Child Benefit Cuts to over 43,000 salaries

[kirsty1055]

Can't understand what the problem is???!!! 43,000 each month amounts to over £3,000 per month??? We'd happily swap our salary with someone earning 43,000...my husband works 40 hours a week and has to work over christmas and his salary is 12,000!!!! We have 3 children. I'm angry that ppl with the high income can moan about it when my husband is actually contributing towards them receiving it???!!!

We can survive on less than £44k a year and indeed do but it isn't much fun.
Is really too much to ask that we could have a roof over our heads, the odd holiday, some clothes and shoes and a pizza every now and then ?

mamatomany, of course it isn't fun, there are a lot of people in the UK who know that through experience.

It's not a lot of fun knowing that your CTC are going when you're only bringing in £24k for your family either, but that didn't seem to engender quite the same outrage. When that proposal was being discussed before the GE , some of those moaning about this cut were quick to point that we all have to tighten our belts.

Did you really all think it was just the 'benefit scroungers' who had to take a hit?

fothergill, I very much doubt there are many places in the country where you could buy a 3 bed house on a single income of £22k. Nothing habitable that's for sure. You'd be hard pressed to buy a 2 bed flat!

This policy stinks, not because it targets those paying HRT but because it bears no relation to the actual income a family has to live on and is massively unfair for that reason.

I'm a teacher in a secondary school that works long hours (although non-teachers believe we work 8:30-3:30). I grew up in a economically challenging area of Manchester and was the first person in my family to graduate from university. This said to get there and get through cost me a fortune and I still carry those debts today (3 years after leaving). My OH works 65 hours a week as a manager of a local hotel. Our combined income is 40k a year before tax. Our baby is due in March and due to finances I can only have 18 weeks of maternity leave.

I am genuinely trying to have sympathy for those that are losing their CB and in all honesty unless you are a single mother on 50k a year I don't see where you are coming from. I can understand that a single mother has addition child care costs already so might need that money more than a couple but then she would still be better off than I and my OH. Those thinking "Well I work for my money" I will just say SO DO I! And I work dam hard at that! I do believe the government has to make allowances when they implement this for single mothers so they are not hit the hardest.

I heard on the radio this morning that it was going to effect "Stay at home mums the most" and I will admit to being infuriated. If you can afford to be a stay at home mum then you don't need CB. If you do need that £20-£60 a week extra and are a stay at home mum then maybe a part time job is the answer. It is what my mother did when we were young and we needed the money. It meant that as my dad returned from work my mother would go to work for 4 hours.

I'm sorry if I seem unsympathetic. And I do understand those who say they live in London and need that extra few pounds as I do understand it is more expensive in the south than it is in the north. I also appreciate that single parents are getting a raw deal here. I won't however accept that it is fair that one person can choose to be a full time parent and expect to be paid for it. It is a luxury that you can either afford or you can't. In my case I can't.

PARENTS FOR FAIR CHILD BENEFIT CHANGES (Facebook)

Hello, we have started a facebook page for those who agree that the way the changes in child benefit are being made is unjust.

Wether you think that child benefit should go or stay, who can justify a household on £88,000 keeping the benefit and a household on £44,000 losing the benefit?

We accept that changes are needed but want them to be fair

See Facebook page [U]PARENTS FOR FAIR CHILD BENEFIT CHANGES
[/U]
Everyone should be interested as more chnges are coming, and you'll want them to be administered fairly, so speak up for yourself and others now.

I am a high rate tax payer with a husband on a relatively low wage. We can't afford to buy because we live somewhere expensive and can only at present afford one child because of our commitments. I acknowledge though that I have more than most and that society has given me a great deal that has allowed me to get to where I am. I am happy to pay back.

I do not begrudge for one moment giving up my child benefit. I see the unfairness in the way it is judged on one earner, but it thatis the most efficient way of working it out, fine.

If you do need that £20-£60 a week extra and are a stay at home mum then maybe a part time job is the answer. It is what my mother did when we were young and we needed the money. It meant that as my dad returned from work my mother would go to work for 4 hours.

Well true but it's hardly ideal is it for family life ?
The point is we're meant to be progressing not going backwards.
I grew up in a family on a very low income as did DH but the point is why did our parents go without if we end up in exactly the same situation only without the massive house price inflation or pension benefits ?
And where are all these part time jobs, can you imagine the army of mums going out at 5pm to do what ? call centre's, cleaning, well guess what I didn't go to university and work for 5 years to clean toilets or sell insurance. I'd rather go without as would DH which means there will be less money in the local economy.

I can easily do without child benefit but I do see how the loss of the universality of the benefit does play badly. I heard one woman (stay at home mum with a husband who I presume must be a hrtp) say that it felt really important to her because it was the only indication that her children were important enough to be recognised by the state. I can kind of see that. Child benefit was also a sort of recognition of mothers as carers too. I don't really think giving married dads another tax break can really substitute.

Was this cut a good idea I wonder?

Catherine - you have a portable skill and can get work either f/t or supply I presume. Wait til you start paying child care costs, and then comment.

You will, unless you are lucky enough to have family doing your child care, have to pay. You will be paying per month prep school fees for nursery. You will have to pay that in the holidays as well, even though you are there to keep the place open. Child minders costs as well. When I was teaching and dh was away/abroad, I put ds into prep school to get the child care I needed to do my job and to cover the early mornings to when I finished some planning / after school activities and got to ds at about 1900.

Many SAHMs don't have family around to do their child care; the cost of the child care is more than they can earn, and if like me, their partners are away lots of the time or work abroad, then he can't be there to sit the kids whilst they do an evening shift. Depending upon where you live in the UK, there aren't the part time jobs about, and the travel costs to get there outweigh the wages. Not everybody lives in a city with good public transport.

