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?

When he eventually gets a payrise to £50k we will lose child benefit

You don't lose it completely. It is reduced on a sliding scale with the more you earn from +£50K.

www.mumsnet.com/jobs/child-benefit-changes

It seems a bit harsh that you can have one couple of a SAHP and the WOHP earns like 41 grand and they don't get anything, but if you have 2 WOHPs on 39 grand each they get it. That doesn't seem like something the government would have planned if they had been able to easily assess on the basis of both wages instead of just the one, specially as the Tories are generally quite supportive of "traditional family values" i.e. SAHMs.

It's just completely unfair how they did it. Because of the way our salaries are split, we don't get it, yet a couple who earned the same but split in half (rather than 30 :70) are entitled to claim and don't have to faff around with self-assessment and paying it back.

I too think joint income should be take into account.

blimey how very dare she go back to work - the cheek of it

YABU OP and rather unpleasant

I disagreed totally with CB going to means testing anyway - it should have remained universal

The way I understand iit is based on personal rather than joint income for the simple reason that the SAH parent (with a view to returning to work?) can protect their years of NI contributions.

To get the full state pension you need 35 years of NI contributions, so thks is the only reason why we claim.

I don't care if she goes back to work or not - I just don't see why she had to mention her DH's income. I should probably add that she's also told us in the past that he's on about £100k and she's on £60k. And good for the,, I just don't think they should complain that they don't receive CB as to most people that is more than enough to have a nice lifestyle.

However some good points have been made here so perhaps the title of my post should've been "to think that this woman can fuck right off"!!

Bear in mind as well that the couple who both earn, let's say, both £42k, only pay 40% tax on the last £2k of their earnings...Is it 20% on earnings above £10k -£40k ish? So they have roughly £70k after tax (not taking into account pension contributions).

The sole earner with a £60k salary would have a comparable income of about £46k. (Not considering pension contributions). Sobif the couple with the £46k income can manage to pay a mortgage and feed and clothe their children on £46k a year without cb, then so can the couple who earn more jointly!

Yes, Cosette, she can FRO! Totally agree.

Yabu.

60,000 salary where I live with 2 kids and small 3 bed is not a lot!!

The whole thing is utter none sense and totally unbalanced. Child benefit should either be for everyone up to 2 kids, with people having the option to opt out (if they really feel they earn to much and do not need it) or they should scrap it all together.

Personally, I feel that they should scrap it all together, all of these hand outs are too much.

OP didn't say 60k, she said 160k. At 60k I would say YABU but for 160k definitely not!

It was important that CB was a universal benefit because it meant that everyone was invested in the idea of a welfare state. The hrt payers were getting something back out of the system, in recognition that it's their money which is keeping the system afloat. It stopped them from feeling as if they paid for everything and got nothing. As a universal payment it also recognised that children are both expensive and important to society. And of course, it gave protection to women in abusive relationships where the husband withheld money.

Once you take the universal element away, you pit people against each other (divide and rule is working out very well for the tories).
The poor have no empathy for the wealthier, who may well have more money without actually being rich but who pay shit loads of tax and get little back in terms of support or recognition. The wealthy meanwhile just view the poor as contributing little but getting given CB and grants for their kids to go to uni and all the other benefits the state provides.

The long term consequences of divide and rule is that when the govt cuts the benefits of the poor, the squeezed middle remember that they got no support from the poor when their own cb got taken away, so won't support anyone else's right to keep theirs! They feel disenfranchised and disinclined to worry about the people at the bottom. Which is the overall aim of a govt who'd like to dismantle the welfare state. The unfair way cb is administered is no accident!

But you crack on OP, bitching about your friends. No need to see the bigger picture!

yabu

I lost almost £200 a month in child benefit and it has made life much tougher. I am not complaining as I know I'd get very little sympathy but there aren't many families who can lose £200 a month and not feel it.

I think you should stop obsessing about this friend and go and do something else tbh.

Why do people never get on this that the couples who both work and earn over £50k between them have huge childcare costs. Therefore the benefit which is relatively small goes towards these costs. SAHM have the choice not to have these costs so it is not as unfair as it looks.

I don't think the way the govt went about implementing the changes was right or fair. IMO they were pandering to some of the "grey voters" and Daily Fail readers who have been harping on about CB being stopped for years. They saw this as the quickest, easiest most short sighted way.

I'm a sahm and we have pay back some of it depending upon how much overtime dh works. We have a severely disabled child and realistically I cannot work. It seems unfair that other couples with a much higher joint income can receive it.

Excuse my ignorance please buy what is the cut off to receive child benefit?

*But (silly phone!)

Why do people never get on this that the couples who both work and earn over £50k between them have huge childcare costs. Therefore the benefit which is relatively small goes towards these costs

That isn't true once the children get older, or if they have family who provide childcare or have a subsidised work place nursery or work opposite shifts to cover childcare themselves. High child care costs are not a given and are more likely to affect a lone parent on just one salary of the same total amount.

It's £60,000 I think.

Not all working parents have massive childcare costs. You can't generalise like that. Many people have two grannies battling it out to have the kids for free. Other people have kids at school so only pay after school club or they and their partner work different hours and cover childcare themselves.

You would get help with childcare of you were a lone parent though wouldn't you? My understanding from here is that the childcare is discounted for lone parents.

I completely agree with freshly squeezed. We're paying over £1k
On childcare for one child, CCV help a little, how can anyone begrudge help of £80 a month more?

You lose 10% of it for every £1000 you earn over £50 000.

Lone parents do not get help with childcare unless they are on a low income in which case they would still qualify for child benefit.

The way it works is unfair, and that's why I am against the change.

If you think that higher earners should share more of the burden (which I do, and I am a higher rate taxpayer) then put a penny or two onto higher rate tax. That way ALL higher rate taxpayers shoulder the burden, not just those with children whose earnings fit random criteria.

I agree that this will signal the erosion/end of child benefit eventually, as the shouty middle classes no longer have an investment in it.