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?

Hmm that's interesting

There is a lot of paperwork involved in this, isn't there?

I don't know whether it would be fairer just to give an automatic higher tax allowance for people with children.

YABU

Because as already stated some people have lost theirs but others who earn up to twice as much have been able to keep theirs.
If the system was fair to all then I would agree with you, but as it is YABU.

Well said Faux @ 9.54.

And don't get me started on married couples tax allowance - married couples can be denied child benefit as their income is jointly considered. But tax allowances cannot be shared between a married couple as their income in this instance is considered and taxed individually!

capsium I'm not that old but I do remember being able to claim an additional tax allowance for my eldest child.

And don't get me started on married couples tax allowance - married couples can be denied child benefit as their income is jointly considered

I'm confused, I thought for CB the higher earner's income was the sole consideration - not joint income.

Can'tBeBothered Do you think just having a higher tax allowance for people with children would be a fair way of simplifying things?

And, finally, I find your comments about returning to wirk or not to be really unnecessary and, frankly, judgey
This.

Is that 60 each or combined?
I agree Faux, my husband and I are reasonably paid and a few family members think we must be rolling in it! But they are in council houses and so their house out going is much less than our mortgage and cost of repairs/ upkeep. We both work shifts so when we have first baby later this year, once mat leave over, out childcare will be very expensive as not many places will be open to accommodate shifts so a child minder may be needed. It's all relative though isn't it? Not just salary to consider. X

It really needs to be sorted out so that it's calculated on JOINT income.

However, YANBU about the whingers. Oh boo-hoo you only earn 60K

If either of you earn £60k you will lose cb, but if you earned upto £60k between you, then you would keep it.

If it was based on duel income I would have little problem with it.

However between myself and my husband we earn £65k a year and we have to pay back Child benifit yet couple who earn £95k a year jointly may not have to. It's not a fair system.

The two of you could earn £49,000 each and still keep cb, nurse. As soon as one of you hits £50,000 though you start to lose it, with £60,000 being the point at which you'd lose all of it.

capsium the reason it was phased out (took a long time) and child benefit brought in was to take the money out of the mans hand and put it into the womans, yes I am generalizing please forgive me, the situation work wise, money wise isn't the same anymore but it would worry me that it could leave vulnerable women in abusive relationships at risk. I would rather tax rates for higher earners were increased and cb was universal again

Going too put my head above the parapet and say it's not as simple as the maths. We earn above the threshold as teachers but live in London, pay a lot to commute, have student debt that's being paid.... Our "huge wage" on paper actually isn't very huge and we aren't well off.

To not too

I'm not sure Can'tBeBothered. Tbh it is all a bit mind boggling.

If a woman was in an abusive relationship and didn't work the child benefit as it stands can still be paid to the husband - which if he is controlling it probably is. Or it would be paid into a joint account which he could easily keep tabs on. I don't think you can really tackle abuse through the benefits system.

You get it but than they increase your tax by the same amount so if one earns 60k you don't get it. As a family we don't get it anymore and I really miss that 188 per month. It was a cushion for expenses and enable me to have some money of my own as a sahp. Really unfair if one earns 65 and the other 16k say whicn would be situation if I returned to work.yet 2 on 45k get it.

What is more, I think rather than advantaging 2 income families through the child benefit system, it would be fairer to subsidise childcare more.

It didn't affect me but I can see why high earners would be peeved that they no longer get child benefit. But I couldn't feel a lot of sympathy for them I'm afraid. Do I think people who both work do a bit better with child benefit. Not at all as they are both working and contributing.

I don't think people should complain for not getting it when one of a couple chooses not to work, or to work very little.
It is very unfair on single parents though.
OP's friend obviously doesn't need it as has more than enough money already, according to her. Should stop whingeing.

I don't agree with higher earners losing child benefit. Me and my husband don't earn enough to be affected by the changes, so my feelings are not based on losing money personally.
The reasons I don't agree with it:

1. As cantbebothered said! it leaves women in abusive relationships at risk of having no income at all and no means of planning an escape to safety.
2. The single income / dual income rules makes it unfair.
3. The cost of administering the system make it not cost effective.
4. It seeks to further divide and rule because those that have lost child benefit are more likely to resent lower income families who pay less taxes and yet get to keep their child benefit.
5. It was the last universal benefit we had and I see it as a slippery eroding away of the welfare state.

I also wonder how many larger families who currently get child benefit are going to be up in arms if the current govt are re-elected and bring in their planned changes to cap child benefit at three children.

It couldn't be paid to the man in the not so distant past it could only be paid to the woman. The benefits system used to be very sexist but it was also then paid in cash as well not into a bank.

My whole adult life taxes have fallen, interest rates have fallen, when labour came to power in 97 the first thing they did was massively increase benefit rates. It's about buying votes but it isn't sustainable eventually you run out of money and that is just about where we are now.

Depends on how you assess contribution vivienne.

If dh and I earned his salary between us, instead of him being a higher earner and me sah, we would pay less tax and keep cb. The state actually gets more money from us as a family as things stand.

YABU. It's a deeply flawed system in which a household with one person earning 65K gets nothing whereas two people earning 90K between them are entitled...