To ask why child benefits is means tested in England?Do you agree?

[ddshocker]

Just that really? Why is it means tested in the U.K.? Do you think this is fair considering the financial abuse some women can be suffer even if their dh is a high learner!
In Ireland it's not means tested at all and it is double the U.K. amount...why is the U.K. so adamant in making it unfair!?

@Dishwashersaurous

It undermines the universal nature of the state, and removes more people from thinking thatnthey are part of the state.

I think you're right here. To keep public support for benefits we need some of them to be more or less universal. This is how you get support for high tax and high welfare in countries like Scandinavia - everyone can see the benefit.

Some services should be universal regardless of income- like education and the NHS.

I think it was a big mistake to remove child benefit as a universal benefit. Some families have large incomes, but these families may also have large housing and childcare costs. If a family really doesn't need it then donate it (and it would be great if we could have a wider culture of giving).

It's deeply annoying for families at the threshold, as to claim you have to file a tax return. It's a weird area of tax policy where we base it in household rather than individual income, and where individuals within a household become required to disclose their income to each other (of course, in many households partners freely discuss what they earn with each other, but some don't)

Raising children is expensive; and a universal child benefit provides an important sense that we are all together in a wider society- the challenge on how best support children in low income households should be in addition to this

[quote shouldistop]@dementedpixie how does that help household income if it's being paid back in tax? [/quote]
It depends how much over the threshold and which threshold they mean. If its between £50 and £60k they get to keep some.

No tax and benefit system is perfect. There’s always a balancing of ensuring benefits are well targeted (to those who need them) against ensuring good levels of take-up and low admin costs and preventing fraud.

The current system ensures families with no earner above £50k qualify. That’s the main aim. For them, it’s easy to qualify and apply and for the government crucially it’s cheap to administer which is vital as it’s a low level benefit anyway, so high admin costs can negate the benefits of it.

Yes, those with one earner on £62k won’t qualify for anything, whilst a household on £99k split evenly probably will. But the giv knows the £60k household have £60k and so their ‘need’ isn’t that great. They might feel it’s unfair, but need is the key issue and the current policy ensures households with less than £60k will definitely get some. Purpose achieved.

Yes, it would be good if they could save the expenditure going to households with £60k to £99k. It would mean there was more cash to spend on those that need it. But the cost of administering it would probably exceed the amount of cash given in these benefits. That has to be considered. It’s the key reason it’s as it is. The government always has to accept it will spend some money on benefits to those who don’t really need them, and that the ‘cost’ of that is worth it because it means a cheap admin method can be used and ultimately and overall the gain and net benefit exceeds the costs. It’s about the bigger picture, not individuals who might be getting a benefit they might not need.

Who doesn’t like the current policy? Is it those on low incomes who are suffering poverty? No. Because those people receive it. Who doesn’t like it? It’s those with a high earner (over £60k) who doesn’t like to think of other families who have more cash than them (2 earner households) getting it. Does the government care that they feel a bit disgruntled? No, the purpose of the benefit isn’t to even up incomes of the affluent, but the provision of the benefit to those under £60k. Is it achieving that? Yes, Job done. People feeling a bit out -out - unfortunate side effect, but nothing the governments concerned about.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

I agree - if the threshold is £50k people receiving this are already more affluent than I am, which is annoying. It should only be paid to people in genuine need now you know how I feel paying increased social care when asset rich elderly protect their kids inheritance- do you object to schools?

I agree with you about the asset rich elderly.

I don't object to schools - children need educating - and state schools will pick that up for the genuinely needy. If anything schools need more funding to reduce wealth divide in the future - everyone should have the chance of a good education, not just those who can go private or afford to move to the catchment area of an outstanding state school.

@shouldistop

Means testing might be fair but the current method isn't.

A couple earning £49k each so £98k can claim it and not pay any back but a couple earning £51k and £10k for example can't.

Totally agree, it's outrageous.

Also, If someone earns 60k - after tax and NI they'd probably bring home about 44k.

@DaffodilDandilion

I know of a few families with reasonable earners who don’t need the child benefit and just put it into a savings account every month. I can see why they’ve tried to means test it because I don’t think the government should be funding a savings account for someone’s first car or whatever. I think the current system of means testing is wrong though and penalises single parents.

Yep.. single parents who are mostly women. Why is this policy not considered prejudicial towards women? I don't understand why it cannot be subject to court proceedings as it seems to be a policy which discriminates largely against women.

50k would be about 37 take home because of tax and NI.

