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

Well at 200% of average earnings you're still paying 30%+ more than the average dual earning couple at the same income. It's a measurement of tax neutrality towards single/ dual earning family units.

I think if given a choice most people would lean towards a tax system that favours them Which explains a lot of tory tax policy. OP would prefer a system that favours her.

There are winners and losers in every tax system. I do fairly well as a working single parent. I earn ok but am still entitled to UC/ child benefit/ Scottich child payment. My ex is a higher rate tax payer so pays lots of tax that helps fund his childrens schooling/ healthcare. For some reason when he talks about his tax bill , English company but paying Scottish tax rates, I hear Elton John playing the circle of life.

Just to make sure kid is fed etc.. there is child benefit.

Child benefit for two children is £150 every 4 weeks, so £37.50 a week - at current prices that isn’t feeding two kids much less anything else. Which is fine, I actively chose to be a parent and I work to provide for them but let’s not pretend child benefit is making a significant difference to the “squeezed middle”, whatever that means.

I do think this government has done a great job of embedding the politics of jealousy into folks psyche, and making work less desirable for people on the threshold of UC. I don’t think tax breaks for parents as a stand alone policy is the right way to go but there has to be a better system out there.

Yep. I'll go with that, too, @Oliotya

It would benefit us all but somehow I don't think this will suit you, will it...

Surely it depends on the age of the kids whether £37.50 a week would cover their food? It would certainly cover food for two under fives. It’s a significant proportion of a lot of families’ food budgets.

How about the child free who don't look after their health and cost the NHS more in their care?

why do you think the childfree don’t look after their health?

My DH is a migrant, so actually I have eggs in both baskets. I'm in favour of supporting families and sensible immigration levels.
End of the day people want to have kids, it makes them happy which in turn is good for society. From a purely economic standpoint, importing all our young people might make sense, but it's not going to be a pleasant place to live. Children matter.
Oh and obviously migrants have children too!

@Uggtrending and @Lowrysbrush ,
I’m not a single parent, so I don’t fully appreciate how hard it must be, but do have empathy. My point of view is coming from my own situation- 2 parents, 3 children, one with profound disabilities which mean I can’t work anymore apart from a few hours a week term time. Dh earns just above the cb amount, meaning we don’t get any, and it can sometimes be a struggle. It’s not a situation we chose, any more than some people choose not to be a single parent, or just can’t have any. We have been through redundancy and so on with no help, and while I appreciate we have more household income than some the disparity between other families with 2 parents who earn just below the threshold but have a household income approaching £100k and yet still can claim child benefits, and ours with much less and a disabled child and their extended expenses and impact on my earnings doesn’t seem fair either. So- I do think child benefit should be the same for all families, just as it used to be, with extra help via other qualifying systems for those with a low household income, probably as there is now.

Thank you, we have previously been in that really negative single earner tax trap situation so this is partly where my viewpoint comes from but for us personally at the moment that isn’t an issue as we’re both working and using our personal allowances. I am just thinking of a system that is fair for everyone. Lots of families are struggling on incomes that people without children wouldn’t struggle on, for example I don’t know anyone who struggles on a 40-50k a year income who doesn’t have children and that is the typical example this country seems to have decided to base its tax rules on. Thus resulting in many families needing top up benefits not because they don’t earn enough to support their family but because no allowance is made for their children in the tax system or otherwise people who work really hard to earn more but find they are hardly any better off than if they just received top up benefits. It just doesn’t seem a very sensible system. I am a working mother and have a professional career but I don’t buy into the ideology that every family should be forced into that mould either. I don’t want to spend the tax I pay coercing a mother to reluctantly leave her baby to go and work in Poundland because rather than just letting the family keep more of the money her partner earns, high levels of tax for everyone with free childcare is seem as the solution to everything. It’s rubbish this even makes economic sense as in most cases the tax payer is paying far more out in childcare funding than what that parent is paying in tax anyway and it’s hardly a job that’s going to close the gender pay gap. Therefore just let her family keep more of their own earned money. If she’s desperate to work/get a break from kids anyway then they’ll then have more money available to the family to make a free choice as to whether they want to spend it on childcare or not. I strongly support there always be a place for universal credit/top ups as well to those who don’t earn enough to benefit from this policy

Some people are physically able to have children but mentally and emotionally unable to looke after them. Where do they fit it in this brave new world of yours? Maybe they should have a child anyway so that infertile or gay couples can adopt it, allowing them to get a pension?

Don't you get DLA and carers allowance?

I don’t think people realise the degree to which government policy disincentivises productivity, at the UC level and then again at the level the the CBHIC kicks in. When I was a single parent it would have absolutely made the best financial sense to just get a 16 hour a week minimum wage job locally within school hours thus minimising my commuting and childcare costs. Going to uni, getting professional qualifications etc was something I did as passionate about the career I’ve gone into but otherwise would have made no financial sense at the time. For parents at that 40-50k level, it makes no sense for them to do overtime or progress their careers unless it doesn’t bother them losing 80% of their extra earning or will be on 70k+ … this at a time many parents are struggling and would desperately like to earn more to make a difference to their family. It just seems very unjust their children are not viewed as people by the tax system and instead a multitude of much more expensive convoluted and socially coercive schemes to support families are put forward instead

Sure, it might feed children. Will it also clothe them? Keep them warm? Pay for.toys and books?

