners... don't give a shit about this one.

crashdoll · 28/04/2013 19:01

sweetkitty Not being snarky, asking genuinely but in what way are teenagers more expensive than younger children? I can think of lots of things (phones, clothes etc) but they are luxuries.

scarlettsmummy2 · 28/04/2013 19:01

Maybe those on more than 60k should only be allowed to keep it if they can show that they are paying childcare costs.

scarlettsmummy2 · 28/04/2013 19:02

Teenagers are more expensive because they eat at least the same as adults and more often than not are in adult clothes which are a lot more expensive and obviously have a social life.

crashdoll · 28/04/2013 19:04

Sorry but I can't conceive how food and clothes for teenagers are as expensive as the costs of FT childcare.

Squarepebbles · 28/04/2013 19:05

Erm Scarlett if those on 60k don't need those on 100k definitely don't need it.

janey68 · 28/04/2013 19:07

Someone on 100k doesnt get it

HappyMummyOfOne · 28/04/2013 19:08

Being a SAHP is a choice for the majority who do it. If childcare is higher than the persons salary it was a choice to have x children that means high childcare bills. Its not like its unexpected!

The state shouldnt be paying for people to stay home, its one of the decent changes about UC. Unlike tax credits, all adults in the household will have to work. Not working is a luxury and only should be for those whose household income can accomodate it without state help.

I think the threashold will be lowered too. It would have been better to pay for the first child only if they are determined to keep child benefit going or cut for all. Too many already have children that they cannot support so limiting benefits may bring a change in culture.

seesensepeople · 28/04/2013 19:09

Cloudsandtrees "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 am afraid I don't have a NRP to make pay! Whilst h was alive my DH was a SAHD so my costs have increased (childcare) and my income has reduced (lost CB). I definitely felt the loss of the £200 ish per month CB and the extra costs has really impacted us.

Yes, I have a mortgage because we made the choice to buy and not rent and someone else mentioned having a close look at finances dor anyone who earns £60k and misses CB but when we got married 20 years ago the world looked a very different place.

It doesn't matter how carefully you plan you just don't know what's around the corner.

Squarepebbles · 28/04/2013 19:10

A family with a joint income then.Hmm

janey68 · 28/04/2013 19:10

It may seem pedantic but the semantics are important here. If you say 'those on 60k don't get it and those on 100k do' its really misleading because you aren't comparing like with like.

I think this will just go round in circles to be honest, because those people who have never worked with young children, or who have only done it with free childcare have no clue of the reality of being working parents using nurseries or child minders

scarlettsmummy2 · 28/04/2013 19:11

They might not need it but full time childcare for my two children would be £1500 a month so the £138 towards that makes a difference. So while yes our take home pay is more, childcare takes a huge chunk of it.

Squarepebbles · 28/04/2013 19:12

Sorry I don't think not working for a short period of time should be seen as a luxury for those with tiny children.

If it is it's shit.

infamouspoo · 28/04/2013 19:14

'Being a SAHP is a choice for the majority who do it. If childcare is higher than the persons salary it was a choice to have x children that means high childcare bills. Its not like its unexpected!

The state shouldnt be paying for people to stay home, its one of the decent changes about UC. Unlike tax credits, all adults in the household will have to work. Not working is a luxury and only should be for those whose household income can accomodate it without state help.'

And for those to whom unexpected things do happen HappyMummyofOne? Like getting sick or becoming a Carer?

louisianablue2000 · 28/04/2013 19:16

I think you've got to accept that the government does not want educated women to not contribute to the economy. If it pisses you off so much get a part time job and get your DH to cut his hours so his pay is below the threshold (he can do the childcare while you are working, it would be good for your children to see their father more, all the evidence shows that kids who have two active parents do better). Choosing not to work is a luxury and you can't expect to get tax breaks for it.