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!

Has anybody worked out yet what kind of a hit an average HRT will take with all the cuts?

Eg, 2 kids; 1 at school, 1 baby, SAHM/D, DW/H earns £50K?

1% NI
Loss of Tax credits
Loss of chb

According to GO the average HRT earns £70,000!

Great link, LeninGrad....thanks for sharing smile.

"my child benefit is' luxury' money, it doesn't put food on the table but buys me a coffee in starbucks, etc; however without it I shall be aiming to go from sahm to part time worker"
My heart bleeds!

poppy that will be taking into account even people who are earning £500k+ I expect, which balances an awful lot who are on £40-50k.

I agree in principle with taking benefits away from those that don't need it - yes we will miss it but to say we need it would be a lie.
What I don't agree with though is the manner in which it is being done.

Didn't ask it to! Happy to go back to work, just pointing out that lots more people will be hunting for the same jobs! (btw don't spend it all on coffee! Just meant was fortunate that wouldn't have to give up work/ be unable to feed kids, as some people on this and the Aibu thread will)

I don't understand why it would do that mjinhiding, if anything wouldn't it push more families into two part-time working parents?

I worked out that if you have 2 kids and were just under the threshold then you would need to earn around £3k gross more to get an equivalent net salary. That is based on current tax and NI. Anyone within that £3k band would be better off cutting hours or pay and staying under the threshold.
I suspect that is quite a large proportion of higher rate payers.

Why 'partnered women' any more than 'partnered men, other than that's been the tradition? If a couple can best make their finances work by one or other of them taking responsibility for caring for their own children rather than paying someone else to do it.... a noble occupation... then why is that so sinister? Or more sinister than opting to move house or to move job to improve your family's standard of living?

Surely the average, ie mean, of HRTs is a lot different than the mode?? Or is my high school maths failing me??

abouteve xenia is a lone parent, who had to support 5 children, and went back to work when her baby was around 6 days old, having done emails etc, when they were hours old. The only thing that separates you is that she works for ££££££ rather than "less than half of £44K"

That was to poppyknot btw!

Both my DH and I both earn over £44k so will lose this benefit, however I dont mind providing that it makes others think before they have child after child in unstable relationships, who decide to mess around at school, get no qualifications and then decide to have a baby with some waste of space. I would love to see the government address THIS issue and if I lose the CB then so be it. Mother and baby units where young girls can go if they cannot live at home when pregnant, who will be given support, help and training to get a job or give something back to society.

Also, generations of families who choose to live on benefits because it doesnt 'pay' them to go to work. It shouldnt be their choice to work or not.

mjinhiding - interesting. Can you elaborate please?

I thought that too, stretch.

He said it as a throwaway but I think we should be told which 'average' he was using. I am sure it ws not the mode!

It will definately force many SAHP back to work. I just do not understand why it is not based on totla family income. As others have said why should a family taking home £86k still receive it and one on £45k does not.

ok have been mulling over this

set up a loss making business, selling stuff on ebay for example

take a pay cut

put more in pension?? does this affect earnings?

if none of that works in cutting dh's pay back down to below higher rate then definitely look into making tax return and claiming every single last penny - just found out we can claim back tax on all our charity donations for a start

Agree with you LG about a more progressive taxation system. dh has been banging on about it for years and I have to admit it makes sense.

Sauvignon that wasn't her point was it?

It was that she will be looking at finding work in a market where there is already a job shortage potentially placing somone desperate on the scrapheap of universal credit. Thus creating need.

A valid point.

has the cavalry longbluefingernails arrived yet to explain this one?

Rocky - would the people you speak of earn over 44K?

has there been any comment from the LibDems on all this?

i think they will surely have to re-think
it cannot be in any way fair to withdraw CB from a household where a sole earner gets >44k and leave it for a household where 2 earners get up to 88k

it's ridiculous. Or am i being ridiculous to think the gov has any interest in being fair?

Lenin - Was the question crap or the possible answers or both, or lots of other things .

I have always believed that CB should be universal - not least because so many poor/disadvantaged people fail to claim things to which they are entitled. Many benefits are hard to access and people don't know they are entitled. CB has always seemed to me vital for that reason.

BUT if the idea is to reduce it then wouldn't it save more money to find a clear line above which families are ineligible rather than just keep processing CB claims and claw it back in tax.

I have no problem with the idea of more tax, I have no problem with continuing to pay CB. I am just questing the manner suggested in terms of cost saving