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.

Ah Trainspotting you didn't add commuting costs either :) I don't get how people don't understand how £50k is not really a lot of money. The system is so skewed with tax credits and housing benefits. If you take away all those things, let us really see how much you need to run a household when one or more parents works

I also though they didn't mind if it wasn't fair (and I agree high earning single parents are most adversely affected) because long term aim was to get rid of it completely.

gillybeanz , it's not the fact that an income of 60k means you shouldn't get CB , it's the unfairness that one person earning 60k gets nothing and 2 people earning 100k can get it . The point is it should be on household income irrespective whether that is 100k or 60k . I'm all for saying set the household threshold at 50k , then I'm also in favour of means testing the winter fuel allowance and free TV licences for pensioners .

The current rules are a horrible illogical bodge. Either go back to giving it to everyone, or give it only to people on other benefits as part of their overall payment.

I don't care whether they give it to those who currently don't get it or take it away from most of those who do, either would be better than what the rules say now.

Floral

I know and I totally agree, it's wrong. I agree with means testing for all benefits.
I can't stand the fact that the poor have lost so much and hate that we have become a nation who says "If you can't afford children then don't have them"
But I think that as this seems to be the case now it should be across the board and if we all have to be responsible for ourselves without support then that should be all, especially those who don't need benefits.

There are people earning up to 100k getting handouts when there are vulnerable, ill, disabled losing out, it's absolutely disgusting.

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

OP you are being ridiculous. The tax you pay goes towards all the schooling for your children. All your children's healthcare, your maternity care. I am guessing that eaither you or your partner work and the other is a SAHM. The taxes you pay allows you to do that.

Also If you want to donate to charity get a job. That's not a what tax payers money is for.

The current rules are indeed a completeillogical bodge. One of the earliest examples of coalition/Cameron incompetence.

I think it would be better (cheaper and simpler to administer) if it remained a universal payment, but the cash element was allowed to wither (by freeze or below inflation increase). The bulk of spending going on to a means-tested benefit.

Linking tax - which is individual - to the income stream of another person is retrograde. This should never have gone near the tax system, and the sooner out of it the better.

The other advantages of universality is getting as many people covered by the NI credit part of CB as possible.

It should be based on household income.

I think it's fair. I can't believe the amount of people moaning about their dp being a higher earner and them not working but losing this.

Why should it be household income? So those who have a dp with capacity to earn more aren't more penalised than the rest of us?

Fucking middle class problem quite frankly.

"It should be based on household income."

Then it should be decoupled from the tax system.

I agree it should be decoupled from the tax system. But thy could just get rid of it altogether. They could just say that they won't pay for any babies born in future (10 months from whenever they decide, so you're not adversely affected if already pregnant) and it gradually withers. A long term approach but it would work.

When I was born you didn't get it for first-born children. Bizarre really. Your costs are highest with your first because you can't hand down (things from friends/relatives notwithstanding).

There are winners & losers with any cut off point with tax systems. I think it's outrageous that 50% of people prop up 50% of the people in the UK as it is & those who do well for themselves are clobbered at ridiculous tax rates & then penalised again for earning too much.

I agree Naze. But this suggestion is penalising those that are working.

Or it's benefitting those who are both working. Depends how you look at it.

I just don't understand this greedy attitude a lot of people have.

Me and my other half are both high earners. We are not entitled to any tax credits, benefits etc. We also both use private Heathcare and schooling. We both understand that we don't need any handouts and should go to people who need it more. Both understand that as much as we work hard that we are extremely lucky. People on min wage work much harder than us and struggle more then they should.

It's not a competition to see who can get the most from the state. If someone gets more money than you why the fuck do you care.
There has to be a cut off point.

You're missing the point foodtime- I'm saying 2 people earning £49,999 should get it but a couple with one earning £55k shouldn't because if you can afford the luxury of a SAHP you shouldn't be relying on government benefits at all

Most logical thing is to abolish it entirely.

Then as a society decide at point it is appropriate to support people with the direct cost of having children, as opposed to school, health etc.

It really mustn't be abolished completely, because that would penalise SAHPs as there is currently no other way to get NI credits for time away from the workforce whilst raising small children.

I suppose they could all pay class IV voluntary NICs, but I expect if that was required it would be the expense too many for many households (or just too easy to put off and forget) and yet another generation would find themselves short of the required contributions for a full state pension.

There is also a basic difference between the original Bevinesque concept of the welfare state - where all gave and took and were all in it together in a socialist society, and the very utilitarian and capitalist approach of minimal safety net only.

Edith agree that there has been a change in the type of society are most people aren't even really aware.

An alternative could be used for ni

Yes it could SE softy most easily by reinstating the old universal system which provided it (before the incompetents started fiddling with it) as all the systems needed to run that already exist.

Then you could just freeze the actual amount of cash. The KISS approach, which is usually the cheapest in the end and least fuss.

It's as much of a tax as the "bedroom tax" is.

Yes it should be done on household income, but this is very expensive to check. The idea that people earning 50-60K now have to do self assessment tax returns is ridiculous but there you go.

A warning to anyone who opts out of it because you or your partner earns over 60K: Make sure you apply for child benefit but tick the box to say you dont want it, or you will not receive national insurance credits for years you do not work but look after children, and your children will not automatically receive national insurance numbers when they turn 16!

trainspotting I think you've said what I was trying to say much more eloquently.

What Barbara said above - It's also unfair when two people earning £30k still get all the CB and their household income will be higher than a single earner on £60k because there are two tax allowances plus they pay 20% tax, whereas the £60k earner pays up to 40% tax and there is only one tax allowance.

The government want two parents to go out to work because the govt, needs all working adults to pay into the economy. But the government aren't even attempting to try and support the family when both parents go out to work - the stress of looking after the ageing population, sick days needed, unmatched work holidays compared to school holidays. They just keep piling more money into childcare financial support rather than try to incentivise flexible work and part time working.

Leading to the situation we have now - heavily penalised SAHPs without a real solution to working and looking after the family. I think when the pension crisis really hits we'll see an end to SAHPs altogether and I think that will be a real loss.

The "big society" that the Tories like to talk about and rely on volunteering, running local libaries, volunteer PCSOs, volunteers helping with loneliness in OAPs, grandparents covering childcare in school holidays. All that needs people with free time and financial security. Keep up with the incessant demand that people need to be working with raising retirement age and reducing SAHPs and you will end up on the same path we are now - paying for support that families traditionally would have provided.

I still claim it. Dh pays the charge through his tax return. I earn a decent salary now but in years gone by child benefit was 'my' income. I'm not prepared to give it up because it makes my husbands tax affairs simpler. There is something deeply wrong in that to me.

I don't think it's immoral to claim it or unfair - the example of both partners earning a salary 90k combined doesn't take into account that they will have 2 sets of commuting costs, hefty childcare costs etc etc

They'll also be both paying a lot in taxes each so why shouldn't they have done sort of a rebate? This is the squeezed middle we're talking about not the rich!

I do agree the single working parent is the loser in all this though but actually think it should have stayed universal as is a relatively small bill compared to other benefits with low fraud and admin costs