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

Well - I agree with her.
When there are children living in poverty in this country, no I do not think people on £50k plus should receive benefits.

Yes, I think that's more what I mean merrymouse. That kind of reporting.

but then she seems to to swapping one kind of not understanding for another - "you (higher rate tax payers) don't understand why bedroom tax is a bad idea, so I will deliberately misunderstand this statistic about 165,000 not registering for self assessment".

It undermines her argument. As said before she needs to wait until people have missed the payment deadline.

She's also missed the fact that many of those 165,000 (an official guesstimate) may not actually earn £50k any more. There are plenty of, completel, legitimate, reasons that this might be the case.

There might be a double standard in how people perceive the poor and the better off, but it seems that everyone wants to assume the worst of people whatever their income.

I think you are right that until the picture becomes clearer and what kind of punitive measures are taken against those who continue to claim cb who are not entitled its difficult to draw a full comparison. I still think the nub of her argument is valid however. It is the catastrophic punitive measures that are taken against other benefit claimants that do not and never will apply to cb claimants and seems illogical in the face of government rhetoric that we are all in this together. I do think however, the cb policy is massively illogical.

Child benefit was a universal credit not a benefit!

It's the only help the middle get, the middle who pay through the nose to ( rightly) support those who are without. you girl, we paid for you

She know's nothing about people's circumstances and should stay out of such debates.

The CB fiasco is stupid and unfair.

I agree she's made her argument months too early. I also think she's being sneery and massively missing the point about CB. A benefit paid by the state overwhelmingly to WOMEN, it's now being removed from them because in very many cases they parent with a higher earning MAN. That's not universally the case of course but it is for the majority.
As a feminist I absolutely object that the state is now judging dh and I as one unit - but only his income counts. I've disappeared!
We have registered for self assessment. Looking forward to logging all our charitable donations We'll have to pay some or all back but for me it's really important to keep claiming it and I don't like being attacked for that.

I think means testing Child Benefit was a bit of a masterstroke actually.

Really divisive move and really pushed people into 'Us and Them' situations.

Clever.

How true morloth......in two years time when they remove it for the next income bracket down. Do you think I will care?

God no they took mine!

In five years time those on the lowest income/ no income will get in rolled into their tax credits maybe a bit of it anyway because it will be no longer cost effective to implement.

Do you think I will care????

To be fair in the article Jack does state that she disagrees with CB being assessed on the high earner rather than on household income.

Her tone may have been a little ill judged, but she has a point - people on benefits have been treated absolutely vilely by the government and the gutter press, and the contrast with the lenient attitude displayed towards people who are late registering for self assessment is stark.

Very good point Northernlurker!

I think she's spot on.

I can imagine the arguments up and down the country

"I thought you said you would stop claiming the child benefit!"

"No, you said you were happy to self assess!"

if you need cb on that wage then you are doing something wrong or are overstretching yourselves

They may not have been stretching themselves with the cb, but that cb was taken into account when deciding on mortgage size and outgoings. For some people, having it taken away, is going to cause problems. They would have taken different decisions, had they known in advance, that cb was not going to be available to them.

And yes it is the unfairness that a lot of people are complaining about. The disparity between single and duel incomes.

I can see all of the above, whilst still disagreeing with the carer/ bedroom bit.

It's not either/or, you know.

BSC, I'm not sure about high earners receiving cb so they can feel they still have an investment in society - just 'all who have children, mind you!' and are getting something out of it, otherwise benefits will just go to the 'incompetent and feckless'.

So what about those who chose not to have children. If the above argument holds, should I feel disgruntled because I'm getting much less for my 'investment in society'?

As it happens, I'm very happy for my taxes to be spent on all your children, to be born in hospital, go to school, get medical care etc. I got all those things as a child myself. However, as I'm going to be on my tod in my old age after saving the government a packet by not having kids, it would be nice to know I'll get some help when I start getting a bit decrepit as I'll have no children to help me access the services that are left, cart me around the place, make sure I'm being fed etc. Yes, those services are theoretically there, but having helped my elderly mum and watching my cousin sort out care for her mother with dementia, I am getting slightly worried now about how I'm going to manage when I'm completely alone.

