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?

Not everyone wants a free school meal though. Haven't some schools offering them made them mandatory? So you can't send in a packed lunch instead?

I do agree with you re incentives though.

We don't get it
I'm main bread winner
When I'm on mat leave we will hugely struggle
I appreciate I'm lucky overall but would appreciate the support when our position changes from off not later I. Year when I prove this years income is less

Free school meals for infants only has already caused huge problems in schools. And why pay for school meals for all when 90% or whatever of parents can afford to pay themselves? Why throw money at the well off?

If you are well off, you can pay your children's university fees upfront and pay for accommodation etc upfront, rather than them getting a loan which they have to pay interest on. That's a huge advantage over less well off families, who end up paying far more for the same university experience.

Obviously, bus passes and fuel allowances for the elderly should be means tested, even if the testing is fairly broad brush to save admin costs.

OP how do you feel about me? DH is the sole wage earner. We live in Essex and DH commutes into London, expensive.

I can not work because of poor health. I don't claim any benefits apart from my bus pass.

We have 2 school age daughters. Our youngest has SN. We pay a huge amount of money for her hobby as it might help her get a job one day.

We've never had a foreign holiday and not had any family holiday for years, we can't afford it. Our telly is 24 years old and we bought our sofa off ebay for £270.

But DH earns too much for child benefit. What's left at the end of the month? Nothing if we are lucky.

Ah yes the means testing that erodes the sense of a greater society, costs far more to administer than before and that those with advisers, or who are wily enough themselves, can sidestep.

I do think ideally it should be universal as means testing just builds more resentment of those in benefits (in some people).

However I don't get it and would not complain about that for my own sake as I okay (two kids. Both of us working. Both earn over threshold.)

It is not fair that two working people earning just below threshold should get something that another family with less overall don't receive.

Op, your friend is not unreasonable for not wanting to be sahm.

If she calls herself the girl who has everything that is just common or garden bragging and trying to provoke envy. Ignore is my advice. She doesn't sound that nice overall although I don't think you should judge her choice to work (or her dh's choice not to be a sahp).

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

Instead of means-tested benefits (including tax credits) I'd like to see every adult in the UK paid a non-taxable benefit of say half the median wage, plus child benefit for any children. This would apply to all adults regardless of income/wealth/circumstances. Then have a single rate of tax of 50% on all employment income. That would mean that someone on median wage would neither be a net contributor or recipient, someone below would be a net recipient.

For example, if median income were 20K, each adult would receive 10K benefit, and:-

• Someone with 20K employment income would pay 0% tax net of benefit
• Someone on 40K income would pay 25% tax on average
• Someone on 60K would pay a 33.3% tax
• Someone on 100K would pay 40% tax
• Someone on 200K would pay 45% tax.

No-one would pay 50% or more marginal tax, but the higher your income the closer to 50% your average rate of tax.

(I would also abolish employee NI contributions, and phase out employer ones. While they were being phased out they would count as an employer contribution towards the employee 50% tax bill, and as such be a taxable benefit.)

No-one would pay 50% or more average tax (not marginal)

vicar you can be a hrt payer and not be wealthy enough to pay fees and accommodation up front. The university loans situation takes no account of the family's other financial commitments.

This is really the squeezed middle debate. You earn a lot on paper but not much left at the end of the month. Yet people are saying 40% tax is not a lot. It is when your family does not qualify for anything - you don't qualify for tax credit, no child benefits and your children have reduced access to uni loans.

These are not the people living the fat cat life or minimising their taxes.

YABU! I bloody miss my CB. We have 3 dcs, just over the threshold, very expensive mortgage, due to buying a house for the first time last year, as couldn't afford to before. It is ex-local authority, before anyone jumps on me for having a mansion. Just discovered we have to find £700 a year for school bus for dc1 in September to go to her local secondary, before anyone jumps on me for fancy education, etc. Our money is tight. Dh has big commuter costs to work. The unfairness RE joint income of 90k still getting it really boils my piss. This government are twats and you sound horrible BTW

Morelike, as I've said before I'm not judging her about her decision to work. But who tells people they're going back to work "even though DH earns over £100k"? Her words, not mine! I think that's a stupid, bragging thing to say and it makes it sound like she's just showing off.

If you have to repay cb through your tax, that is taken out of your £10k allowance so you are not getting the first £10 of your earnings tax free. Or have I completely misunderstood that? The workings of hmrc are a mystery to me fed up of dh getting incorrect tax code every year despite self assessment form beibg right in front of them when they generate the tax code

Thousands of us live in the South East and other very expensive areas on combined incomes of less than 20K.

To hear people moaning on that they 'only' earn 50 large and are struggling and need CB really fucking sticks in the craw.

Benefits should go to those who need it most.

Yes Jack, so those on joint incomes of 90k don't need it either right? If you're on less than 20k, you'll get other benefits on top, particularly if you hve 3+ dc which is my situation. I'm assuming your post was aimed at me.

Its people like fortifiedwho are screwed. Lovely that x 49,000 earners in the same household get an extra 1k a year for doing f* all.

I didn't need cb - clearly as we are still solvent despite losing 200 quid a month

but it was a bloody nice thing to get, I used to get the dds hair cut regularly and the odd bit of clothign for them

now I don't - cut their hair myself and buy clothes from ebay

nothing major but it was a nice thing to have

ihategeorge, on these sorts of issues, you always those myths about a 60k ish or above earner! Its not all BMWs and John Lewis for a one income 60k earner in real life.

why do you think the conservatives dont like universal benefits and why do you think any government ever introduced universal benefits? (the two questions are linked)

universal = for everyone

once they are means tested, it becomes 'us' versus 'them'
once benefits are something only poor people get, then you can reduce them and reduce them then abolish them, and less and less people will care

we could do the same with healthcare and education
who cares if the healthcare and schooling is crappy if its only for the poor?

beware the politics of envy, and divide and rule
better that we all have a stake in something

dont worry about cb, it wont be around much longer for anyone

Not aimed at you ihate - I already said upthread it's unfair that it's not calculated on joint income, but I do think it should be scrapped for joint incomes over 50K. Not a popular view on affluent MN I know.

We earn 25K joint. We get NO benefits whatsoever except CB. I can't feel sorry for a family on 50K, I just can't.

Re the 3 kids thing...well we have one. Can't afford any more. Having a large family is YOUR choice.

We had 3 kids when we still had CB. I did factor it in to the cost. That was the only benefit we've ever had BTW. Imagine if the government takes CB away from everyone now irrespective of how many kids they've got. There'd be fireworks on here. I'm not bothered anymore. They can do what they like with CB as far as I'm concerned. I won't be shouting from the rooftops to save it. That's what happens when you remove universal benefits.

child benefit now

child tax credits next

working tax credit after that

free healthcare gone

pay for education next

guess what? those 'high earners' are not going to defend any of those things if they feel they have been excluded from the system they pay 50% of their income towards

We can't get any, and I have to agree that it stopped for us. DH earns 80K and I was a SAHM. I couldn't really argue when it was decided he earned too much and welfare help ceased, not on his wage, but it did hit us, all our CB had gone on kids clothes, birthdays etc, so we didn't have to budget, and so I had to go back out to p/t work. I can't argue with that.

But yes, we have a budget! And this is why the workings of it are unfair.

Household income is household income. Yet if DH earned half what he did, and me the same, we'd still get CB. But same household incomings.

Takingthemickey the squeezed middle are the ones who would benefit if higher taxes were used to reinstate the child benefit. If the rate was set as for example hrt +3% over 60K then with 1 child you would need to earn about 95k before you pay more extra in tax than you gain from the child benefit.