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!?

If they want to use it as a means of population control then cap it at 2 kids. Kids aren't cheap and very often people just above the thresholds do struggle.

Finding work that is "school hours" is easier said than done and often the SAHP is at home because of the irregular and long hours the higher earner works, including people who travel for work away from home for either 1 or 2 nights a week or people who are away for a month at a time with oil industry or at sea.

Nb. I use ‘rich’ in my PP as that verbiage that drives further divisiveness. Vs. Poor.

It’s awful. And I fear of what more the government will do in this area to remove even more.

@HalfShrunkMoreToGo

We're in the position where I'm on more that £50,000, DH is on significantly less than £50,000 so we can't claim it but other households with a combined income of 99,000 could so in that sense it is unfair.

You can claim it. Anyone can claim it. The higher earner would have to pay some or all of it back depending on how much they get paid. Between £50 and £60k you only pay some back and the once you get to £60k it would all get paid back.

We opted out of payment once dh started earning over £60k.

The cap should be relative to household income not an individual salary, however I do think it’s fine that there is a cap. I don’t think child benefit does anything to help women who are financially abused, that isn’t what it is there for and no upper limit wouldn’t really go any way to meaningfully help anyway.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Slightly off topic but those who are just over the threshold should check if they can still claim it as it based on taxable income after deductions such as pension contributions. In our household the higher earner put more into pension so that we are below the threshold and can claim the full amount. The lower earner can then put less in the pension pot and keep more of their earnings. We see the pension pot as a shared asset so it'll be shared in the future.

@Ozanj

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.

You can claim and opt of payment and that still gives the NI credit

@Isonthecase

The other one that really frustrates me is the cap for the tax free childcare. For a person earning £99k going to £101k you lose money as you lose £2k a year per child and that £2k extra is taxed at 40% already. Means there's no point earning £100-£110 k as we'd actually be worse off. I know it's not as much of a problem as the similar effect seen at the lower end of the scale but for me it just shows the slightly bonkers tax system we have to endure in this country. Why does it have to be so complicated?!

I agree. That was one good thing about tax credits, they sort of bridged that tailing off gap. It’s like the £16,000 (if it’s still that) benefit and pupil premium cut off. Earn £17000 and you are so much worse off. It shouldn’t just drop off

I'm in favour of means testing child benefit but think it should be done fairly and should be based on household income and not just if one parent is over the threshold.

I wrote to my MP about this when the rules changed and was told they didn't have the information to assess joint income despite the fact that child tax credits were based on household income.

I also think it's wrong that council tax/rebate is based on house value.

Got enough for your article now @ddshocker?
What's a journalist earn? Enough to pay back child benefit?

@SnipSnipMrBurgess

That's a ridiculous statement.

Oh looks like I didn't quote the laughable comments about Catholic ireland encouraging large families or ireland stance on abortion (no mention of NI abortion stance considering "great" Britain is so liberal).

The child benefit here is an important thing. The UK government thrives on keeping the masses in poverty. Your universal credit and unemployment payments are insulting.

Perhaps it's time to look inwards?

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

The current system is unfair. We have a total household income currently of £57,000 and don't get the full amount, but households can earn £99,999 and get the full amount.

Genuinely high earners don't need it. But its middle income families missing out.

Middle income???! £57,000 is a genuinely high income! Much more than double what we live on. Agree the system is inconsistent but hardly unfair.

I'm really glad that posters like FourTeaFallOut have mentioned the political context for the switch from a universal benefit. It was not really thought out - hence all the anomalies mentioned here, such as Truebuys not getting it despite earning less than a household with two parents.

At the same time the government tried to create another rift among citizens by complaining about EU residents working in England whose children remained at home sending money home for their children.

Consumer journalists and campaigning organisations have constantly recommended that women whose husbands earn more claim child benefit and pay the increased tax instead.

Somebody mentioned the old adage about how if you wanted children to benefit you paid benefits to the 'purse not the wallet'. It's a completely sexist phrase but the reality remains. You just need to read some of the posts here by women with financially controlling partners to know this is true. Of course there are women who don't spend the money on children but benefits should work for the vest majority, not a tiny minority of those who misuse them.

I also wanted to acknowledge the campaigning of Eleanor Rathbone who was the first politician to publicly point out that income is not always fairly distributed in households.

I'm so glad you posted this ddshocker. It's an incredibly important subject.

I'm a single parent and earn £75k so don't qualify but a couple with a household income of £99k can claim it. I also pay more tax so have less money overall.

I would also add that we do often forget that having children is the natural default position of having Sex (obviously excepting those who are sadly infertile)
. When child allowance was introduced oral contraceptives were not available, abortion was illegal, and many couples relied on withdrawal method. Not very reliable. My own mother had an abortion after her third child , she was mentally sectioned at the time. Under the law it was illegal - they wrote it down as a D&C . Don’t ask me why my dad thought having sex with his severely unwell wife was a good idea.

