To feel annoyed about child benefit threshold?

[Mirenda]

I earn not far over the threshold to claim child benefit so am not going to put in any claim.

Maybe it seems completely unreasonable to many but given the large amount I pay in tax and NI every year, I feel annoyed that we get nothing back for this, especially with costs of absolutely everything going up.

If we could claim it, we would use it to fund baby related groceries or the heating bill in winter, both of which can be quite expensive.

I don't understand why the threshold can't be more towards 100k mark like the childcare costs threshold as once you're into six figure salaries that's a different ball game (although those people also pay hefty amounts of tax so why shouldn't they see something for it too?)

I expect to be slated for daring to question any of this as someone who earns a comfortable amount but when you've put into the system over the years, it would be nice to get more back when it's for your child.

I have a very wealthy elderly relative who still received the government's pensioner cost of living payment last year regardless of her massive income. They didn't means test that but they will set limits and thresholds for benefits for children rather than make it more universal.

You are not being careful we are a family of 10 and spend less than £200 a week and eat well. So as not to drip feed one family member is a baby and one an older toddler.

After my pension is taken off I earn around 54-55k so I roughly have to pay pack half the child benefit. However I am the sole earner in the family and everything comes from my wage. We are not entitled to any other benefits because of my income.

Why not just pay the other £4k into a pension? What's the difference in terms of after tax?

Why not just pay the other £4k into a pension? What's the difference in terms of after tax?

On £54,000 you pay £4,599 in NI and £9,032 income tax leaving £40,369 or £3,364 per month

If contributing an extra £4k into the pension you would then pay £4,492 in NI and £7,486 income tax leaving £38,022 or £3,169 per month, and if you have 2 children you then get an extra £173 per month so total £3,342 per month - £22 less per month now but a significantly bigger pension pot on retirement.

(Just realised a mistake above as @nopenotplaying said she does get about half the CB so the difference is a bi bigger)

I'm a bit flummoxed as to why so many people on here seem to think taxes and NI are some sort of enforced personal savings account, and moan about "paying in and not getting back".

Paying your taxes doesn't entitle you to getting money back out. It just makes you not a criminal.

Thats the main problem in the UK.

The benefits structure is not contributory.

If I earn £100k/year, why should I get the same unemployment benefits as someone earning £30k/year?

The UK has created an economy that pushes people into any job, so you end up with a sea of low income people with a small slice of higher income people, as people cannot survive of the universal pittance you currently get for unemployment.

If benefits were contributory (like in most European countries) we would have a far healthier economy.

The UK is basically the worst place for "pay lots of taxes" and "get very little back" when you need it because of this reason.

To give some thoughts about the OPs question.

If there were decent HMRC IT systems, then married couples taxes could be linked together and there be a joint threshold over which child benefit ceased (or reduced gradually/tapered off).

The more there are universal benefits of whatever kind, the more indirect taxes such as VAT are kept high, or public expenditure squeezed, or if it is service provision, that the provision is underfunded. So I'd be in favour of some of the pensioner benefits being means tested, at least in the first few years of the state pension age.

The problem with household income is coercive control of women and the reason the forerunner of child benefit was introduced in the first place.
It is odd many clamour to return to that and the systems meant originally to free women are again becoming entangled.
Eg household income for uc, one person in household even if not the claimant for cb, step parents or even just no relation boyfriends of mums income taken into account for student loans.

I'm 100% certain it would be cheaper to have cb universal to main carer and state pension with no pension credit universal as no means testing makes it almost fully automated to run.

We live more than comfortably on 40k gross household income. Mortgage to pay from that plus a loan from when loads went wrong when we were skint and I was out of work. Plus we can save £600 a month. 60k would have us absolutely minted.

If you claim cb when your dp earns too much how does it get paid back? My dh says I shouldn't claim it because he has to pay it back monthly is this true? Would we effectively receive £0 every month then? I want the pension element.

You can either choose to "claim" it without receiving the payments at all - you just get the NI credits. Or you can receive it and your DH will be liable to pay it back once a year on his tax return. Your choice. I "claim" it without receiving payments because I can't be having with the faff of paying it back.

He has to fill in a tax return. But it’s important for NI contribution and future pension as you say. So he will just have to suck it up.

You can opt out of actually receiving the child benefit but still continue to earn credits for state pension.

You only need the pension credits if you’re not paying NI btw - there’s no benefit to doing it if you are.