Should families get a tax allowance for dependant children

[Clariee45]

Just a thought from another thread about there being no help for the squeezed middle who feel they are hardly better off than those on universal credit. Wouldn’t it just be fairer if those families not entitled to universal credit were given an extra tax allowance equivalent to the adult personal allowance for each child.
Why are adults given a tax allowance that acknowledges the basic costs of needing to eat and have a roof over there head etc and yet parents are expected to provide all this (plus 80% childcare costs) for their children completely out of their taxed income

Because they chose to have kids? You’re asking why people should provide for their own kids, yikes.

If a family isn't entitled to UC isn't that because their income is higher?
So they already have more income.

The cost of the roof over the head is fixed. And majority of families are in receipt of child benefit to help with the cost of needing to eat. Items specifically for children are mostly VAT exempt already too.

I'd not be in favour of tax allowances.

Isn’t this where Child Benefit comes in?

No, but I'd like to see more fairness with families that have one low earner or stay at home parent.

The HICBC should be fairer. There should be the ability to transfer more unused allowances to the other spouse too. Not just 10%.

This hasn't ever effected me apart from seeing the unfairness of it through my tax advisor work that I used to do.

Isn't this what they do in America?

Just a thought from another thread about there being no help for the squeezed middle who feel they are hardly better off than those on universal credit.

They may feel they are hardly better off, but in reality they have significantly more life chances than someone dependent on benefits.

@Darthwazette yes it used to be called "Family Allowance" because it's a tax allowance.
I don't know when the name was changed.

@orangegato No I’m not asking people to be given extra money for their kids, simply their kids being taken account of in the amount of money being taken off them

Why are people expected to pay for their own kids? What?

I think that would really be great for rewarding hard work. They need to start with allowing full shared allowances between parents in a household so one can choose not to work and be the parent at home first though if they wished.

But overall the best way would be for tax allowances to go up substantially. I think anyone working for the minimum wage shouldn’t pay tax at all. It is the minimum after all but actually it’s far less once tax and NI kick in. This fiscal drag is hurting a lot of people.

Just make child benefit universal as it used to be.
They could also i raise the income tax bands as they are way too low.

People would be paying for their own children out of their own earnings, just have a bit less taken off them to take account of that

We as a family take advantage of the marriage tax allowence, aside from carers allowence that I claim it's all we are entitled to.

The government needs more taxes coming in not less.

Well not necessarily. We would be eligible for UC. However we are both company directors of our own business. Apparently company profits and dividends don’t count as income, but they also do count as income. Basically there is no consensus. Just depends who’s reviewing your case at that time to what and how they are going to count things. So it’s not worth the risk as a repayment would royally screw us!

@Clariee45 so you mean people with children pay less tax?
If you have children you get more government help than adults with no children (Child Benefit, Child Care "vouchers", free hours etc). Why should the amount of tax being paid be less?

Will those without children get a tax allowance on top too? After all they're not using the services parents do.

But we get child benefit and tax allowance for child care?

Absolutely.

The government needs more taxes coming in not less.

You pay 40% tax on earning over 50k.

50k today is the equivalent of 28k in the early 00s. It's 35k in 2010 or 42k in 2020.

I agree with the pp who said it’s the child benefit that needs to be looked at , and made universal again is spite of income, to make it fair for families with only one income rather than the current highest earner income.

Lots of people don't get child benefit & it's not because they are loaded

I do think Child Benefit should be based on a household income rather than highest earner family that if each parent earns £40 thousand - so household income of £80 thou can still claim but the family with one earner of £50 thou and one parent as a non worker can't claim (or whatever the current cut off limits are).

Because that would mean that the rest of the population are subsidising the lifestyle choices of people wit young children. These parents already get Child Benefit, so it would be particularly egregious for them to have an additional subsidy. It is up to parents to fund their own children, not the job of taxpayers.