Child benefit should be removed from households with £60k income

[LowLevelGrumpMostly]

I don’t get why the government doesn’t allow a single parent on £60k to claim - isn’t allowed child benefit but a couple on £99.9k is, where the couple is likely to have lower childcare costs. So much money could be released for other stuff - if a single mum on £60k doesn’t need CB why should a couple on more get it?

Yes. It's unfair. It stinks.

It's been this way for years.

As is the fact that the £50k threshold hasn't risen in line with rising income.

I can't see it changing anytime soon sadly. Another additional cost of being a single parent.

This has come up on other threads and people have said it would cost more money to implement this sort of change than it would claw back.

No, why would you want money taken away from others? Surely the fairest would be for a household income cap of £100k.

It’s a totally unfair system and IMO they should have left it as a universal benefit but capped it at 2/3 children per household . Would have been much fairer .

I'm with you, OP. And I keep seeing the argument that it would be too costly to implement, but it is the principle.
Our household income is less than £60k, and I'm pretty sure we could do without this free money as we live frugally. I'm convinced other households with incomes over £60k can too. That's potentially a big chunk of money which could be spent on improving outcomes for our most vulnerable families and children, as opposed to being stuffed into savings accounts or used to pay for riding lessons.

Money taken from them will neither benefit you or be used wisely, and you are beyond naive to even entertain the thought that it will

This^

The Conservatives want you to be fighting about the scraps because it diverts attention from other places where they could easily enact policies that would make our society a better place to live.

If they taxed the wealthiest in our society appropriately then we could all have a bit of extra cash to help out - even those of us without children!

I defo think it's unfair but I'm not sure the solution is to take more money from rich people just because they have it. They're not obligated to be a charity for those less fortunate. Whether or not they 'need' that much money isn't the concern of other people whom the money doesn't belong to IMO.

When I go out with mates I don't expect my mate who earns £250k to always foot the bill.

Yes, it's completely unfair and has been for years.

Tory judgemental spite because they really don't like single parents (mostly single mums).

You're right it's not fair but the answer is to make it a truly universal benefit attached to the child as it used to be, not remove it from anyone

It should be a universal benefit, at the moment it serves more as a tool for pitting us against each other.
if it was given to all women it would help those women who are being financially abused. Universal benefits like the NHS bins is all together.

I wonder if this could be a new welfare cut Sunak is going on about. Maybe only allowing say £60k per household?

I doubt it, sounds like it will be long term disability benefits that are cut.

It’s a rotten system and widely hated. I earn £70k but my husband earns a lot less (think £20k) so our household income isn’t as impressive but because of the one earner policy, we lose out. It should be household income below £100k imo.

I know. It's incredibly unfair. It should be assessed on household income.

I agree it should be based on household income. As a minimum they should now be increasing the thresholds, 60k in 2024 is not what it was in 2013. Minimum wage, state pension, top up benefits etc have all been increased since 2013 but not this.

The Conservatives want you to be fighting about the scraps because it diverts attention from other places where they could easily enact policies that would make our society a better place to live.
This.

But I think Labour are also doing it too. They're just choosing different groups of ordinary people to go after.

The Conservatives are likely to take the line that the reason public services aren't functioning isn't to do with deliberate austerity, it's because some poor people have disabilities.

The Labour strategy seems to be that the reason public services aren't functioning is because austerity caused the problems but the solution is to go after the middle classes in a way that's starting to feel like the politics of envy.

Neither seem willing to look too deeply at the very wealthy and well-connected, which I'd expect from the current crop of Tories as they see public contracts as a nice way of transferring money to their rich mates, but I'd expect more from Labour.

It's a nonsense and always has been.

I was a single parent high earner who lost the benefit when the change came in. George Osborne at the time said it wasn't mean to be fair but easy to implement.

Since independent taxation got brought in in the 70s there is no record of household income unless you claim a benefit like universal credit. Logically child benefit should just be scrapped and the extra given through universal credit it it’s too politically sensitive. I guess this is what they are doing indirectly by not increasing the limit

I was trying to remember when this happened. We still used to get all sorts of things in the 80's too as a "household". I remember getting mortgage tax relief, married persons relief, all gone. I was a SAHM from my late thirties with a high earning husband. We didn't need it, as I always just saved it for the DD's, but DD2 lost it, and has ended up with way less in her pot for uni.

I think it's unfair to single parents as well but someone earning 60 grand shouldn't need benefits.

It should be universal like many other benefits are & what the equivalent thing was that my parents got.

The frozen band & income tax bands are ridiculous though. 56k today is equivalent to 30k in the early 00s

Would giving parents a tax allowance per child help?

So adult tax allowance and then an amount per child, raising the level at which tax starts.