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

[mignonette]

Commander if you write to HMRC giving them permission to talk to both of you about each others financial dealings, then your problem will be solved. We had to do this- two separate letters giving permission. Send them via recorded delivery, the address is online.

[Northernlurker]

You can claim whatever you or your partner earns - but if either of you earn over £50,000 then you have to start paying it back through tax.

This is NOT a sahm issue but it is a feminist issue. I work full time but I still absolutely object to this policy. In how many relationships has one partner been put under pressure to stop a claim because the other partner will have to pay it back?

Sahm or wohm - CB was paid to a parent to help with the costs of bringing up a child. That very simple and supportive UNIVERSAL principle has been completely destroyed by the Tories and anybody who buys in to the 'well you don't NEED it anyway' is absolutely embracing the social division that the Tories thrive on. This article and the social division it inspires is exactly what the right wing want. Beats me why otherwise intelligent and politically savvy people are willing play that game.

[Rufus44]

Nicely put northern

[Northernlurker]

Thanks

[AnaisHendricks]

Child benefit has always been means-tested anyway. People on Income Support have it taken into account and they are the very poorest in society.

[Rufus44]

anais no it hasn't

[Rufus44]

Or do you mean that people on income support don't get it in which case I stand corrected

[AnaisHendricks]

When I was on I.S ten years ago I received a letter which stated, "the government has decided that you need x amount to live on, but considering you get Child Benefit (for your child) this amount will be deducted from this figure and you will only be entitled to y"

I might even still have it. Mrs DeVere is the person to ask about this. I had forgotten all about it until she posted the same as I have fairly recently, so I know there hasn't been any change in policy since then.

Sadly, Google search results for "income" and "child benefit" are clogged with millions of pages regarding high-income citizens wanting to know the new rules.

[AnaisHendricks]

Oh, and at that time child support was also deducted from what the government decided the R.P themselves needed to live on Thankfully the law changed.

[Rufus44]

Thanks anias thought you meant means tested as in people earning lots, not people on benefits. Shocking, absolutely shocking!

My bad!

[utreas]

The problem with the CB cut is that the threshold for those keeping it still far too high. People on the income over the threshold have no need for welfare and if they think that they can't survive without it must not be able to budget or have accumulated large debts neither of which should be paid for by welfare.

[AnaisHendricks]

Rufus

[RubyRR]

£598 per week after pension contributions and student loan repayments.

[MrsKoala]

Altho i don't think £92 a week on food and toiletries/cleaning stuff is massively hard up, I don't think it's extravagant for a family of 2 adults and 3 active kids who eat a lot, need lots of laundry etc.

The spare cash per month on the dcs clothes/formula/nappies in my list were a general idea of what you may need to spend for the kids over the year. So nappies are what? £20 a month for a baby, formula £30? All 3 dc fast going thru shoes and coats. Shoes and coats for the 2 adults as well as clothes/school uniform etc.

As i said, while it isn't breadline, it isn't rock star money as some people on here make out. And as someone pointed out if you were a single parent, childcare would also need to come out of it too, so you would have to massively cut back on everything. And then it would be tight and i think you would need the CB.

[Norudeshitrequired]

CB should have remained universal for several reasons:

• means testing it is terribly expensive so the cost saving isn't that much.
  
• child benefit is a benefit for children and children have no income.
  
• means testing it has created a divide and animosity.
  
• the way it has been implemented is terrible - single earner household on 50k is affected but dual earner household on up to 98k might not be affected.

[Norudeshitrequired]

I just checked and a family with two adults and 4 children on unemployment benefits with rent of £180 per week will be entitled to £30k a year in benefits (reduced to 26k under the benefit cap rule. Bear in mind that they will not be paying tax out of that or student loan repayments, dental charges, prescription charges, travel to work costs and school meals. So their income is not that far from the single income working household who is just over the child benefit threshold and going to lose child benefit.
BTW: I am not affected by the child benefit means testing, I just think the whole thing is unfair.