It's also been interesting since I've been on MN to see how some families manage their money. My DH and I earn the same and have no kids, so it's the obvious thing for us to have our own money we can spend on what we like, and contribute an equal amount to a joint account to pay all household bills. But if we had kids, it would be completely different.

But I'm amazed about the couples I've read about that continue to have 'my' money and 'your' money even after children come along - the husband earns 60K for example, the wife struggles on in a badly paid part time job or is completely SAH in order to look after THEIR children, yet they continue to pay equal amounts of their wages into the communal pot, with the result that the wife is near penniless, whereas the husband has plenty of extra money for trips away, hobbies and gadgets. Then when cb is taken away from couples like this, the wife is in trouble because it's seen as 'her' money and she is the loser. The husband in these families feels under no compulsion to make up the difference in the family budget from his high wage.

CB was brought in at a time when society was more unequal, so a deliberate decision was made to pay it to the mother because it was felt much more likely that she would spend it on the children, and she would be guaranteed to have some money she could call her own. It seems some wives of high earning husbands are still having to rely on cb to manage because their husbands don't see looking after children as a proper job, and think all the money they earn belongs to them to do with as they wish, not to look foremost at the needs of their family unit. So it perhaps some husbands' sense of entitlement to what should be joint resources needs to be addressed.

A suspicious person would think that that was the plan Khaleese.

So many people have utterly bought into the zero sum game logic of this government. It isn't us or them at all. It benefits this particular government to have everyone suspicious of everyone else and angry at anything they appear to have above and beyond the very minimum to sustain life. But it does not benefit society as a whole; it makes life worse for everyone.

People should stop sneering about other people earning £50k. If you want to earn £50k, there are ways for you to do this. And if all manner of crappy circumstances mean that you can't (e.g. because you can't afford childcare so you can train, or any of the myriad other ways that life conspires against people), don't get angry at those who do earn £50k. Get angry at the social systems and poorly structured welfare state that prevents you from being able to do the same.

Debates about who 'deserves' benefits and in what circumstances only serve to exacerbate the poor public perception of benefit recipients. We don't seem to have discussions about the purpose of benefits in this country (or the broader purpose of public services and the welfare state), we seem obsessed with categorising people as 'deserving' or 'undeserving'.

(FYI: I don't earn enough to lose CB)

Your crystal ball looks as if it is in perfect condition. I fear it may be very accurate.

I am a suspicious cynic.

Am therefore very rarely surprised.

if you need cb on that wage then you are doing something wrong or are overstretching yourselves

or you are a carer, or you have a disability, or you are a single parent and have to pay for child care etc. etc. etc.

Obviously people earning less than £50K also have these problems, but agree with morloth - divide and conquer seems to be the policy - how long till people who use public healthcare are portrayed as feckless layabouts deserving of second class treatment?

Presumably the penalty for non-repayment of child benefit will be the penalty for non-payment of all taxes - penalties, interest and eventually prison.

I agree with sowhat. Some families with SAHM's seem to allow their DH's to live the life of riley on their high wages, just because it allows them the privelege of staying at home and looking after THEIR children. They really need to be sorting out their family finances if they need child benefit to live on, and it really is the only money they have! I have friends who are given 'allowances' by their DH's and when they ask for more, they are shocked that their DH's can afford to give then £1000 pm without even making a dent. And these are educated, intelligent women who have to go begging to their husbands for money. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone and probably won't apply to a single income couple on 50K living in London, but it is the case for most of the SAHM's that I know.

Gosh, you're completely right. Blogger - KNOW YOUR PLACE!

Of course Jacks portions are small. You're not going to get very fat on £10 a week, are you? People genuinly on the breadline generally do lose weight, even if they do have to eat bread and pasta.
Regarding Mrskoala's list ,spending £400 /month on food and £150/month on nappies, formula and kids clothes is being pretty well off, IMO.

I personally class nappies/ and formula as part of the shopping so really 550 a month at the supermarket is a lot!!!!

and you still have disposable income left at the end

and a huge (unusually huge) mortgage rent

yet you are not well off

no... your outgoings are too high