The problem with CB is that posters will always claim 'that's what CB is for'. But it can't cover everything. It's just a contribution. Nothing more.

Surely it depends on the age of the kids whether £37.50 a week would cover their food? It would certainly cover food for two under fives. It’s a significant proportion of a lot of families’ food budgets.

I have a 10 and 12 year old, if I send them for school lunches that’s £30 a week alone. It doesn’t cover their food budget including packed lunches much less housing, clothing, heating.

Family allowance was originally paid to the mother to ensure she had some money in her own name in the days when men were traditionally the breadwinner. It was never intended to cover all the costs of having a child, but posters on here seem to think it’s a significant amount of money - it really isn’t.

It doesn't cover school lunches plus family meals no. If you make pack lunches though you can easily feed two children of any age three meals a day for £37.50 I agree it wouldn't cover anything else though.

CB should be universal again, or if not possible the threshold raised by alot

It should also be based on household income not “one person earns x”

I don’t think couples should be allowed to transfer their tax free allowance- it’s a choice to have one parent at home or working limited hours, and saves the couple a lot on childcare etc.

On the specific question - it would be better dealt with if CB was sorted out - and the original name of family allowance was better, I agree

Lots of families are struggling on incomes that people without children wouldn’t struggle on, for example I don’t know anyone who struggles on a 40-50k a year income who doesn’t have children and that is the typical example this country seems to have decided to base its tax rules on.

This endless narrative that the only expense in the universe is kids is infuriating.
Single people trying to manage on one income, especially in areas of the country where housing costs are high will also struggle on 40k-50k. I should know, I'm one of them.

But God, sorry, forgot that as per the thread that inspired this one - us childless people are all "absolutely loaded".

Being single isn't an expense, nor does it necessitate living in a single adult household. Children cannot be got rid of. It's not comparable.

@gluenotsoup I appreciate your input you put it nicely. The issue is there's no solution that fits all, I guess everything was different back in the days. Mainly cost is what I'm getting at I'm a 90s child here I remember my mum getting an incentive on the old working tax system if she did 30 hours. I remember when day riders were released for £1, me and my DB went to a playscheme which cost 50p a day. Those days have gone!

Again I like that it's a detterant so people don't just continue to have DC they can't afford.

I can't relate to having a disabled child and I don't want to come across as insensitive because you replied politely to me but you are a 2 parent household and your DH must earn well. If things seem a stretch... it's likely because you've got 3 DC I only have 1 child and he cost me a fortune! I stand by my take but I absolutely appreciate your circumstances too.

Agree.

People have children knowing full well it's expensive. No one is forced to do it. Any struggles are self-inflicted.

Single and childfree people have a right to allocate the fruits of their labour, their hard-earned wages, as they see fit; their values, life choices and financial priorities are just as valid.

If my lifestyle choices leave me more comfortable than someone who's made more expensive lifestyle choices, that's their lookout. We all had the same options.

This is how it works in France and Belgium. Lower tax for anyone with dependants in addition to the usual help of child benefit, subsidised childcare, etc.

I didn't say being single was an "expense". I said that it's possible to not have kids and still struggle on £40k. Because it is.

I have single friends who flat share on £40k and still struggle, because housing costs in many areas of the country are literally bananas. Moving in with strangers doesn't automatically solve the problem.

I have no idea why you think I think children can be gotten rid of, either.

My only point was tackling the really, really annoying narrative that the only thing that causes a household to have any financial difficulties is kids.

Being single isn't an expense except for:

Higher priced holidays on a per person average
Higher priced council tax on a per person average
Higher priced rent on a per person average
Potentially higher food costs due to wastage if you cannot get small enough portions of food
Higher priced heating on a per person average
Higher priced electricity on a per person average
Depending on whether you are on a meter higher priced water bills on a per person average
Higher priced property maintenance costs on a per person average
Higher priced TV licence and other TV packages on a per person average

It costs 10k a year on average more to be single than to be in a couple and that's without the potential benefit of a dual income

And yes you will probably argue that every single person should probably live in a flat share as if there is an abundance of those in every town and village across the country but being single is absolutely more expensive.

Children cannot be got rid of. It's not comparable.

I'm not sure whether you are suggesting here that single people be forced into a relationship or single people can be got rid of.

It is however the second time an incel-ish sort of comment has been made on this thread that implies that if only the pesky single childfree women on this thread were forced financially into a relationship and parenting it would be better which is an interesting trend.

Singleness, or rather the choice to live alone, is no less of a choice than having children or not. You can't tell people not to complain that children are expensive and in the same sentence complain that living alone is expensive. Both are choices.

Being single can literally be due to the absence of choice

You can't tell people not to complain that children are expensive and in the same sentence complain that living alone is expensive.

Please quote where I said that

Not only have I not said that I have said on this thread and others frequently how I advocate in real life for:
Better maternity pay
Better and longer paternity pay
Better funded childcare
Better funded education
Free school dinners
Removal of the child benefit cap
An improved/overhauled CMS system

I sometimes wonder why I bother though. Because as soon as I simultaneously defend childfree women (and its almost always women) from the accusations of being selfish etc I am therefore antiparent automatically.

It is possible to both sympathise with the fact that life is more expensive as a single person and sympathise with the fact that the system seems to be rigged against single parents for example.