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!

"I'm not so sure about that. I would quite like a world that encouraged men and women to earn equal amounts instead of him being The WageEarner and the little woman being stuck at home in her pinny."

oh for FFS it's not being stuck at home in her pinny it's being at home raising children (p.s I know WOHM raise their children as well, I am just trying to say we are not stuck at home twiddling our thumbs whilst wearing our pinnys). I am quite capable of earning more than my DH but we have taken the decision that I look after the children during the day. It's a VALID choice.

I'm sure there must be a simpler way of cutting money if you are going to change the child benefit system. Why not say that from 2013 child benefit will only be paid for the first 3 children? This would make it easier for people to plan families and if you already have more children than that, by 2013, the youngest existing child would be benefitting from free nursery places, or stopping child benefit at 11 or something? Surely then it would still be a universal cut off point and much easier to administer. I thought it was fair enough before but didnt take into account that single parent families where the parent is a higher rate tax payer would be hit several times. I don't know if working single parets get any help other than the usual.

I am concerned that the child benefit - link to womens NI & pension will be lost in all of this, for a lot of women.

That was only implemented a few years ago and was a really good thing - that women were no longer being financially penalised for taking time out of paid employment to raise their children. Women still have massively lower pensions than men on average due to the time out and the gender pay gap etc blah blah, this was one tiny step to do something about it. And what's the betting they "forget" to put anything in place to replace it

I also don't see how means testing / box ticking and checking or however you'e going to do it will be cheaper than universal.

"489x52=£25,428 or an average household income assuming two working parents of £50,856.

So this is talking of taking a benefit from below average earning households?"

Absolutely, but you missed the crucial bit, it's taking a benefit from below average earning households 489x52=£25,428 or an average household income assuming two working parents of £50,856.

So this is talking of taking a benefit from below average earning households WHILST CONTINUING TO PAY IT TO HOUSEHOLD THAT EARN NEARLY DOUBLE THAT. That's the killer.

So, what if your husband earns £40,000 now-is that not in the 40% tax bracket?

telsa Well, the IDS proposals aren't that different to many other Labour MPs.

Are they all evil too?

I can see that this way of implementing it is unfair to a family with 1 income of £50k, whose neighbours each earn 30k. However, at least this means it doesn't have to be means tested and therefore cost so much to run that it end sup not saving money.

We'll lose it, but have non-essentials we spend money on, so I guess can afford to. I don't want the UK to end up like Ireland, with all the extra difficulties that would entail.

So it sounds like - I can claim it, still get the NI protection, then DH in his tax return will need to say that I've claimed it, and pay it back. Is that right?

Oh yes, the oh so progressive Centre for Social Justice. EG:
'In December 2008 Iain Duncan Smith?s Centre for Social Justice argued for end of any obligation to provide council housing, to encourage private landlordism. This was followed by a report 'Principles for Social Housing Reform', from Localis, coauthored by Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh, recommending councils should ?exploit [the] huge reserve of capital value? in their houses and the land by selling it off and charging ?market terms?.' Etc etc.

this is ridiculous! I don't have a problem with means testing it but do it properly or not at all.

Although...for single income families, could the earning partner pay the other a wage?

Doesn help single families though

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.

As I recall Labour were going to phase them out, but the Tories say they'd review this - ?

BeenBeta - this doesn't feel right ideologically. Hopefully some more information will come to light.
Surely if IDS/DC etc are serious about moving towards A Universal Benefit, then what is currently CB would be a part of that?

There isn't much talk about raising the tax threshold to £10k - which will benifit every one that works and earns over the tax threshold now

swallowedafly - i can't believe you posted that.

Like others I am wondering which box on which form will need to be ticked. Not everyone that pays HRT completes a tax return so there will be a cost involved if we are going to return to that system.

Labour? - forget Labour. I am talking revolution......

I thought he said households where one or both are higher rate tax payers (was listening to the interview but haven't seen the detail)

i.e. where one partner, or both partners, earn in the higher rate tax threshold

that wouldn't then catch a family where both parents earned £30k each but would where one partner earned £60k iyswim

I mean when you think about it, it ticks a lot of right-wing boxes

Women back into the home
Women lose pension etc entitlement so dependent on men
Women having to cowtow to male heads of household in order to get money to feed & clothe themselves and children (not all of them obviously! But it happens - many threads on here with men in top bracket and women at home with the children having to run the whole household on CB... really utterly depressing)

All of this is seen from a right wing perspective as "supporting marriage" ie forcing women onto the back foot in relationships. Society is returned to correct order - important men out at work and earning and being powerful and head of the household, women and children at home, with no financial independence, therefore he has power over them. Without independent income or a voice in the "outside world" womens issues are not heard about any more and the world can go on as it's supposed to.

That's traditional/conservative ideology/right wing thinking for you. All of these changes come from a vision of society as some kind of 50s utopia that never existed. To put everything back to "how it should be".

saf - that is not a bad idea. I've long thought that there needed to be a point beyond which families who were entirely and long-term benefit dependant should stop getting additional money for additional children.

longingernails I know a number of those reaching retirement age who do not claim certain benefits (even disability living allowance!) because they feel it should go to those worse off than them.

It's obviously not the solution to everything but if things are as bad as the Tories say, if "we're all in this together" and every penny possible must be saved, why not take advantage of those who would be honest when sent a form saying "you now qualify for this: do you need/want it or not?"

Not means testing is apparently wasting money but OTOH means testing will mean many elderly returning to being needlessly isolated and tens of thousands more dying in the winter.

What other compromise is there?

There are a number of people who have earned a state pension but are far and away comfortable enough not to need one.
I won't post the Niemöller poem! but where will the line be drawn?

Except if you both earn just under cut-off ISNT. A dual income family still gets it where a single male earner would not.

riven you don't need that figure, because the 23k is an average, therefore that calculation is already done. Because a person on 0k has been included in the calculation.

it's a tiny amount Riven. He said they had predicted it would only affect something like 3% of families which seems like a tiny amount (this is from memory from hearing the interview on the bbc when I had just woken up so might be hazy )

I am sure they won't withdraw the home responsibilities protection bit. They haven't said they would I don't think.