to think that a girl called Jack should stick to budget cookery tips and NOT bash

[LordElpuss]

people who are losing their child benefit

Guardian article

Her opinion is just as valid as anyone who writes for a newspaper's comment page.

The Guardian is just a gossip rag these days in any case!

I think it is extremely important that people at all points on the economic scale receive something back from the system- people that do not benefit in any way will otherwise have no 'buy-in' and become less and less inclined to pay into the system, meaning everyone suffers.

Child Benefit isn't about the amount per week (and yes, £20 is a very small percentage of a £50k salary) it's about giving something universally to all (all who have children, mind you!) and keeping high-earners as stakeholders in the society pot.

The way the whole affair has been handled is shockingly poor- Lin Homer should be ashamed of her comments earlier this week, she shows a complete lack of respect for any taxpayers

If families are to be assessed for benefits as a whole, then they should also be taxed as a whole, and thus those who can, benefit from 1 low/non-earner.

Paying money to one parent, and expecting another parent to pay it back through their tax bill is ridiculous. What if I choose not to tell my children's father that I've received it? He can be fined for another's actions? Outrageous really.

That's before we get to the inequity of two earners on £48k keeping child benefit but 1 earner on £50k losing it Which utter numpty thought that would be a good idea?

But no, YABU OP, because it is important that she does rattle cages. The poor have no power in this (or indeed really any other) country. You may not agree with her, but people are vaguely listening.

Maybe she is sneery, but we all need something to sneer at to keep us going, eh?

I am a single mum. My salary is nearing the 50 k mark. After tax and childcare my net income is 149 quid a week. My weekly train ticket is 43 quid a week. So i have to pay for everything else and support my two children out of 105 quid a week. My actual gross salary is ok, but the tax system is insane.

The whole CB thing is ridiculous. I'm not against means testing it but do it fairly. The whole idea of basing it on one parent was bonkers enough but this tax malarkey makes it even more nonsensical.

However, I don't see anything wrong with that article. It's a fair criticism of how certain arms of the media report on the different classes in our society.

You've misunderstood the article although I'm quite sure that was absolutely your intention.

I am in the same position as halfway. I am a lone parent earning more than 50,000 but live in London so after my mortgage and childcare there is not that much left. I feel really angry that I work very hard but get nothing back, no help at all, but a couple earning the same amount do!
I may earn a decent income but getting just a little help in my position would be fair.

But she isn't criticising people for claiming CB. She's highlighting the double standard applied to poor people who claim benefits vs the better off who do.

YABVU.

I'm glad someone actually read the article Saskia. Agree completely.

Well if Jack is going to be credible she needs to accept that people earning £50k pa don't, as she claims, have £1,000 a week. They actually have £691 out of which they pay rent/mortgage, council tax, child care i.e. all the things that she (until she became a Guardian "columnist") had paid for her. And out of their remaining income they have travel and all the other bills which means that they might actually need the child benefit, especially if they have 3 or 4 kids.

So she should concentrate her attacks on the government and not the taxpayers who are not earning a fortune - £50k seriously?? - it smacks of sour grapes.

I love these threads. Nothing more heart warming that listening to earners in the top 10% whinging and explaining their "super valid" reasons for needing child benefit.

50k = £2996

£1400 rent/mortgage on 3 bedroom semi
£400 fares
£400 food & toiletries/cleaning stuff
£120 Council Tax
£80 leccy
£90 gas
£100 car tax/petrol
£50 phone/internet
£50 2 mobiles
£150 formula/nappies/clothes for dcs

=£2840

Leaving about £150 for a family to 'live on' for a month and emergencies or dental appointments/prescriptions etc and what about yearly costs like MOTs? or a few presents at xmas/birthdays? - i know not essential but still something people do. And while i don't think the above is the bread line, or 'poor'. It's hardly rolling in it like people expect it to be.

Whether people agree with the policy or not, it is in place now and nothing can be d

Nothing can be achieved by deliberately not complying. Are these 165,000 failing to register as some kind of protest?
Personally I elected to stop receiving it back in January to avoid all this hassle

MrsKoala you forgot childcare costs.

I think the problem with the article is that it is more likely that the 165,000 intend to pay on time but haven't got round to registering yet. This article would be relevant in about March 2014, assuming that a lot of people hadn't paid and the government could not track them down and charge penalties and interest. That would be fraud.

I agree with bsc also. Give according to ability and receive according to need. Means testing away all benefits from everybody except the most poverty stricken (and then presumably reducing taxes) creates a society where benefits are seen as something received by the incompetent and feckless.

French - there is only one earner on 50k in that family. (If it was 2 earners jointly bringing in 50k then they would still get CB.) So there is no need for childcare.

No one seems to think that Jamie Oliver isn't entitled to an opinion.

On that point you are wrong. I for one, think that Jamie Oliver should keep his mouth shut. School dinner uptake has fallen by quite a lot since he got involved in the whole 'turkey twizzler' debate. He should stick to cooking.

I also agree that there is something in the 'wouldn't feed a mouse in my house' argument for Jacks recipes. It's not the content of the recipes but the portion sizes. If I have my kids one of her meal recipes they would presume its an appetiser and would want to know when the main course is arriving.

French - there is only one earner on 50k in that family. (If it was 2 earners jointly bringing in 50k then they would still get CB.) So there is no need for childcare.

Unless it's a single parent household on 50k and then childcare is required meaning they might need the CB even more.

The term fraudster would be applied to someone who had forgot to sign off. She is framing her argument around inequality and using the significant, relevant fact that tens of thousands of people have failed to sort out their cb. The reduction in people receiving cb has been headline news for months and there is no real excuse for not finding out what your position is. If this had been people claiming jsa they would have been called fraudsters.

Yes, agree totally NoRude. Sorry - very late here and i've had :)

She's not in any way attacking higher earners. She's attacking the attitudes towards those on low incomes receiving benefits.

The difference is that people aren't due to pay back their child benefit for another 3.5 months, whether they have registered for self assessment or not.

There is no obligation for higher rate tax payers not to receive child benefit, just to pay it back on the appropriate date.

Merrymouse, but those affected sstill should have registered for self assessment yes? And many have not done so. There are so many parallels I could draw with benefit claimants I don't know where to start.

you carry on, all 165,000 of you, because you clearly really need that £20 a week more than the seriously disabled woman needs £14 for a spare bedroom for her overnight carer

I think that is attacking higher earners.

The reality is that people earning £50,000 also suffer from disabilities and/or are carers; £50,000 does not go very far if you have related additional expenses; many people earning £50,000 think the bedroom tax and other benefit cuts are wrong and can see through DM stories about 'scroungers'.

Saskia it's even more than that

she isn't criticising people for claiming CB. She's highlighting the double standard applied to poor people who claim benefits vs the better off who do.

She criticising the double standard applied to people who claim benefits they are not entitled to.

It does however look as if she hasn't paid attention to the intricacies of the system - once the tax year rolls around and there is no outcry about all of the people who have failed to settle up correctly then her point will be more valid.

I can understand there being no fuss made yet - not because everyone knows you can pay it back later but because everyone can relate to not remembering/bothering to fill in a form.

I can't see any parallels with benefit claimants (unless you are talking about people not really grasping the facts when they write about them, in which case I will agree that there are loads of erroneous, rabble rousing stories about benefit claimants).