To think the child benefit arrangements are unfair?

[MobLife]

Only just clocked this and I'm still not 100% sure I've got it right because it seems wrong...
So if 2 parents are both earning £49,999 and hence taking in almost £100k household income they can continue to claim full CB

But

2 parents where the household income is way under that (lets say for arguments sake £70k) and one parent is earning the greater proportion (between £50-60k) will either get a much reduced CB amount or potentially nothing at all?

How is that fair??!

I don't know why they introduced it, but a family where two parents are working and both earning, say, £35-49k is likely to have significant childcare costs, unlike a family with one big earner. Childcare is expensive in the UK and juggling life with two working parents is hard, so for that reason I don't begrudge them getting CB. The paperwork if you happen to earn between 50-60 however is ridiculous.

You say that you would love to see those you have mentioned, being given a code to override losing Child Benefit payments. However, you only lose out on Child Benefit if you earn over 50k per annum! Pretty sure that there aren’t many normal workers in these categories that earn over 50-60k per annum!! The only ones in these categories, that would benefit, are the much higher paid workers (such as managers)! It wouldn’t make any difference to the nurses on the ward, but would definitely help out those sitting in their safe little offices (incidentally last Christmas, in my local hospital, the managers were allowed to go ahead with their Christmas jolly, but sent a memo to ward staff to cancel theirs’)!

The higher earner does not even have to be a parent! I was stung for repaying 2 years' worth of CB after my partner moved in with me. I am not the child's parent, we weren't married and had separate finances (ridiculous as this would have put us off moving in together if we had known - in which case partner would have continued claiming HB and UC).

Thank you I didn’t do that as I didn’t want to rock the boat too much and also I feel I’m being greedy as I am working now, I am claiming for our elder child but he doesn’t seem to be getting taxed, not sure if it was because I was claiming before the new rules. I was going to opt in but not claim money so I could get NI credits but as I’m claiming for my other child do I need the extra credits?

And what of single parents?

This with bells on!

It's very depressing that mumsnet does nothing to campaign on this issue despite it being raised many, many times here. They never even mention it when they interview politicians.

Something like France for example, where the household’s income is used for taxes/benefits, taking into account DC. Very simple to implement and has been working well over there for decades.

Sounds like common sense and much fairer. If only...

Probably the same way it ‘helped’ widowed parents to go back to work by cutting widows pensions to nothing after 18 months.

Absolutely nothing, means tested or otherwise. Not a tax break in sight for widowed parents.

the 30 hours is a misnomer and catch 22 you need to be working to get the 30 hours but you need the 30 hours in order to work! Only benefits those who don’t actually need it to afford to go back into work

Administration costs are an absolute red herring given the system has been automated for years
I agree with this. To take CB away the system considers both partners (the total household) so can easily work out the total household income.
No one says that 50k is a small salary, of course not, it’s about fairness. I know quite a few families in this position. In all circumstances there are at least 3 children, at least one of them with additional needs and husband’s job involves travelling. So it’s not exactly laziness or unwillingness to work full time on woman’s side.

It was all David Cameron’s doing. He said defending this that the “broadest shoulders should bear a greater load”( 2010)
The policy was supported by Libdems, at least they voted for it as far as I understand. And NONE of the successive Conservative governments corrected the unfairness of this decision.

When the Child Benefit Tax Charge was brought in, this was explained as being because it would cost more to administer than it would save the taxpayer.

Reducing it when your salary went over a certain amount, until it was lost altogether, was easier and cheaper than calculating household income and means testing it.

So they can start assessing and pooling household income to appease people who are angry that two people earning £49,999 don't pay the tax but it will actually cost the country more.

No idea if this argument still holds nine years later but I do think it's ridiculous that the threshold for paying it hasn't changed for nine years despite inflation.

Tbh if you are earning 50k you don't need it I think if they averaged household income to 40k max and those under get it the government would save a fortune no household on 90k need the extra 21 pound a week

How is not fair ?

It is designed to specifically make sure that both parents are working and rewarding them.

Lovelycheesegromit

Maybe I'm being thick, but how can your marriage not be registered? If he won't take that step (why is it solely his decision?)then go ahead and claim the benefit. As another poster mentioned it can be paid to you and he will have to take the tax consequences .

Scrap child benefit payment altogether and include the money in the universal credit system, making the necessary adjustment to allowances and taper rates so families on lower to medium incomes are broadly unaffected but the inequality between single and dual income higher earners is addressed.

NI credits for SAHP can be dealt with separately like it is with partners of higher earners now by registering to receive the credit but no money.

Would that work?

It’s not fair because a higher household income pays less tax. A single parent on £60k gets no CB, whilst a couple on £50k each, ie household income of £100k, get full CB.

It's not fair but it's cheap and easy to implement through the tax system.

Once a parent earns £50k their tax is adjusted to account for CB.

Much harder to administer if you are calculating total household income and cost of doing this is higher than savings made.

So people are happier - it's fairer - but it costs the country more money than it saves.

I don't think these people are underpaid! They earn good wages, well above the average.

benefits for kids are not popular as despite it being the opposite lots of the population think that people are having lots of dc.

This affected me. My dh earned £57k when we had dc and was born the year this rule came out. I went back to work but couldn't cope, I had no other help and we had a nanny paid for by my entire salary because I didn't earn a lot but needed childcare that would cover my working hours which were too long for nursery and childminders.
I lasted two years like this all the while my dh wouldn't give me any money because he was just nasty which was unexpected when I had dc but he just overnight decided I had to pay for all childcare as it was 'saving me' from becoming a sahm.

Anyway, I daren't claim child benefit and give him an extra tax bill as some others on here said that's possible, if your dh already abusing you financially (mine have me pie charts of anything I spent money on, (one month was about how much I'd spent on chocolate the next was coffee!) you don't go giving them an extra tax to pay! I think it's wrong that two parents earning the same don't receive it.

It does leave women more vulnerable than when it was for all people imo I would have benefitted from it, in the very least whilst I was on statutory maternity leave.in the end it's for the dc. And all dc should receive it, especially as I'm not convinced it was a massive saving to the public.

But there are already ways to calculate total family income. When my children were small (just before the Child Benefit was changed) we used to be eligible for Working Family Tax Credit. We had to complete a form with our total family income. Why couldn't this same form be used?

It's not fair, it was never fair.

It was a poor idea, badly executed

Much better to have kept it universal (admin already in place, fairly cheap to administer, keeps one of the last vestiges of original concept of welfare state - that everyone benefits rather than the newer concept of it just being a safety net)

Then I would have let the cash value be gently eroded by inflation, and instead put more cash in to the family benefits (TCT, WTC)

I cancelled it as hit 60k (with bonus, although pension would take it under) and received this letter.

Is this suggesting I reapply for it?

If you register but opt out of receiving the actual payments (which is what we were advised to do because we earn over the threshold) then NI number for the child and NI contributions are still calculated.