To think that people who complain about not getting child benefit because they earn above the threshold can fuck right off?

[CosetteFauchlavent]

Firstly I should say that I am applying this to people who are coupled up - it's very different for single parents.

I have an acquaintance, friend of a friend, who I'm not particularly keen on but my friend insists on inviting to group outings etc. She describes herself as "the girl who has everything" and has said several times that she's going back to work after maternity leave even though her DH earns enough for her to be a SAHM.

Anyway, the other day she came out with "It's so unfair that people on benefits get child benefit for doing nothing, we earn too much to qualify WAAAH." The "WAAH" is not my addition, she actually said it.

AIBU to think SBU?

YABU they pay into the system just as much as you do.

Agree with many others in this thread

I agree it should be taken from high earners, but the way it was done was unfair

I do see why people think it was unfairly done. Especially if two people work full time. One earns say £15K and one £60K. They lose. But others earning 45K each still get CB. But I was thinking about universal benefits. Was CB not the only universal benefit left for people of working age that don't have a disability. Still won't this extra childcare make up for the CB loss but not for SAHMs.

Or for the many who don't use childcare.

What I see here, that is more worrying, is that now they've set the precedent for families with one HRT to lose CB, what will they do next? "Ok", they'll think, "we got away with that". "How about all families with one HRT payer pay £20 to see their doctor? How about all families with a HRT payer pay a small fee to their state school, you know, because they can afford it and all that. Don't worry though, if you have a joint income of 90k, you're exempt. These charges will only affect the richest 10% of earners". Which we all know is a complete crock of shit, as they haven't taken into account their dependents. This is what they'll do next. At which point, there will be no point what so ever in being a HRT payer and suddenly there won't be any. Apart from the super rich of course, who currently have private schooling and private health care.

They've already started with university costs - kids of hrt payers can only borrow the minimum amount of loan. But that's okay - hrt payer mum or dad can top it up

No understanding or caring that the income of the hrt payer isn't infinite and cannot cover everything!

Yes Faux and this doubly hits people with very 'traceable' income e.g. public sector workers, people with typical salaried jobs. Cash in hand jobs or people running their own companies find it much easier to earn very little on paper.

clockwise - please tell us how people who own their companies can earn very little on paper. alas it probably needs a doggy accountant and my husband has never manged to find one. is he the only owner forced to do everything by the book and hounded by the tax man?

There are people with dodgy accountants

But not as many as some people seem to think

And it's a shame because a lot of hard working and tax paying business owners are being tarred with the same brush

Pmsl at doggy accountant
do they have collie culators
or is it just a boxer ticking exercise

Very good stealth

I own my company, I like dawgs can I have a doggy accountant!

The accountants and business owners don't have to be dodgy or even doggy (:o at collieculator), they just need to be smart about how they get paid i.e. in dividends rather than salary. Of course I've never filled in a uni loan form so I don't know how detailed it is or whether it simply asks for payslips.

On the face of it, yanbu.

However, cutting benefits from people on reasonable incomes is usually a precursor to cutting those benefits from those who need them as well. Thin end of the wedge.

A welfare state where everyone receives something is more likely to be politically popular across the social spectrum than one where support is only targeted at some. so cutting universal benefits creates the political climate where it is easier to cut the benefits from those who need them too. So the calls of "benefit scroungers" get louder, and there is more political support for cutting everything.

A big part of the rationale for the creation of soem of the universal benefits was because it would create/maintain popular support for the welfare state amongst those wealthy enough not to need them and possessed of a vote.

Withdrawing these benefits from some is also a very effective way of creating social division and acrimony (as your post in itself proves). We are so very much easier to rule when we are divided and squabbling amongst ourselves...

So in a round about way YABU, and quite possibly, utterly self defeating.

For example, there was a time I was working far from home, paying through the nose for accommodation, council tax, bills, transport, paying back student loans. I was really scraping by. I wanted to do an evening class. Couldn't afford it. Lots of people were entitled to do them free. I was and am fine with that. But as I was paying a fuck tonne of council tax every month, it would have been nice to get a "20%/£20 off the evening class of your choice voucher" at the end of the year when I had paid up in full by direct debit. Stuff like that makes you happier, freebies with any expenditure make you happy. (and all the libraries were always shut by the time I was away from work too).

just to echo some of the well made posts above. Both my husband and I are HRTP.

We pay loads in tax and feel like we get nothing back. I would be lying if I said it didn't create resentment. It does.

CB should have remained universal.

O and I was just thinking about the response to loopy post about having 1300 left after essentials like mortgage and commuter costs.
Well a single parent wiith 3 dc would nearly clear that on benefits with no housing costs ( bar small amount of council) tax.or commuter costs. (give or take 200) Plus they would get freecschool meals prescriptions.
Yet hrt tax payers who have the cheek to moan can fuck right off. Nice

CB is a universal payment in Ireland although there have been mutterings in recent years about restricting it to people on lower incomes or taxing it.

I find it strange that in the UK they just go by the higher earner's income and not total family income. What reason was given for that at the time?

tay - i think its because the tax system can't work out the total family income. its not set up that way and would cost a fortune to implement

Actually adventure I'd think anyone who moaned about "only" having £1300 left was in need of a reality check, regardless if they were HRTs or on benefits. And would a single parent with 3 DCs actually get that much? I don't think being on benefits is as milk and honey as some here seem to think.

168 approx per week tax credits. 72 ish income support and 47 ish child benefit. Minimal council tax and possibly free rent if in local authority housing. Plus fsm etc

I didn't think it was especially for single person on 72 but knowing that hrt payer is only maybe 50pw better off due to their housing and commuting costs surprised me.

If you get a doggy accountant they can often get you off paying taxes scottie-free. They will Pinscher bit of your income to do it though.

DH is an HRTP and we've never got round to claiming CB or anything else. Every year we are sent letters and forms asking us to give them our details in case we're entitled to anything, but based on run-ins with HMRC when DS1 was born, they often mis-calculate stuff, and you have to put it to one side for when they demand it back 8 months later (fortunately I'd had the sense not to spend any of it, or I'd have been scuppered). So we just claim nothing, that way nobody can complain.

I think if you earn (as a household) over a certain amount, you shouldn't receive anything in terms of benefits (notwithstanding exceptional cases like DLA, which should be universal for anyone in need). But the fact that a family can have a joint income of 98k, and still claim CB, but another family can have an income of 51k and not receive it seems unlucky and unjust. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be that difficult to calculate if they really wanted to.

Most people live up to their income. You buy a house that you can afford easily. Suddenly you lose £200 a month. That, can afford easily house, suddenly isn't so affordable. That's why people are struggling. Obviously had they known in advance, they wouldn't have that £200, they wouldn't have extended themselves as much. Unless you earn significantly more than 60k, most people will really feel that drop in income and feel a bit miffed, especially when the system is calculated in such an unfair way.