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!

Those who are saying high dual income families are more deserving of their CB because of supposed childcare costs are forgetting that many mothers who have spent some time at home would also like to go back to work once their childrne are at school and will face out of school hours childcare costs too.

And now those mothers (or fathers in the case of SAHDs) will have to consider paying those extra costs out of a measely salary with absolutely no assistance towards them.

I imagine you already have women (or men) who are married to a high rate tax payer who have a small part time job (maybe for their sanity) or who study for a return to work and use their child benefit towards paying the childcare costs.

this entire discussion seems to be happening on the premis that men, fathers, cannot change their working patterns or hours one single jot to fit in with their childcare responsiblities.

i think all this energy shouting about CB should be redirected to campaigning for a world where men and women can share childcare through flexible working (e.g. working 3 days each with only one day of childcare required or one starting early one finishing early).

SweetKitty - I work full-time, have absolutely no family here (nor does my husband) and I do not work around my husband's shifts nor he mine. Now you of one mother with shed loads of childcare to pay for.

fluffles you're right, this could encorage co-parenting.
DH and I share childcare and both earn under the HRT level, we'll be OK. I couldn't work unless he took some responsibility for childcare.
We may see men taking a cut in hours to keep them under the theshold thus allowing their partnres to also work part-time.

Surely this news today has to infuriate so many parents! I choose to stay at home and raise my own children. DH earns over the threshold, and we will be around £200 a month worse off. I agree that some families may not need that extra money - but we do. They should have a rethink and come up with a fairer solution. Taking money from middle class families like this isnt fair and the as usual the government have picked on an easy target - come on Mr Cameron & co - where is your imagination!!??

I will lose £238 a month, which we use to cover fuel.

mj I did my job trawl earlier this eve.

I ahve found one to go for, although hours are not satted so will apply but... IYKWIM. however, I also looked at a part time job in a lcoal spar and foudn that over 600 people ahd already applied.

!

I have been a SAHM for 7 years. Therefore we have been a sole income family for many years. My dh earns just over the limit.

What with the Tax credits going too we will lose £180 per month....this is my only "income" and I use it to pay for fuel for the car and essentials like clothes, shoes etc....

...if GO or NC or DC say one more time "we are in this together" I may scream and/or vomit

The assumption that only one parent brings up a child will surely be challenged?

The problem is that most hrt jobs are not 9 to 5 and flexible working is rare. That level of income demands a commitment to stay until the work is done. This makes it impossible to share childcare.

So I guess that why I am a SAHP. Although this will have to change now.

I would be very interested the true savings of scrapping CB for HRTs. Given that the CB is spent by those who receive it, usually on goods which attract 20% VAT and that any profit made by a supplier on those goods will also bring in tax to the government, what is the true saving - surely not the neat figure of 1 bn suggested by GO. More like half that and then there is the cost of administration..
This seems like part of a slow process of softening up. Probably so when they squeeze the middle and lower income earners more, they can say "look, we took things away from the rich too".
I would be interested to know how much a tax on landowners and bankers would produce - more than banning CB I bet.

I'm labour to the core and didn't vote for this government, but tbh our household income is about £46,000 and I've never felt like we needed cb.

I live in the East Midlands, but in a very well off part surrounded by doctors and lawyers so the house prices are high compared to everywhere else in the region. I may not be able to afford foreign holidays like some of my friends and 3 kids (twins came 2nd before you blame me for wantonly overpopulating)does cost a lot in shoes and food, but I do feel rich.

I don't pay for childcare because I work school hours as ds1's asd means he would find afterschool club difficult. We have a mortgage like everyone else and 2 cars as my job is a drive as is dh's. I've always considered myself well off and I will without cb. We have to budget for food, xmas presents are on a strict limit, my clothes come from Asda and all of that, but I live a lovely area with good schools and we don't struggle to pay the mortgage.

Somebody else that struggles should have this money.

