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!

@Hellybelly84 It is above average household income.

Having lived in several countries we're really fortunate to have a welfare state and free healthcare. I know it's not perfect but it's way better than the US for example.

You should be ok with pension contributions and it'll be in next year's tax return. I doubt you'll need to pay back much.

You could look at it another way... she is lucky enough to earn almost double the salary of an average full-time worker...

I agree about the unfairness of 2 x 49k earners getting it etc but 50k as a single parent is not a pittance of a salary!

That’s helpful to know, I didn’t know that (not that I qualify to repay any)

It's tricky though. It's fairly clear that a single person earning £X,000 alone is in a better financial position than a couple earning £X,000 between them as almost all their living costs will be less - they are paying for fewer people. A couple where just one partner works and earns £X,000 is also better off than the dual-income couple as they have so much more free time! Some of that translates into saved costs especially childcare, but also the cost of other household jobs, or just the cost of overpaying as you don't have time to look for cheaper options. Or they don't save money but get the benefit of a nicer, more relaxed life. I think the problem is that child benefit is phased out very quickly so you get weird distortions when you are just over the threshold. If it was much more gradual it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

I didn't realise it worked like that. I had mine stopped when my partners income was over 50k. I wasn't working.

You make me want to write to my MP (not that it will do any good). Some of the comments on here make out your loaded-you have to pay mortgage or rent, car, food, every single bill, everything for the kids, childcare costs (inc holiday clubs to work during school holidays).

As you say, your total salary is less than 2 average paid adults e.g 2 full time nurses (and we know nurses are currently on strike for a pay rise!). Whereas, households with nearly 100k as their total household income (perhaps with no childcare costs if family help out) still get it. The system is ridiculous!

Yes, that’s right - the taxable salary (I.e. less pension payments) goes in on the first page, so the page where it says not to include pension paid before tax is just to stop you deducting it again. You won’t need to repay any, not for a few payrises yet!

There is specific script that they say you cannot include pension monthly contribution from your employer which gets deducted from your salary. I read again and again

The single parent argument aside (as in, it is going to be fundamentally more difficult to raise children on one income rather than two), I am slightly horrified at the level of comments wanting household income to be assessed rather than on an individual basis. If we want equal rights and equal opportunities for women we should not be encouraging or even bringing up this idea.

The fact is that men tend to be the higher earners still to this day, so assessing child benefit entitlement based on household income would incentivise women to leave/stay out of the workplace, or take less senior positions. It would increase the gender pay gap when this has been reducing.

As a household with 2 high earners it would feel to me like a slippery slope anything to do with my finances being affected by my husband's earnings. It smacks of the 50s when wives would be asked by banks for their husband's permission to take out mortgages etc.

Child benefit should be universal. Or even better child care should be free or heavily subsidised then we would not need child benefit. It should also have increased with inflation but has instead stagnated in real terms for years. Let's not fall into the Tory trap of pitting people against one another and instead see the bigger picture- that raising children is far too expensive in this country.

Sorry, it's actually 6th April to 5th April following year.

The average salary is over 30k. She is a single parent paying for everything. I agree shes not earning pittance, but surely the system is totally flawed if 2 people earning almost 100k can still get it.

If 52k is a brilliant household income, then why dont the government cap CB when your whole household earns over 50k?

Sorry meant to be writing Pension contribution by you to employer's pension scheme

Love that people think that because you earn £50k, you should not feel aggrieved at households with twice the income receiving CB when you can't or it is reduced. Either make it fair - ie £50k whether it is a single parent or household, or universal for everyone. Current system is blatantly unfair!

I’d do away with child benefit altogether. If childcare is the problem, tackle that. If wages are too low, tackle that. If housing costs are too high. tackle that. Giving households with a child in them money just because there’s a child in them is bonkers.

Maybe you could explain your dilemma to all the teachers that feel underpaid? So, what you're saying is, that as a Teacher you're paid too much to claim child benefit?

That somewhat contradicts the 'poor teachers' message pumped out by the media.

It is strange how every other child related benefit is means tested, but child benefit gets paid to individuals, whether they are single or not, to people earning salaries of 50k plus! It should be scrapped and become part of the Universal credit element.

What about wanting to see your kids in the early years and not be punished for raising them? Isnt that something we should encourage aswell as supporting women who want to get straight back to work? It shouldn’t be one or the other.

My Husband worked extra (taking overtime when he could) so I had the option to do that. We have no family near us to help either, so it would have been off to nursery at 9 months and my salary really wouldn’t have been worth it with that. I think most people would at least choose to spend more time with their kids in the early years if possible. I went back to work as soon as mine were both in pre-school/school and I dont intend to stop working until I imagine mid 60’s/70! My Husband earning over the threshold, meant no CB even though I wasn’t earning and looking after a baby and a pre-schooler.

Why dont they at least not punish women who stay at home for the early years and say every family gets child benefit whilst the child is under school age?

It is means tested! You get it up to £50k then it tapers down to zero at £60k.

I meant in the same way universal credit is via household, etc. Child benefit entitlement is set far too high. They should lump it in with universal credit for low earners and make it based on household income.

Agree

This. Totally stupid, totally unfair.

Financially speaking, anyone earning less than £37k (last time I looked) is not a net tax contributor. This is of course based on the average and, on an individual level, entirely dependent on which services you use.

I don't think people understand quite how financially disadvantaged single parents are by the tax system and how society is set up.

I'm a single parent and make £74k which works out at about £4100 per month. But my childcare costs are £1700 / month. So I'm left with £2400.

This is less than two people on full time minimum wage who would make about £2800 net between them and also generally be entitled to some benefits, help with costs of childcare, child benefit etc.

And my job is far more than full time hours and I have less time available than a two parent family would between them to maintain the house, clean etc. My costs are not all that different to a two parent family. Slightly lower food and clothes costs and 25% council tax discount.

I'm not expecting sympathy or government handouts on my wage but you can be on a very high wage as a single parent and not be particularly well off.

Many single parents also find the child maintenance system ineffective or even if they do manage to claim child maintenance the amount they get in no way reflects the cost of raising a child.

So I understand being annoyed that the one benefit which you thought you might be entitled to may be taken away when a couple who is much better off than you can claim it. It would be easy to tweak the system so that single parents earning up to £100k could claim child benefit but there clearly isn't the political will, in the same way that there isn't the political will to sort out the CMS.

@boatingforthestars Some people will suggest paying more into your pension or other salary sacrifice schemes, in theory it's a good idea but bearing in mind you're in the 40% bracket you'll only be giving back 40% of it.
So if you bumped up your pension payments you'd be paying 2k a year out to save about £500.... the maths don't work.

Of course you are putting the money into your pension, that is something you need to include in your maths.
As for the 40% comment, I don‘t know what you are trying to say.