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 earn £60,000 a year, you're child does not suffer or go without because you don't get £20 a week back. Compare that to someone on a lower wage and you realise that some families DO depend on that money. Child benefit is exactly that - to benefit the child, your child already has a step up from many of their peers by having comfortably well off parents.

Frankly, the only change I think needs to happen currently is that child benefit should be based on combined wages rather than individual wages because it's not fair that a household earning up to 90k can it get whereas a single parent on 60k can't.

I don't know if YABU.

You say you earn just over £60k and your partner £25k so that's heading towards £90k yet you're happy for those on a combined income of £100k not to get it. Besides, you've been told how to top up your pension so you can now play the game too while topping up your own pension, earning a high salary and claiming CB too. You are in a good position IMO.

You have a high income OP, so I'm struggling to see how you need help with food and heating on that income.

Yep and bearing in mind the costs of childcare. We are looking at over £500 for 4 half days with 30hr funding (which doesn't cover the full cost at all given not just term time required and longer hours than gov covers) and 2 half days for baby. And that's with a sibling discount. If they went full time.... !

If it was done on household income the kids who don't get it are the kids of women trapped in abusive relationships with financially controlling partners.
Reforming it so that OP doesn't suffer will make those kids suffer instead.

Yes it's an imperfect system but any reform that involves a different way of categorising people into worthy and unworthy would harm the poorest and most vulnerable too. Going back to making it a universal benefit would be totally fine but the books would have to be balanced elsewhere.

I agree OP, it's ridiculous. 50-60k is not a huge salary these days and the self-assessment element definitely worries me about claiming in case I do it wrong.

My DP earns half what I do so we have a much lower income overall than so many who are able to claim.

Yeah this really bugs me too.
DH is a relatively low earner (£24k) so it irrationally bugs me that we could both earn £49k and still get it, and be in a better net position.
I can’t put my extra into my pension easily either, as my work have a habit of chucking random unknown bonuses into pay when you are least expecting it. So I never really know how much I’ll be paid in the tax year.

I earned 16 thousand last year single parent of a child with Sen so for context you absolutely don’t need the money - you do get money back a health care system which meant you didn’t pay to give birt , a education system you don’t have to use , free prescriptions on the nhs for your children.
you earn £85 thousand would you really notice that money ?

Oh come on. 60k is a massive salary. You do not need CB.
Yes, there is an argument for means-testing per household; and yes I'm aware the threshold hasn't changed in line with inflation, but none of those additional arguments negate the fact that 60k is a huge salary - double the average - and it's not the best use of taxpayers' money to be giving additional benefits to people earning that.

And fwiw yes I do earn more than 60k, and no I don't feel "rich" - but I'm well aware I'm significantly richer than most.

You have 75k coming into your home PA, I’m struggling to understand how £96 extra a month is going to help as much as you say.

I have 3 DC and CB is everything to us. I’m currently having to use a credit card to pay for food to avoid using a food bank, we’re on the breadline despite DH working 50 hour weeks and me having to stay at home because my job as support worker doesn’t pay enough to cover childcare.

We moved to a cheaper area to afford our home and living costs, we buy everything second hand (apart from underwear), we drive a second hand car, we go camping for holidays etc. Surely there’s things you can do instead of paying more into your pension to swindle £96 a month? We had to opt out and pay nothing into our pensions right now just to keep afloat, it doesn’t seem fair. But then I guess under this shitty Tory government nothing is and it shows even a family pulling in 75k PA is also relying on CB, you’ve obviously worked very hard to earn 60k and it’s such fucking bullshit that you have to struggle even earning that kind of money.

Apologies 85k! Which is even more unfathomable in all honesty.

But you do. By using/receiving public services, living in the environment created and maintained by councils/government. You may not be made a payment (unless you ever receive something like statutory sick pay/furlough etc) but you do still 'take' from the pot.

You also arguably receive a benefit in kind due to things like child benefit even though you don't have kids. If children are better cared and provided for, their life chances are better. Meaning more will survive into adult hood, be better workers etc generating tax payments which will not only help to support you in older age but will mean that there are people to take up public service roles which help you to continue to have the society set up that you do I.e. you can go to a supermarket and buy items because people work there and perform tasks which you benefit from.

it's more the principle that threshold hasn't changed for a while despite inflation etc

I mean if the government aren't arsed about raising public sector wages in line with inflation they aren't arsed about this.

I'm also over the threshold but the amount it is a month I'm still better of on the salary I'm on. The £100k threshold though I've been actively avoiding until DC are all out of childcare!

I agree with you. People on higher salaries paying more tax but are not allowed anything back. Its the like free childcare hours that people moan that higher earners shouldn't be entitled to, but why not? Higher earners pay their taxes, and plenty of it.

I’m confused. Do you actually think it’s fair that a household with 2 parents with a combined income of £98k should get child benefit but a single parent earning £60k shouldn’t ? Just on the off-chance that one of the parents is financially abusive? How would that abuse work by the way, given that each parent would be earning the same?

This is another form of fiscal drag. More people being dragged into paying more tax by stealth. Despite that we have an ever decreasing number of net contributors propping up the system while the number of net recipients grows ever larger.

You're either a troll or delusional.CB is around 90 a month for one child.If you need help with the income you said you have then you're living beyond your means somewhere.

If it can be means tested to any person over x amount in a household, why not combined in a household?

Because it’s done via the tax system and we don’t tax households, we tax individuals.

It is a bit silly. Our household income is around £95k but we still get the full amount due to both earning similar and pension payments.

@Tellmeimcrazy You’re crazy.. “I’m pissed off I’m not getting benefits because I don’t have children so it should mean families with children shouldn’t get benefits”.. ?

Our DC will no doubt contribute massively to your life by paying tax, working in healthcare to care for you, wipe your arse when you can’t, make your meals, serve you in Tesco etc. They deserve this, they deserve to exist, they deserve a part of taxpayers money because their parents are trying their best to keep everyone afloat on not much money.

Because those hours were introduced to help bridge the gap between children of higher earners and lower earners. There's still a gap between the two households and children of higher earners are still massively benefited - but certain measures are designed to just give the poorer children a boost. The idea is to have children starring school on more equal footing, once again, it's not to benefit the parents.

£90 every 4 weeks (13 payments per year) is a good amount though, we use it for savings for our DC, so she gets an extra £1000 per year in savings from it.

You're right OP, plus it's an odd system

You could have one couple, A earns 60k and B is a SAHP - they can't claim CB

Another couple earn 49k each and can claim it.

But as others have said, if you earn between 50 and 60k can you put some more into a pension to bring your income down to under 50k? I believe this also includes a personal pension

Hello OP. Is there some sort of underlying issue here? Are you unable to find the £90 odd a month out of your own pocket?

Just seen you earn over 60k, in this case the pension thing won't be applicable

@ArcticSkewer is spot on. CB was established as a universal benefit for children paid to the mother. With the rationale that a) children are vulnerable regardless of the economic situation of their families b) parents contribute to the economy by raising the next generation of taxpayers and c) mothers need to have access to funds independently of their spouse (even with women’s participation in the work force this is still true due to financial & other abuse).

by making it means-tested the govt has undermined that rationale, created an ‘us and them’ divide and hasn’t necessarily saved any money as means-tested benefits are hugely expensive to administer. Plus this government has done a nasty bit of moralistic social engineering by making it about family size too. All of this suits their electoral strategy.

the bickering on this thread about who deserves what & who is allowed to complain is exactly the atmosphere they are trying to create.