So child benefit to go for higher rate taxpayers

[foxinsocks]

So says George osbourne on breakfast telly. Missed the details but sounds like it comes in from 2013!

Personally......I don't really have a problem with this.

We wouldn't actually lose any CB as I don't work, and DH doesn't earn over the threshold, BUT if we (me, DH and 2 kids under 3) can manage fine on the money we're getting paying a mortgage on an above average priced house in a fairly middle class part of the country, then I don't see why people earning £44k can't.

CB is there to financially help children. It's to help to pay for their clothes, shoes, healthy food etc. It shouldn't be a complete subsisy, and it shouldn't pay for luxuries like foreign holidays or piano lessons.

I'm sure the details about pension contributions and joint incomes/single incomes will be worked out. It's only just been announced, they're not going to have every fine detail worked out yet.

ISN'T - if you read the thread it has been explained that the benefit would still be paid to the mother, and the tax then taken back off the higher earner.
So it isn't going to be women 'cowtowing' and the NI contribution aspect is also going to be protected.

ISNT - agree with that assessment of tory values and found it unbelievable that people were swallowing the pre-election rhetoric.

I imagine lots of Tory/Lib Dem voters are dual income households. I don't mind losing CB if it is done fairly. At the moment it seems I'm being unfairly targetted. If it was on household income it would be fairer.

This has annoyed me so much.

DH is the army and earns just above the 40 per cent tax level. I don't work because a) we have three small children and b) the army moves us every two years making it fairly difficult to find a regular job. Oh, and he goes off to sandy places fairly often
It's so unfair on households like ours.

Plus, as people have said, child benefit is paid to ME to provide for the children - none of us earn anything. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tax credits worked out on the household income, rather than individually?

Bunch of tossers.

If you insist on universality in benefits, then I too would also favour a cutoff after a certain number of children - but I would probably make it three, not two.

Alibaba This cut doesn't disincentivize moving from benefits into low-paid work, which is the problem the IDS reforms are designed to tackle. It does disincentivize moving from a £40k salary to a £50k salary though.

That is a shame.

That's an administrative workaround marsha by the sound of it, rather than something that has been built in deliberately.

Mind you of course what your genuine right-wing thinker wants is benefits abolished full-stop. UK is a pretty socialist country really, so we're lucky that they are fairly limited as the public acts as a balance.

Mind you they're privatising the NHS and no-one seems to be making a fuss

Telsa - So you don't think that supporting families where intergenerational poverty/violence and crime are issues is a good thing?

What would your alternative be?

(BTW - I am not a Tory voter, however given the state of public finances, I just cannot see how we can retain the benefits system as it is. Therefore I support an approach that attempts to support people earlier in life, and carefully incentivises them to remain in work wherever possible. I also support a much harder line to be taken on tax evasion and avoidance.)

Sounds ideal swallowedafly. I am a sahm with a dp earning just over 40k. We are ok financially but we do still rely on cb for our 2 dc. I wanted a third dc but we couldn't afford to. As it is I am struggling to get back to work.

I do understand that a society needs to ensure that children from low income families and those on benefits do not suffer. However, by paying child benefit and indeed tax credit per child lower income families may actually be better off having more children. Yet others are of course worse off. A ceuiling for benefits of maybe 2 or 3 children may be better.

I also wonder how many self employed people drawing a salary from their besinees will now employ their dp.

Also it does seem another way of discouraging sahp. Surely being a sahp and being supported by your partner is better than having to return to work and potentially taking jobs away from those on benefits.

Naetha - I presume you get other benefits (tax credits) too? A lot of higher rate tax payers don't so losing CB can make a huge difference.

Ali does that mean I'd still get CB and then it would be clawed back in tax? Seems a pointless waste of administrative resources.

"Anyone know what the Tories are planning to do with childcare vouchers? If they go too that'll be another £2k or so lopped off our income"

this would seriously effect me.

Even earning around £45,000 together me and my DH would never be able to afford to have 2 children now so this isn't about people on benefits being encouraged not to have children they can't afford. People on benefits will still have children.

If you are in a dual income household, you are paying a ridiculous amount in childcare costs- if you are in a single income, two person household, you are not. I don't think the argument that 2 parents earning jointly over 40k don't lose money but one partner earning over 40k do is valid for that reason.

I really don't understand why there is no cut off point on the amount of children for child benefit purposes. We are hardly underpopulated as a country! It's ridiculous that I have not heard any politician questioned on it, or even raise it! Its seems so blindingly obvious and would solve so many more problems than it would create, I'm thinking there is something I'm missing.

Manicmonday. I was thinking that too about small business owners cutting their own salaries and paying a salary to their partner.

" if you read the thread it has been explained that the benefit would still be paid to the mother, and the tax then taken back off the higher earner. "

But it also implies that the HRT is to tick a box, a lot of HRT don't fill in self-assesment forms, this will create MORE paperwork and therefore cost more to administrate.

How much is this cutting of universal benefit ACTUALLY going to save?

if you together earn £45k, you won't be hit by this unless one of you earns in a higher rate tax bracket

the people it will hit the most are single parents who still only have one salary and have to pay childcare (i.e. don't have a SAHP looking after the children). In terms of families, it's a fair way of doing it (looking at the higher rate taxpayer rather than joint income) but that doesn't help single parents at all.

You're not necessarily paying out anything in childcare costs as a dual income household if your children are at school.

sorry 2 parents families I meant

think George Osbourne said it would save £1bn (drop in the ocean)

It's not going to help the poor though is it? The poor are still getting hit as well!

What he has done is make it very simple, use the tax codes and brackets, make it look like he is taking it off the rich (higher earners etc) whilst targetting women and single parents.

For our family without doing the sums carefully it would be better if DP dropped a day of work and I go out to work that day, even if I earned a fraction of what he could for that day, his tax bracket would go down, we would still get 3K a year child benefit and I would be able to earn 6K tax free.

I have already been told well it's my fault for DP earning too much! We earn about the same as this person but she also works part time and has free childcare.

"George Osbourne said it would save £1bn"

hmm but politicians are not known for telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It might SAVE £1bn, but out of that £1bn how much is it going to cost to administrate.

Mollie - that is how it seems, crazy I agree.

It looks as if they will be having to send out tax returns to all HRT payers as standard, which will add cost.

As Scootergrrrl says, once your kids are at secondary for example, the childcare element will disappear, as they can get themselves to school and home again.

I don't know many who aren't scooter. We still pay the same as we did when they were babies. Some people don't pay any childcare at all when both partners work as they have family who step in so it's impossible to break it down to that level really.