To be pissed off about paying back child benefit

[pinotnow]

I am in a sector that was awarded a pay rise this year - though our union is fighting for a higher one. The rise was from September but our school (yes, it's teaching) didn't pay it until November when we got months at once. HR always send us a pay statement at this time of year and I have just opened mine and seen I am now on approx £52k (been teaching 18 years and am head of a core subject in a large secondary school). I understand I now have to pay back some of my child benefit. This is a pisser as things are pretty tight and I'm a lone parent who gets no CM (ex is a total waste of space - I've gone through CMS). Also, I wasn't expecting it this year (I was on £49k last year and now I'm worried I've missed some sort of deadline for paying it back as technically I've been on this for 5-6 months, but only just realised.

I really haven't got the head space for this now and a quick Google has just brought confusion. As soon as you move forwards a bit in this shithole country you move backwards it seems. Any advice would be great!

Glad to hear the mp is willing to help you! I’m now earning over 60k so not even allowed to earn the cb so I’m glad all these rich people will stop stealing money from the government! I support your case.

I think it'll be great entertainment! We should crowdfund a livestream.

Presumably your MP is up front about all of their income and don’t have any offshore —tax avoiding— accounts.

Talk about hypocrisy! My word the effluent posts here in support of obtaining child benefit by deception are a fine example. Let's take this to the other end of the scale, that's assuming that some of you here are in touch with the reality of those well beneath them. So, someone is offered extra work hours but refuses them because they would lose their Universal Credit. That's wrong too, but on a different level. Both are bleeding the system deceptively. Tighten up a load of these rules and there would be more funds in the pot for our NHS etc..

Cabinet members evading millions in tax is fine but someone investing in their pension (thus reducing burden on the state later) and taking £20
a week child benefits is wrong? Okay.

It is quite interesting that we've now had a couple of posters, one of whom at least appeared to be genuine, has asked what the difference is between ensuring continued eligibility for CB and doing the same for other, lower income benefits. And the answer, fundamentally, is nothing. Where there are bottlenecks like the ones we have at 50k, 100k and at various lower points for people on top up benefits depending on circumstances, some people respond to that. Which is why the existence of these bottlenecks isn't a good thing.

Entirely genuine. Full disclosure - I don’t agree with CB (think child poverty needs tackling elsewhere) but I was genuinely asking what the difference was.

Yep, you were the one I thought was real!

30p Lee?

A civilised society is one that invests in its people, especially its children. You can see where not investing in skills and charging youngsters to learn a job like nursing has got us.

We now need to import these skills at a rate of half a million a year without getting anywhere near sufficient levels. Child benefit doesn‘t even scratch the surface. It will take a whole lot more spending than £20 a week on a child to rectify the neglect and managed decline of the last 13 years.

And 'civilised' people don't work the system.

Ok if it's 30p Lee I'm not even joking about the livestream.

It is shit especially as ur one income a family on £49k still get it all 🤷🏻‍♀️

Stick the £2k in ur pensions as additional contribution and then u won't need to pay it back in future.

Yep. As with all tax thresholds: the tax free allowance, 20% tax, 40% tax, the thresholds for tax free childcare/ 30 hrs etc. All of it should be based on household income. It massively penalises single people and single parents in particular (almost all of whom are women).

She isn't on a high wage.

The whole point is that it should not be an income related benefit. And even if it were, it should be based on household income like all benefits and tax should be.

I'm not arguing for the current system. I'm pointing out that OP is an entitled whiner for describing the UK as a 'shithole country' because well-paid people like her find their state benefits, funded in part by lower earners, tapering off.

It's not funded by lower earners. Low income people do not even fund themselves: their taxes do not cover their state services. A very small proportion of high earners only are net contributors to the tax system so you can wind your neck in, nobody on a low income is funding anything towards anybody else at all. They are receiving a subsidy from the higher earners that you clearly resent, despite them supporting everyone else.

But in the case of a SAHP in likelihood the one working would earn over the threshold if that's the issue regardless of what the other one earns if they were back at work. As it's a decision people make they shouldn't be treated the same as single parents who are running a household on one wage for reasons largely out of their control, no.

Indeed. And also obviously as well as being penalised by the tax system they will have much higher childcare costs because they have to provide financially and look after their children. Comparing the situation of a lone parent to a family with two adults who have 48 hours per day to choose to work or look after their children themselves, so can have zero childcare costs, is laughable.

Yes. The same as the withdrawal of the tax free allowance, 30 hours of childcare and tax free childcare at £100k creates another one that's even worse, resulting in an effective tax rate of almost 80%. Not for a family with that same income split between two people though, only for those earning it on their own. It's absurd.

Maybe go to a country where it really is a shithole. Line up for food and receive scant medical treatment.

Lol. Seems many areas of the UK are now what you are describing here.

I agree with this at some level (I'm against penalising single-income families). On the other hand, if everything I earned was taxed at the level my partner is taxed it would be so depressing I don't think I would bother!

I agree.

I agree with this at some level (I'm against penalising single-income families). On the other hand, if everything I earned was taxed at the level my partner is taxed it would be so depressing I don't think I would bother!

Well that is the situation the single parent is in by working harder. And there is only one of them with additional childcare costs for every hour they work. So you see the issue: the unfairness you perceive it would be for you, is doubly compounded for them and yet that is not a hypothetical situation but their reality.

Personally I think it’s an outdated benefit and certainly shouldn’t be given to people who don’t actually need benefits. The lack of money from your ex is a bigger issue

I wasn't saying it works be unfair if I was taxed at my partner's level, but it would put me off working. What I earned after tax wouldn't cover the childcare costs, so what's the point?
That must be how single parents feel about putting in the extra hours to get the pay rise, so I definitely sympathise there. I think single parents should get priority on child benefit, but not sure how that would work in practice.

What I earned after tax wouldn't cover the childcare costs, so what's the point?

childcare is only 3-4 years. the point is you continue with your pension, and you don’t step of the work ladder- it can be difficult to get back to the level you were at, you are now used to talking on all the household work which is a difficult adjustment if you do go back. Long term you will be better off staying in work.

also why is childcare costs only yours? Surely you are only paying half, your dh pays the other.

If I wasn't working, would look after the children myself. I'm just giving examples of things that would put me off working in the hypothetical situation that everything I earned was taxed at the same level as my husband. Some of this might be psychological, some of it might be short-term thinking. You need to factor in that people don't want to miss their children growing up, and that working while looking after small children is stressful - so it's got to be worthwhile financially.