[NotYoMomma]

2 adults and 4 children is nit the norm though :/

[LouiseAderyn]

2 adults and 4 kids in my house and thinking about the families at the school gate quite a few have 3 or4 dc, so not that unusual.

[pointythings]

They will be paying tax though, Norudeshitrequired, in the form of VAT on the things they buy.

[pointythings]

Oh, and housing benefit - which will be the bulk of what they get - will be going straight into the landlord's pocket, not the family's. Leaving them actually not a lot to live on at all.

[GinOnTwoWheels]

Pointythings, a person earning £60k has a take home salary of about £3.5k per month, less if they have student loan repayments, or are contributing towards a pension, which may or may not pay anything out when they are old. Lets assume their rent is exactly the same as the family on benefits, because people who work have to pay for housing as well . No-one has any disabilities.

The unemployed family in the example above have an income of £2.5k per month, plus free school meals, free prescriptions for adults, free dentistry, while they do not have the costs associated with going to work, such as travel, childcare and smart clothes. They will not have student loan payments, even if they went to university. This could easily mean that the benefits family have more disposable income than the working family. Anyone in a £60k job will probably be working long hours, may need to travel and be on call out of hours etc, while the unemployed family can do as they please.

Can you, or the many others on MN who repeatedly come up with the same argument, please explain why the working family are ‘rich and privileged’, do not need child benefits, and should count themselves lucky, while the benefits family are ‘poor and vulnerable’ and deserve sympathy?

[ArbitraryUsername]

I think she mean not paying tax in the sense that the £26k is a net figure. Everyone pays VAT and other indirect taxes.

The 'it goes straight to the LL' argument is a bit of a red herring. Rent will go straight to the LL regardless whether you get money from the state towards it or not. Both the £50k family and the family on benefits could be handing a big pile of the money they get in each month straight to a LL. The family with a gross income of £50k may be handing it straight to a bank instead, but that might just be paying the interest on a mortgage and nothing else.

The gross £50k will often come out as £598 a week in the bank. The £26k is £500 in the bank. Both families still have to buy food, utilities, pay for housing and everything else. Much of the £98 is may easily get eaten up by the costs of working (not least of which is commuting, but also includes other costs). If the '£50k' earner is a single parent, the net figure will be slightly lower (assuming they can use child are vouchers) and there will be childcare costs too. And the £50k family don't get FSM, prescriptions and other help.

The £50k looks a lot less like an absolute fortune when you actually think about stuff like this. It really isn't the life of riley it gets painted on here.

[ArbitraryUsername]

All of the above is not to say that the family on £50k are 'poor'. Just that they aren't necessarily 'rich', as they're painted on here.

[ArbitraryUsername]

And, in all seriousness, the pension contributions the £50k earner pays (which reduce the salary s/he actually sees any of) are going to provide the only income they get in retirement. Anyone who believes that there will be a universal state pension when (if) people my age get to retire is ludicrously optimistic. Those of us who've made our own arrangements will get nothing from the state.

I wouldn't be surprised if we end up having to pay for our own health insurance too.

[pointythings]

I am not saying that £50k = life of Riley. It's what DH and I earn between us, and until recently what with mortgage and childcare payments we certainly weren't wealthy. We don't receive CB because of DH's immigration status (US military, complicated).

But I have friends who live on benefits, for a variety of reasons. None have 4 children but one family have 3, and they definitely do NOT have a lot of disposable income. They have considerably less than DH and I had even at the height of our monthly expenditure. The sort of housing people on benefits are assigned are often of a poor standard and costs more to heat. People on benefits are unlikely to be able to access the cheapest energy tariffs because they cannot manage direct debits.

The Tories have done such a good job of divide and rule that no-one is focusing on what we have in commong - that is, being ripped off by this joke of a government. I am not opposed to means testing CB, but it should always have been done on household income.