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!?

It should not be means tested. It's not about the sums of money involved, or the need, it's about buy-in to the social contract whereby those earning contribute via taxation to the whole of society and everyone benefits. People that don't benefit start to think they're not part of society and resent contributing, hence @KosherDill's comments.

I'm fairly sure kosherdill will be benefiting from other people's children paying taxes to keep society afloat once they have retired, even if they don't have children themselves. Not to mention the fact that those supermarket workers, order pickers, NHS staff, power station workers etc etc are actually other people's children...

It's essentially a tax allowance that recognises the increased costs to a household that contains children, or at least that's what it used to be.

@sassbott that is a very good point!

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

No its not right. It used to be paid directly to the mother, so at least some women had the chance of keeping the money.

I don’t mind the idea of means testing it but means test it PROPERLY. My DCs are too old now anyway but a few years ago. DH was over the threshold where he had to pay back about 50% of the CB I received. I work in a school so only 39 weeks per year and actually earning so little that I paid about £50 tax for the whole year. Next door BOTH on just under £50k pa still got full CB!

A means tested benefit should be calculated on total HOUSEHOLD income.

Child Benefit should not be means tested because it should not exist at all.

It was originally bought in to encourage more people to have children after war had decimated the population. It's completely unnecessary now.

It should be frozen at current levels for those currently entitled to it, but got rid of for new claimants in a years time, to allow those who currently budget for it to not lose out.

KarmaStar
But did it go to poorer families. The "rich" are heavily taxed too paying over a third of their salary in taxes.
People with higher income allowance have financial woes too, it's a bit naive to think they don't. People with jobs ànd mortgages can still loose their homes if they fail to keep up payments.
This rich v poor narrative is a bad perspective to take.

@Mundra

It should not be means tested. It's not about the sums of money involved, or the need, it's about buy-in to the social contract whereby those earning contribute via taxation to the whole of society and everyone benefits. People that don't benefit start to think they're not part of society and resent contributing, hence *@KosherDill*'s comments.

I'm fairly sure kosherdill will be benefiting from other people's children paying taxes to keep society afloat once they have retired, even if they don't have children themselves. Not to mention the fact that those supermarket workers, order pickers, NHS staff, power station workers etc etc are actually other people's children...

It's essentially a tax allowance that recognises the increased costs to a household that contains children, or at least that's what it used to be.

This. It was one of the trade offs when NI was originally introduced. It is really interesting that when I was younger it was called child ALLOWANCE, and seen as an allowance to offset tax and NI against additional cost of having children The government at some point (not sure which flavour and when) changed the name to child BENEFIT and thereby began the process of chipping away at attitudes that accepted this was an offset allowance for anyone with children no matter what your income

@Polyanthus2 they do not promote large families, maybe in the past but not now.

It was removed as a cost saving exercise.

I think people's incomes as individuals were considered rather than household to encourage both parents to work.

If it was done on household income and one parent earned £50k, there would be a disincentive for the second parent to earn £10-£20k.

@ddshocker

Is it not means tested In Scotland and wales then?

Yes its the same in Scotland. There is a high income benefit charge if you claim the money and earn over £50k. Once you reach £60k and still get the CB then it all needs to be paid back. The CB is paid back through a self assessment tax return done by the higher earner.

You can still claim it if you earn over £50k but some or all will need to be paid back

Or what @sassbottand @FourTeaFallOut have been saying in the time it took me to post.

Child benefit if claimed by a SAHP counts towards your state pension. That’s why I believe it’s encouraged you claim it even if you have to pay it back.

I'm in Ireland and I have a friend with 4 dc (one set of twins) her dh is a TWAT he only gives her enough for groceries and that's it! She gets €700 per month in child benefits...it is her LIFELINE!!

[quote Hoardasurass]@ddshocker yes it is means tested in all of the UK however your title says England.
I believe that it should be means tested, though I think that instead of going on a single wage ie if I parent earns over £50000 it should be on the entire family income as currently you can have 1 parent working for £50000+ and supporting the whole family on that wage who gets reduced or no child benefit yet you can have both parents earning £49999.99 so a combined income of £99999.98 and they will still be entitled to full child benefit which is both morally wrong and clearly unfair[/quote]
But the non working parent could just get a job? The family with both parents working probably have to pay a lot extra childcare rtc so it isn’t fair to benefit from having a stay at home parent, and another on a high wage

That is correct @ozanj

YABU it should be means tested.
A bugger concern in the benefits system is self employed ppl on UC, the rule is that even if you earn little they will assume you've earned 40hrs x NMW and assess your entitlement as such, so expecting ppl to live on imaginary money., so no ppl earning £50k don't need £20pw

@00100001

YABU

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

Eh, you start paying back at £50k not £400k

@saleorbouy

KarmaStar But did it go to poorer families. The "rich" are heavily taxed too paying over a third of their salary in taxes. People with higher income allowance have financial woes too, it's a bit naive to think they don't. People with jobs ànd mortgages can still loose their homes if they fail to keep up payments. This rich v poor narrative is a bad perspective to take.

True. People earning above 125k a year pay 60% tax and lose their taxable allowances. That is mors tax than the salaries that those under the CB benefit limit earn in a year. It has been argued previously that if anything child benefit should be extended and targetted to the highest earners because it’s their kids who are statistically also going to become high earners / high tax payers.

It is uk wide. At the current time that includes Northern Ireland

When my children were young things were tight financially and I really relied on my child benefit. As I was in receipt of child benefit I also felt that I was making some financial contribution to the household.

A few years ago we were no longer entitled. I still claim it and DH has to file a tax return to pay it back. In part it’s out of principle, child benefit is often paid to a SAHM who has no other income of her own and it can be the only financial independence they have.

Uk residents look away now..

@ddshocker this narrative that people also have against ‘rich’ claiming CB. The proportion of people who earn £400k (as a PP threw out) is tiny. People need to understand that this saved very little, infact I remember reading that the cost of administering/ implementing it cost far in excess of what the government saved.

It’s a political tool. Being used to create divisiveness. Rich families are judged for their excess and private schools. Benefit claimants are judged for relying on the state.
Rich feel aggrieved at how much tax they pay and how little they utilise it, driving more of a wedge within society.

Keep us infighting between us so we don’t look at what the politicians are doing. How convenient.
Decouple a part of the population (whom because it’s based on income you could argue have influence because of their income) from benefits, is that demographic then going to fight for the benefits system? Or shrug and say ‘not my problem’ when benefits are eroded further?

How more people cannot see this and blithely trot out ‘the high earners don’t need it’. No we don’t, you’re right. But our voices and votes should matter when it comes to provisions for those most vulnerable in society. You can’t have it both ways.

I'm in Ireland and there is a suggestion in some quarters that it should be taxed. I think that is a reasonable compromise.

That said, they'll never do it. The "stay at home" lobby is very strong here and they would lose too many votes.

@AhNowTed

Uk residents look away now..

Ireland? If so I’d expect double the amounts considering the stance on abortion up until recently. Any country that forces women to have babies they don’t want should be paying 100% of the costs.