Add to that until 1970s many women were forced to give up higher paying jobs when they became pregnant or even married. Sure, low paid and often insecure labour was there for them , but women paid the price , not men of their lost career. I’d like to say that has ended with equal pay act, maternity leave, etc etc but it hasn’t. The “gender” pay gap exists. I experienced that live and kicking during 1990s and my pay never caught up from that all through my career. My pension is now impacted by that.

Couples could not always plan their families and child ALLOWANCE was away for all mothers (as default) to ensure they had some basic cash to pay for children needs irrespective of how generous their husbands were with housekeeping , given many had given up, or taken pay freezes as a result of being mothers this was a small amount of recompense to cover their childrens needs.

Whilst we do now have a better ability to plan our families, there are still a minority of people who suddenly find themselves pregnant even in shitty financial circumstances. The vilification on MN about people who have children in poor circumstances in horrendous on some posts. It’s almost as if you have to decide to get pregnant if you are having sex, not that you have to decide and take action not to get pregnant and, yes, that sometimes does not work out.

Child Allowance went a little way to help costs for families in proportion to family size. It is a complete myth it enabled families to have more children, the 2 child limit was disgusting, horrific and failed to acknowledge basic biology - certainly it stank of male entitlement of sex but magically no babies. Putting blame on mothers for additional children.

My ex husband earned a good wage but i rarely saw a penny of it other than a monthly big shop, i used every single penny of my then family allowance on my children, i really don't know what i would have down without it. It paid for every item of clothing and footwear and also paid for school trips.

I’m currently on maternity leave with statutory pay and the child benefit payment is the difference between us breaking even or not.

But I think I’d prefer a system of higher statutory maternity pay, and more subsidised childcare.

Scotland also have an additional child benefit payment for those on lower incomes with children under 6. Atm its £10 week from april it will be £20 a week.

They are also looking to raise the age to 16 soon.

There are some variations with additional help in the different uk countries but the actual child benefit from dwp is not fair if one household of 99k can claim but another single one of 60k cannot.

At the risk of sounding like I'm of a political persuasion I despise, it's not really about tax payers though I know it ultimately is. Unless things have radically changed, the additional child benefit to higher earners would be paid by borrowing money and adding to the national debt.

That said and to resume normal service, before a political party starts talking rubbish about a magic money tree, they can understand the difference between household and national accounts then talk about the tens? hundreds? of billions spent on test track and trace, PPE and defrauded COVID support and all the other creatively channelled expenditure and be sure these contracts, loans and expenditures were managed adequately. And not currently be petrified about what happens after they leave office unless they can maintain air cover.

@LowlandLucky

My ex husband earned a good wage but i rarely saw a penny of it other than a monthly big shop, i used every single penny of my then family allowance on my children, i really don't know what i would have down without it. It paid for every item of clothing and footwear and also paid for school trips.

But that is a personal domestic issue, if the spouses aren't on the same page about finances. Which should be resolved before the children are even contemplated.

Benefits to prop up a dismal marriage at the expense of fellow citizens.

@TeachesOfPeaches

I'm a single parent and earn £75k so don't qualify but a couple with a household income of £99k can claim it. I also pay more tax so have less money overall.

That's totally unfair. Only the sum household income should be taken into account, regardless of number of earners.

@FourTeaFallOut I agree with your statement

Basically, when the middle classes are untethered from an investment in a particular system then it becomes far more economically and politically vulnerable.

The further up the economic scale people are the more likely they are to vote.

People often look at their own situation and not the overall picture. I like data. I did used to do research in to social policy.

@ChristinaXYZ average salary in the UK is currently just over 30k PA. using the IFS online tool and assuming it’s a 2 child household 59k puts that family as 73% better off than the rest of the country. It’s a blunt instrument but a decent indicator.

Link here for anyone interested.
ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

@Ozanj - your comment is a bit rich given abortion is illegal in part of the UK.

It's the inconsistency which causes the issues.

Two parents earning £49k each, total household income of £98k, get the benefit.

Two parents, one with a SAH parent and the other on £65k (higher wage made possible by the other parent being at home), don't get it.

So, are we taxing on personal income or on household income? The costs to bring up a child don't change (which is what CB is allegedly for), but the lower household income doesn't get it?

And if we are being taxed on household income (whether or not one gets CB), then if the SAHP doesn't use any of their tax code as they don't earn, why in this instance can't the working £65k parent use the unused tax allowance of the SAHP?

And yes, there are real inconsistences for those who earn £99,999 up to £110k where they take away the personal allowance, in this band it makes real sense to maximise pension contributions etc to minimise pay to get back under £100k to get back the personal allowance, but the political soundbite (and reality!) that someone on £100k+ really should have other things to worry about!

@Polyanthus2

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

Seriously? Have you time machined back to the 50's?