I appreciate that it's unfair about 2 people that just over as opposed to 1 that earns just under, but that still doesn't mean we should get it.

I also appreciate that cb was brought in so women had their money direct, but hopefully things have moved on and women can deal with idiots that won't support their family fairly. That's naive, but there is less shame in divorce, no shame in women working so some things have changed since men held the purse and power?

It absolutely needs to be clarified re all the issues people have mentioned and I don't know how we can account for the north south divide that means people on similar incomes can't afford the rent.

However, surely there are lots of people like us who can lose this?

becaroo - I totally agree with you, i'm sure their kids wont go without something because of this unfair plan.

For those saying that DH's should cut their hours and mums should increase theirs - there will be many families who just cant do that. Its not always that easy. Be sure that this is going to hit some families very hard. Is DC heading to be the most unpopular PM ever??? Lets see what he cuts next!

Manicmonday I see your point but that is a lifestyle choice. DH could take a higher paid job but he'd have to work longer hours. He chooses to earn less so that I can work as well and we co-parent.

Agree with theperfecthousewife, several posts above.

I have been a SAHM for 7 years, dh being sole earner. Have never managed to find anything to fit in around his job, he works away on varying shift patterns and we don't qualify for any childcare help, so going out to work (I will be paid min wage) doesn't stack up financially. CB was our only 'benefit'. Yes, we'll feel it, although dh earns above the limit George Osborne talks about we both drive old cars, shop at Lidl/Aldi and I buy reduced meats from Waitrose. We buy clothes rarely and frankly I think sometimes we look like ragamuffins.

I am also standing up here and now and confessing to having voted Tory. Wish wholeheartedly I hadn't - this was the first general election I hovered between Labour and Tory, I quite liked Gordon Brown and frankly, think right now he might be doing a better job.

pacinofan - I'm in exactly the same boat. DH often works away weekdays and we live miles away from family so they cant help with childcare - which for 3 children is expensive! DH earns over £44,000 but my only income is CB. It makes me so mad that once again, families like ours are paying the price. Surely there is another (fairer) way?

The Tories have scored an own goal here.

While means testing may be expensive, allowing a couple earning 2x£40k = £80k to get CB whilst a couple with one earner at £45k loses CB doesn't seem at all fair. Labour will score easy points there.

Also capping benefits at £26k whilst cutting CB for HR taxpayers is going to seem unfair. Someone getting £26k/year is earning £35k/year pre tax ... without doing any work at all. The Tory right will say the benefits scroungers are still getting away with it while the hard-working middle class get clobbered.

And yet again the old get away scott free while we punish the young. Parent's lose CB, teenagers pay much higher uni fees and those in their 20s are saddled with uni debt and high high prices. The old keep their winter fuel allowance and free bus passes, never mind the fact that the've benefited from massive house price rises and overly generous final salary pensions (which those in their 20s and 30s are paying for in higher taxes). When will we realize the young are our country's/economy's future?

'Someone getting £26k/year is earning £35k/year pre tax ... without doing any work at all.

I raised this elsewhere on MN but we dont yet know what the caps are for

It may well cover carers, the severely disabled, low income earners as well as the totally unemployed.

Do I feel entitled to a higher income as someone who is a carer with a DH who works part time 9and studeis full time)? than someone who chooses not to work? yes.

There's too much info missing still: it's drip, drip. A shite a day to make you forget the shite from yesterday.

DH is an accoutant says that the figure of 44K is your personal allowance (5k or 6k) + the £37400, not inflation of 10%.

If your salary is nearing the 40% tax bracket, perhaps you or your partner could ask their employer to reduce their hours by one or two hours. This should bring them below the threshold and then you get the child benefit- tax free, plus more time with the family. I read somewhere that George Osbourne wants people to work more, well, for some they would be better off working less. Plus once you're in the 40% tax bracket, for every pound you earn over 44k, you only get 50pence of it, after tax and N.I.