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?

Shall I fuck off too? We lost it because my DH earns over the threshold. BUT, the benefit was mine, not his. Some couples don't know what each other earns (Im and ex bank manager and yes, it happens) so in a round about way it took away his right to privacy over his earnings. I am self employed, earning about £5k a year and also a volunteer for a charity. Why should I lose what my DD was entitled to when I am not a higher rate tax payer?

Arguably, yes, we can afford to lose it, but it's hugely unfair the way it was handled.

its also flawed because it takes no account of living costs in that area - earn 40k in london you are broke, but 40k in the welsh valleys you are a millionaire.

UABU to inform a vast swathe of people who earn above the thresh hold who may have relied on CB or need CB to fuck off based on your irritation at one individual whom you dislike.

I think we should be moving towards benefits paid towards only people in need. And that goes for winter fuel payments too. Nobody unless disabled who pays high rate tax should be getting benefits. I don't think you should have a scenario where husband is a multi millionaire and wife stays at home but gets CB because she doesn't earn anything.

I don't see why it should be based on the woman's income alone. This suggests that the father has no responsibility to support his own children.

You are slightly being unreasonable. You don't know what people spend their money on or the type of responsibilities they have. Just because you earn a lot doesnt mean you have money floating around and wipe your arse with it. I know people who have chosen to spend 90% of their earnings (literally) on:

Private school
Mortgage
1 Family holiday a year
Bills
Home insurance
Car
Commute

They deserve their tax credits. I think everyone should get it and their shouldnt be a cut off. Hard workers and people with money put a lot into this economy and deserve something back out of it. Getting a bit bored of the constant rich bashing on MN. The same way not everyone on benefits are scroungers , is the same way people who earn a bit more dosh than you arent stuck up pricks who avoid tax (which sometimes is 50%)

It worked as an easily administered benefit to all children.

The erosion has begun and the resentment will now ease the path of more restrictions until only those fully supported by the state will receive anything. A great result for small state fanatics but a step backwards for social cohesion.

dreamingofsun I agree, 40k (aka 30k after bleeding tax) is peanuts in london. You can rent a 2 bed in hackney, or mortgage a 1 bed in enfield. Even people who earn 100k and live in london genuinely need it. Disposable and wealth are two completely different things sorry. I know people who live in (beautiful) council homes at £400 a MONTH who earn £50k together get free school dinners free travel for their kids free this free that free fucking school uniforms (John Lewis vouchers) their disposable income is obscene!!

Two doors down the couple with 3 kids paying a 3k a month mortgage using 95% of their earnings to live in a house their neighbors who earn 10k less than them get to sit cushty.

There's nothing in this county for people who bust their balls sorry

It was important that CB was a universal benefit because it meant that everyone was invested in the idea of a welfare

This is exactly correct. Am one of those single parent household who does not get it while dual incomers who earn equivalent still get to keep theirs. Dont expect my pitchfork when the govt reduces further the group of people that qualify for child benefit.

Love the suggestion that people who choose to spend their large income on private school fees need and deserve child benefit!
Free state schooling is a universal benefit, isn't it? If you choose to turn such a massive benefit down, you shouldn't cry poverty!

Child benefit was brought in at a time when most women were sahm. It was to empower women to have some income in dependant of their husband.

How ironic that it now discriminates against those very women (and men in same position).

i don't think anyone is crying poverty

its up to everyone what they spend their money on

child benefit should be given to mothers to spend on their children as they see fit

everyone should get it

"Mothers", Lemon, or "parents"?

Mothers get it

don't they?

Not parents as such

stop obsessing over what other people earn

its such a waste of energy

Lemon It can be paid to a father these days. The parents have to elect who it will be paid to.

aha

I did not know that

What fauxlivia said at 9:54.
I think one of the consequences of removing CB from hrtpayers is that now I and many others I know support the proposed cap in numbers of children you can Have before CB is stopped, becausee it won't affect us. It has created a situation where we're definitely less sympathetic to those relying on benefits because we get nothing out despite paying thousands and thousands in (we pay for schools, health provision, pensions - state pension will not exist when we're older. I won't say 'when we retire' because my generation will never get to retire either!)

I honestly don't know what the fairest way to give parents back some money to help ensure their children are cared for is.

I think the system has obvious flaws at the moment.

Personally I think an extra tax allowance might work, for all parents, so the amount a parent earned before tax would increase when they became a parent. This would be instead of child benefit and worth about the same. It would probably take less administration too and people would not have something so obvious to complain about.

Of course people who lived on benefits would have to receive to extra benefit for their children but this would be called something else.

I best F off then as someone who is not overjoyed that the child benefit issued to me is paid back through DH taxes. I don't see why I have no 'right' to complain. I am a former tax payer and am currently doing voluntary work in preparation for paid work when the children are a little older. I also help out on school trips and am a school governor. All these things I do without any financial compensation. I do not complain about this. I feel fortunate, but I am not in agreement that as my dh earns over the threshold set by the government (that I did not vote for) that means we as a family are no longer entitled to the CB payment.

We pay it back and I will continue to claim as I do not trust the Government to protect my status as a parent when it comes to pensions etc. Also policies/ circumstances and thresholds change. When I work again I will continue to claim and repay. As I would have done before the change was introduced. I have no difficulty with paying taxes or increased taxation, I do think that some benefits should be universal and protected and that will remain my position.

The key thing to me is that high earners should pay more in tax. As this is not happening to the extent I would like, it is something that they are at least not getting child benefit.

Not happening to the extent that you would like??

40% tax is a fuck of a lot of tax

I was going to say the same thing lemmonhope