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.

Isnt child thingy £90/mo? I earn less than 60k and cant imagine being so wrung out over £90.

That said, thresholds should be based on household income. I guess that gets tricky with blended families?

Bugger all though, you end up having to give most of it back.

I disagree, if the op is a single parent, paying a mortgage/rent and childcare, £90 can make a big difference. She'll pay more tax than 2 people earning 30k a year each and be unable to claim any benefits.

She’s not a single parent. She has a household income of £85k.

It’s ridiculous as 50-60k is not that much for household income - it’s the equivalent of two people earning an average 25/30k, which after tax is sod all.
in the UK the very wealthy get to use tax loop holes, the poorest get benefits and free training and tax breaks, the squeezed middle get nothing and yet they are generally the PAYE workers that can’t escape having to pay for everyone else.

YABU. We need to change our thinking about tax and this idea that we expect something back from it. It's not a savings scheme! Taxes pay for the NHS, education, security, transport infrastructure, defence, social services, benefits, etc etc, that benefit everyone. People shouldn't be greedy and expect more than that. We certainly shouldn't be expecting "cash back" - perhaps we've grown too accustomed to banks/supermarket loyalty schemes!

-----

I agree, and this was my first thought. How does the OP think her child will be educated?

You earn £85k per year between you. You don't need child benefit.

I earn just over too, so I don’t get it. Imo that’s perfectly fair. It’s to help poorer people out surely? I’m lucky to earn what I do, it’s right for richer people to subsidise poorer imo. I work far less hard than a nurse or carer say.

I agree.

OP, what you get back is healthcare, education, policing, your bins collected, etc etc.

You don't need child benefit, don't be ridiculous.

It's frustrating when it means that a couple earning up to 49k each would still be eligible. Personally I do think household income should be used for eligibility. It does seem fair that you can have 2 households with an income of 70k, one with a 50/50 split does get CB and one with an 80/20 split doesn't.

But, you aren't paying tax and getting nothing back. 2/3 of tax is used to fund public services- schools, emergency services, roads, healthcare, environment. Welfare/benefits is a fairly small slice of the pie.

For couples with children everything should be on a shared income basis. If you have two incomes just below the threshold you are far better off than a couple living on one income above the threshold. It’s not just CB, it’s also no shared tax allowances, and if one person has a very low or no income they’re still not eligible for free prescriptions, help with optical care and so on due to partners income. Our taxation system is broken and desperately needs fixing. If it felt fairer people wouldn’t avoid paying it.

You really have @hadituptoere. Angry and aggressive much?

I didn't say any of that. You've totally misquoted me.

I also never said your children didn't deserve to exist. Pls stop lying and totally twisting what I've said. It's typical of someone who reacts without thinking and using their brain.

My point is given the cost of living - We could all do with some help.

I find this idea of 'not getting anything back' rather bizarre. Taxes pay for our society; NHS, roads, schools, public spaces etc etc. Do you not benefit from any of these?

Objectively speaking you have a significant joint income. You're entering tiny violin territory.

If you are not far over the threshold then you are daft not to claim.

If you pay into a pension that will take you back down.

You are likely to continue to recurve a positive benefit until you are earning over £70K

They are earning over 50k, I think they'll be paying ni

Totally disingenuous post though. Your salary might have been 16k but that is not what the equivalent is once benefits get factored in. Your salary equivalent though CH, UC, payments towards rent, UC towards childcare, free prescriptions etc inflate the 16k figure massively.

Yanbu. The tories brought this change in. They'll probably get rid of it for everyone next!

If your partner earns 25k just swap it to him instead and you'll get the money. Or put a bit more in pension and make sure you declare any professional subs on the tax assessment.

Not necessarily

They could be a 2 adult family with 1 earning 50k and one earning next to nothing (or nothing)

Yes 50k is a lot to many people, but it's not mega bucks these days

Tricky one.

Child benefit is a crazy one for me. Why should other people subsidise your choice to have a kid? I'd much rather the money given out in child benefit went directly into better nursery funding which allows you to go back to work and contribute more to society, rather than topping up your self-incurred expenses.

Realise it's a stupid argument from me really as the kid clearly needs funding through school etc etc. The difference I'm making is between state provided services, and cash given to people just because they've chosen to make their lives more expensive with kids.

@Mirenda

You keep mentioning that high earners 'get nothing back.' That isn't true. Tax relief on pensions is a benefit disproportionately enjoyed by high earners and having comparatively high levels of disposable income enables you to take advantage of other salary sacrifice schemes, none of which are useful to low earners.

To be fair child benefit for 2 kids is over £170 a month. I don’t know why people are making it out to be pennies. 60k isn’t such a massive salary that you don’t notice that amount.

Yabu

This. I never understand the whining about this. It benefits everyone in society to have well educated, cared for children because those kids will grow up to be future workers who will pay tax and fund pensions for those exact same people. Of course not every single person in society will gain from every specific benefit that exists (noone does) but in the long run, they do benefit. They just dont want to see the bigger picture.

Do you see no benefit to people giving birth to future workers and tax payers?