No one is being 'paid' for being a full time parent; if they were the salaries would make them higher rate. The cb is a token nod to the cost of raising a child from the state. In the cases of higher rate families, then it is more than covered by the amount of tax already paid.

You also need to realise that some people are SAHMs because they have to be - their kids are disabled, or they are carers, or unable to work themselves because they are disabled. One size doesn't fit all as you should very well know from being a teacher. You should also have realised that having one parent at home can be advantageous for kids. Bringing up your kids and providing a stable constant presence for them is not a luxury; it is what most Mums would want to do in the first years of their children's lives, and if they can do that, why not?

1Catherine, I totally understand your viewpoint, and as someone who works, I too think being a SAHM can appear to be a luxury. But I'm worried that you, and others, think that if people are relatively well off yet oppose the child benefit cuts it is purely for selfish reasons. I am not hard up (though not rich) but I strongly oppose this cut because I believe that it should be a universal benefit. There's a massive principle at stake here. There is so much evidence that universal benefits are the most effective in terms of reaching the people who need them most (no stigma; no need to apply for it, cheaper to administer, etc) and it's also symbolic of the fact that children are valued in society. One of my earliest memories is of my mum explaining to me that family allowance, as it was then, was paid to the mother explicitly so there was something in the family budget for the children, and I felt proud to be valued in this way. For me, losing CB feels as if my children aren't valued by society and that may be a ridiculous emotional response but society is skewed against parents in so many ways that I feel it's immensely damaging to lose this symbolic recognition of what we do, besides losing the practical advantages of universal benefits.

Bloody hell are you having a laugh - my husband doesn't even get a tax allowance - he pays more in tax per year than your husband earns so why the hell should we be propping up your lifestyle?

That is the opposing view as to why you should be taxed to benefit me isn't it?

Madame, your husband's tax more than covers your cb though, as mine does for me. When I was teaching, my salary covered dh's tax bill (just).

It would be nice if we could all unite as families who, whatever our circumstances, have made scarafices to bring up children which the child-free have not had to make.

Is it too much to expect to pay a little less tax when you become a parent, whatever your salary, as in comparison to your child-free peers, you are worse off. IMO all those who are bringing up the next generation should be given a more generous tax allowance (maybe on a sliding scale so lower earners reap more from this) it's what a family-friendly country looks like.

Yes, if it is a choice between taking money away from better off families or worse off families, I support the former. But why does it have to be families who are targetted at all? All families are already worse off than they would have been had they not had children.

Blimey, Pernickety, be careful or someone will pop up on here and say if we're worse off then it's our fault for having children.

Yes, so true.

So true Pernickety. After my conversations today I realise that CB was just as much a recognition of value as it was a benefit.

I feel so sorry for people who do need the benefits. I also understand the feeling of exclusion of those who pay a lot of tax already.

I do agree - this really doesn't seem to be a sensible area to target at all.

MadameCastafiore - sorry if your post was meant to be ironic or sarcastic or something, or if I have completely misunderstood your post - but you don't seem to grasp the purpose behind benefits and a social security system? Our tax system isn't a system where you get out what you put in - it's meant to be a system to ensure that everyone has at least a basic level of income to allow them to live.

All families are already worse off than they would have been had they not had children.

The trouble is people like my sister who has decided against children would argue she already pays for your child's education and health care so why should she pay more to fund your lifestyle choice. And lets face it there are already too many children in the world not loved, cared for, fed and clothed.

I think the idea that we need to be idolised and given other people's money because we chose to have kids - even if we earn more than 85% of the population - is ridiculous and offensive, frankly.

I think the campaigns being set up to oppose the cuts should focus on the fact that CB is a concrete recognition of the value of the work we do bringing up children, and not just on the financial side. Agree totally Pernickety about the importance of govt seeming family friendly.

Well said, Pernickety.

Someone on one of the other CB threads, sorry, I forget who, pointed out that actually, the fair thing to do would be to raise the tax percentage being paid by a small amount for all higher rate earners, not just parents. This would raise just as much money, and be cheaper to administer as the infrastructure is all already there. The infrastructure for looking at someone's partner's earnings in relation to CB isn't already there. I really wonder how much this is all going to cost to administer. I am betting a fair percentage of what is raised, at least.

Why is it other people's money ColdComfort? We all pay our taxes. Do you object to 'other people's money' being spent on schools and healthcare as well?

God, maybe David Cameron should strike Martyr Mummy Medal for all those who feel that they so desperately need 'concrete recognition of the value of the work we do'. It would be cheaper than giving them other people's money, I'd guess.

THe thing about axing a 'benefit' for the better off is that they lose the link to the welfare state. When you are benefitted by the welfare state, part of it (even if you don't notice it much materially) you have a vested interest in it. If it doesn't concern you - well, you are psychologically divorced from it.

What they are doing is quite clever really. Pretend to be bumbling along, cackhandedly making a bit of a boob - but really, severing a link between a family and the welfare state. They are playing a blinder.

Paying for schools and healthcare is not remotely the same as giving cash handouts to already well-off individuals. It's all so selfish, and rooted in the belief that cuts are for other people.

Children are an investment in the future. It doesn't really matter how much money you earn, save for your pension, or invest, when you need care, of any kind, it is somebody's child who will provide it for you - as we age it is the younger generation who will keep the world going. Surely everyone must recognise this?!

It is unfortunate that we have some children in difficult circumstances but they will still grow up and be needed in the world.