Abolish High Income Child Benefit Charge....

[Mewli]

Because it is an ill thought of tax. Any tax that is signed into law must at least be broadly fair. If the Government could not be asked to design a law appropriately then they shouldn't collect this tax. The HMRC taxes those families with a single person earning £50,000 and above, but leaves families with couples earning £49,999 each . I feel this tax was allowed to pass because it was just easier to convince the electorate that these "rich people"(earning £50,000 and above should pay more ) instead of designing an appropriate tax.

you're in the system so it will be paid

Yep - I earn too much on my own to get it, but if DP (who is a stay at home parent) and I earned not much less than I earn jointly, we would qualify. That's daft, whatever you think of the level at which it's paid.

It should be universal, non-means tested. If people are not stakeholders in their society, they will cease to value "benefits", and be happy when the government start cutting them for others too (e.g. no benefit for 3rd Lu's child from April).
Governments begin by cutting from those that the majority feel do not 'need' or 'deserve' it, but where does it end?

Thousands of mothers 'missing out' on pension rights

Thanks all. A Good mix of responses .There is definitely a feeling that earning £50k and above is a lot of money. I live and work in London . With a family £50k doesn't go far. I felt that Child benefit represented a tax allowance for parents who had children. Other countries allow you take certain tax breaks based on the number of children you have. I think that is a fairer way of doing things.
Out of interest Emerald do you live in the South East?

As someone who earns over 50k It's shocking to see the level of entitlement and Whingeing on this thread.

Even on a single wage no one on 50k should expect child benefits.
If you are struggling financially you are making poor decisions with money.

I claim it and repay it because it makes me fill in a tax return form and because I will probably need (and be entitled to it) in a couple of months anyway when I am on mat leave. However, whilst I don't mind not being able to keep it any more generally, as I can see I earn too much to "need" it, it does massively irritate me that household income is ignored in favour of just one higher earner.

The government manage to police a couple's earnings when it suits them such as for child tax credit and other benefits. But when it doesn't suit them, they claim it is too difficult and don't do it. No one minds tax or benefits being charged or distributed fairly on the basis of income/assets or whatever (or they shouldn't) but it is really irritating when fairness is thrown completely out of the window as in this case.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/567393/CH2_CH3_combined_for_web_11_16.pdf

Page 7, section 4, allows you to select that you do not want to claim child benefit as you or a partner or are a higher income earner but that you do want to protect your state pension. The Government website actively advises you to do this.

Yes Away it is not really a tax.
It is definitely unfairly applied. In a very lazy manner I must add as well.
It just recently came to light that claiming child benefit counted toward NI credits. So all those stay at home parents whose partners earned 60k and above and stopped claiming would miss out on NI/pension credit. That is so wrong!

Foodtime - but why should there be a distinction between joint and single income? Forget the amount, that could be £10,000 or £1,000,000 on that specific point.

Foodtime! I don't think being upset about paying unnecessary charges makes one entitled . There are other things to do with money after paying the necessary tax. I may want to do something else apart from pay unnecessary charges. I may want to support missionaries or charities. Donate to research, help the homeless. etc

I think it's fair.

If a two-parent household are both working and earning £49,999, then they will probably have very high childcare costs. Which those with a SAHP won't have.

Single parent families, something needs to be worked out for them, but I'd suggest the first place to look would be the child's father NRP.

I totally agree OP.

With a husband who earns nearly 90K, and I earn 7k, I agree wholeheartedly that WE should not get Child Benefit.

But that my neighbours, who both earn about 40k each, get to keep the full amount......... I am not sure why it is seen that it costs less to run our household and therefore need no help, while those with the same amount of children and household income do.

AyeAmorok
*
If a two-parent household are both working and earning £49,999, then they will probably have very high childcare costs. Which those with a SAHP won't have. *

But as per my post above....... we have no SAHP, our childcare costs are EXACTLY the same!

I do think there should be a cap but it should be the same for all. It's unfair that a couple both earning just below the cap can still claim yet one person earning above the cap but less than another couples combined income can't claim it or will end up having to pay it back.

The whole benefits system is a mess. Dp recently got a promotion and obviously with that comes an increase in wages. We informed tax credits quickly, yet due to the way the syaten works we have still ended up owing them thousands. It's no wonder some people end up 'trapped' on benefits.

The point is the government want 2 working parents, not one non tax paying partner

Families with 2 FT working parents never benefit from anything. The only good thing about this is it finally benefits them, well needed with childcare costs that families with SAHP don't have

I mostly claim because of it counting towards pension contributions (unless I've got that wrong?)

this is why we claim - money goes towards child care

Families with 2 FT working parents never benefit from anything

Well - the tax system works in their favour (2x personal allowances etc) - so 2 parents both earning £49k pay a lot less tax than one earning £98k. But I always thought that child benefit being paid universally was a bit ridiculous and, yes, it's not unreasonable that the government incentivises two parents to work if that is its policy. (I say this as a SAHM, by the way).

You can still get NI contributions as a SAHM without money being paid. You have to register but opt out of getting the money paid. Much less faff than being paid and then having to pay it back.

But a couple who earn 49k each and still get the CB pay far more in tax BACK than the single person earning over the 50k threshold - so yes, they may get £80 in one hand but pay far more back in tax and NI in the other.

Dunkling you can't be working FT and earning 7k, so I presume you're part-time? Therefore you don't need childcare when you're not working.

It's a bit of a blunt instrument, I grant you that, but in the majority of cases, two full-time working parents will need childcare that a one high-earner and one SAHP or very part-time working parents won't.

It won't apply in all cases, but it will probably apply more often than not.

We have a joint income of around £50k. I don't feel bad about claiming CB for my kids. We don't get any tax credits or anything and both work full time around each other so don't claim any help with childcare costs or anything. This impacts on family life considerably. I save some of the CB into savings accounts for the kids - they will be left thousands of pounds in debt if they want to go to Uni and as we have younger kids we probably won't be able to help the older one as much as we'd like.

I think the winter fuel payments should be looked into as well.

Well, you get 2 tax free allowances because you're 2 working people. Of course an non working person with a working partner shouldn't get a tax free allowance for them to offset against

Ah MN ate my post.

2 x £40k = take home just over £60k = £20k tax & NI

1 x £80k = take home just under £54k = £20k6k tax & NI

(Excluding pension student loan etc - just tax & NI)

The single earner family on the same gross pays more tax than the double earner family.