To be hacked off that well off families are now getting CB,help with childcare and now free school meals when those on a lot less are losing CB?

[Retropear]

I thought it was necessary to take CB off those on 50k so why are those on a lot more getting yet more money given to them?

It's not fair.

Families on 100k keep CB,get help with childcare and now free school meals.

Families on 300k get help with childcare bills and now free school meals.

A family with a sahp on 50k will start to lose CB,gets no help with childcare and if they have KS2 children no help with school meals.

Why couldn't we all keep our CB if we're in the market for universal benefits and rich families having state handouts?

I think the whole free school dinners will be a flash in the pan and become financially unviable same as free prescriptions ect.

As for child benefit, me and dh both work but childcare wipes out my wage and some of dh's too so if they took child benefit from us it would be a huge kick in the teeth as after childcare we have income that isn't even remotely close to the 40k limit

We have lost our child benefit and, while we'll miss it, I agree in principle that the rich(er) don't need it.

However, I am sure that:

• the costs of "means-testing" it will outweigh the savings to a large extent; and
• we are definitely paying way more additional tax than we were recovering in child benefit.

OK st clicked on BBC site :)

How so fresh with an extra tax allowance,no higher tax rate and if granny helps out?

Why do people keep mentioning families on 100k, 300k etc These are such a tiny percentage of families that it is barely relevant

I think FSM without stigma is brilliant. For some children is the only hot meal they get. Can be laziness, neglect not necessarily finances. I am grateful. When DP and I properly live together it is one less expense he has to shoulder on my children's behalf whilst I can't work and their feckless father fails to contribute.

It will benefit people on low incomes who get WFTC and therefore are not entitled to FSM. I wonder what the impact will be on the pupil premium that schools rely on; it currently pays for additional support but will that funding now be lost for the proportion of the school that is KS1?

my husband earns well, I'm a SAHM. we have 6 kids.

our friends both work and have 1 DD. there joint income divided by 3 is higher than DH's income divided by 8. they have child benefit.

I'm not complaining that we don't get CB.
I just don't get why they should

c'est la vie

Because it's not a small amount of money collectively and you could say that re families on 50k x 1 instead of 50k x 2- so why take it off them?

I agree freshly. Two hard working parents earning the same as one hard working parent and one sahm is completely different. Stop squeezing the middle all the time! The middle as far as I'm convcerned are those with 2 working parents earning 40 - 60k who are trying their hardest and losing out all the time. I think the school meals for all young children is great.

I agree 2 working parents on 30k would of course be worse off if paying for childcare. However 2 on 49k would be much better off than 1 on 60k. Thats where the unfairness lies. This is especially true for families with 3 or more children.

But if they means tested it older poorer children could have it too.Intstead wealthier KS1 kids will.

Oh and there is zero stigma re free school meals,nobody ever knows.

"FitzgeraldProtagonist Tue 17-Sep-13 21:16:28

I think FSM without stigma is brilliant."

While I completely agree in principle, is there any stigma in infants? DS has school dinners, and none of his friends will know or care how they are paid for (in fact I'm sure the concept of paying for stuff at school won't have really entered his head). I can see it at secondary where they pay for their own stuff but at this age - really?

re CB - I know families who keep their child benefit because they are rich enough to choose to work part time, whilst having ample funds to send the DCs to private school - unearned funds so not counted towards CB calculation

I continue to rage about the CB cut - next door could be bringing in nearly double our household income, don't need childcare because their one child is at senior school and yet they get it and we don't. It's been done that way simply because it's the easiest way to administer it, there's nothing fair about it. And it makes me furious.

I'm confused. What free childcare? Do you mean the 15 hours at 3 years old?

And surely if you are a sahp then you don't need help with childcare, that being the point of having a sahp?

I also thought that the free food thing hadn't actually been implemented and probably wouldn't be.

2 on 49k would no way be better off than 1 on 60k. Thats insane. The 2 on 49k pay shedloads of childcare which erodes their incomw far far below that of the hohsehold on 60k with a stay at home mjm

Well-off-enough families could "refuse" FSMs on quality grounds, and the stigma would remain: in schools with poor provision, only children whose parents couldn't affird not to have FSMs would hsve FSMs...

If the FSMs are good, surely the uptake will mean quality might be compromised, ti stretch thd budget to all...

It's a transparently badly-thought-out measure.

2 on 49k would no way be better off than 1 on 60k. Thats insane. The 2 on 49k pay shedloads of childcare which erodes their incomw far far below that of the hohsehold on 60k with a stay at home mjm

I think there should be a tax incentive for SAHMs - or at least the ability to transfer their personal allowance to their working partner.

2 on 49k with teenage children will pay no childcare.

2 on 49k who don't work school holidays will pay not very much childcare

Most households on 2x49k will be significantly better off than us on 60k.

oh and we have no free childcare (apart from grandparents! )

DS5 is 3 so playgroup is supposed to be free but I have to pay a £2.00 top-up fee/3-hour session.
so that's £10.00/week.

I seem to remember they do 40 weeks in total in a school year (or so) so that's £400/year.
for what should actually be free.

It depends on how many children and the cost of childcare though surely. If 2 on 49k only have 1 school aged child childcare costs would be low. Yet 1 on 60k needs to earn quite abit to make up the grossed up child benefit especially with say 3 or more dc. Plus 2 on 49 benefit from 2 personal tax allowances.
Obviously it not clear cut. Much depends on commuting costs too. My dh for example does an 90 mile round trip to enablevhim to earn his 60k. 2 on 49k working locally would have lower costs or 2 on 49k working further away higher.
Too many variables.

I think Freshly has a good point. Very, very few families will have two earners making 49K for a start. The average wage is about £26K. For families with two children in nursery or similar this could wipe out more than one salary.

In a perfect world there would be more comprehensive means testing but they have to draw the battle lines somewhere.