@dementedpixie yes but I assume the pp meant £60k. Also if you're over £50k you then have to put the money aside and fill in a self assessment which not everyone can do.

@DomPom47

I don’t understand why child benefit is means tested but the winter fuel allowance for the elderly is not.

Because old people are more likely to vote Conservative.

@00100001

YABU

Why does the family bringing in £400k a year need an extra £20 a week?

The policy is

• one parent can not earn more than 49k
• if a one parent family earns more than 49k they do not qualify for child benefit.
• if a two parent family earns 49k each, they can qualify for child benefit.

@KosherDill

As a taxpayer i don't mind helping families in true financial insecurity but don't want to be paying my hard-earned wages so much more affluent households than mine get a cash handout merely for producing offspring.

This. My DH and my wages combined don't meet the threshold (don't get CB as grown up kids) but we should pay so households on double our income can? Pah!

When I were young... you got CB for the oldest child only. Once they reached 18 it stopped and went down to next youngest and so on. So my parents got 18 years for my DSis then 3 years for me. Stopped completely after that (obviously). AND you get free childcare - we got nothing! (Didn't want to disappoint the baby boom bashers)

I think the rules are unfair in the way they affect single parents. We don’t get it if we have one income over 50 but dual income households have the benefit of a much higher threshold or same threshold but parent at home to save childcare costs

@EarringsandLipstick I see your point. I knew someone else whose husband was very financially controlling. The mother was able to have some money to feed and clothe the kids.

@Gonnagetgoing

I don't know much about CB myself but I recall in late 80s a couple I knew with 2 young children (under 5), she was a close friend - they didn't need it at all and she said she used her CB for her hair colour/cut appointments!

If she was a STAHM with no income, I don't think this is necessarily wrong.

The policy is

• one parent can not earn more than 49k
• if a one parent family earns more than 49k they do not qualify for child benefit
• if a two parent family earns 49k each, they can qualify for child benefit

In all those cases you can still claim CB. If there is a higher earner over £50k in the household then some or all of the CB would be paid back via self assessment by the higher earner. Between £50 and £60k you'd pay back a proportion and once you go over £60k it would all be paid back

@CayrolBaaaskin

I think the rules are unfair in the way they affect single parents. We don’t get it if we have one income over 50 but dual income households have the benefit of a much higher threshold or same threshold but parent at home to save childcare costs

Absolutely. Are there any lawyers about? Would this policy stand up in court?

In your title, you said England.
If your OP, you said UK.

As if they are interchangeable. They are not.

England is not the UK. If you're talking about england then says england. But if you're talking about the UK then say the UK, dont just call us all England.

[quote apprenticewage]@me4real 8i can't imagine a billionaire wasting 30 minutes of their time applying for fucking child benefit. They would earn more in that 30mins in interest off of their savings/investments.

For instance if there was £100 lying on the pavement bill gates wouldn't bother wasting his time picking it up as he would earn more in that second it took him to pick it up...[/quote]
They have staff to do it don't they.

@caringcarer

Personally I just wish they would give all children free school meals regardless of age and free school uniform. That way all children would genuinely benefit.

They will provide free school meals to children in Wales regardless of parental income soon. Personally, I wonder whether they should have sorted out the nutrition of those meals first, for some children it might be less healthy than their current packed lunch.

@Itsalmostanaccessory I have explained what happened. I didn't mean to use England in my title. I don't assume they are interchangeable.

I don't object to schools - children need educating - and state schools will pick that up for the genuinely needy. If anything schools need more funding to reduce wealth divide in the future - everyone should have the chance of a good education, not just those who can go private or afford to move to the catchment area of an outstanding state school
see if you extend this thinking child benefit should go to all, or the threshold needs to be far higher. It should be given to all children, just like state school is offered to all children.

Absolutely. Are there any lawyers about? Would this policy stand up in court?

IANAL but what makes you think it wouldn’t? Plenty of other things can be seen as ‘unfair’ to single parents or single earner households - e.g. the personal allowance system means 2 people with a salary of £50k total pay less tax than one person with a salary of £50k.

@Polyanthus2

I would say Ireland is a Catholic country that encourages large families - this contributes to that. Supporting large families is a good thing.

I haven't read to the end of the thread so k hope someone else has picked up on the daft & pejorative post

It's not the 1950s. Ireland no more encouraged large families than anywhere else. We are diverse, multi-ethnic & multi-cultural so while there are many Catholics, that doesn't influence social policy as it might have.

It's truly amazing what uninformed nonsense people will write.