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???!!!

Alicatte - yes, Labour recognised this. We voted them out.

I had thought that the Conservatives recognised this too.

How do we pay back the giant deficit I wonder, when the rich bleat about losing a penny?

I'll be happy for them to cut child benefit AFTER they've targeted the massively overpaid - and I'm not talking about families on an income of £44k. For cuts to be palatable, they must bear some relation to disposable income - yet a single banker gets a massive salary plus his/her share of this year's £7bn bonuses while families see their income cut. You don't have to be selfish to think that's just plain wrong.

when you need care, of any kind, it is somebody's child who will provide it for you

True providing those children are incentives to do so, are you hoping your child will grow up to work 12 days a day in a care home wiping bottoms for minimum wage, personally I am not.
And not everyone of them will go into a caring role, so you can understand if my sister doesn't want to pay more tax for you to create another artist or teacher for example people she will never come into contact with, worse still a child that becomes a criminal or spends it's life on benefits.

There are practicalities to consider - of course CCC but this feels rather like a principle.

It doesn't really concern me as I said but I was really affected by the sense of loss at the school today. Surely income tax would be a cheaper and more sensible option - maybe only for HR. I would suggest VAT too but I think that's already happening isn't it.

It is natural (I am sure I heard David Attenborough say that it was actually in our genes) to protect children. This really doesn't seem to be playing well.

Alicatte - what gave you that idea?
They were always going to cut investment in children.

I grew up in the Thatcher era. I know it isn't fashionable to mention that, as we aren't supposed to either hold grudges, or assume DC is the same - but this is exactly what happened then. No investment in children, resulting in generations who haven't worked and don't understand what it is to contribute. Labour (I think) were trying to redress that whilst not banging on Daily Mail stylee. We didn't get it until the verrrrrry end. Too late. Too muddled by security and the Iraq War etc.

M - I hesitate to say it but Teachers and Artists do make a contribution too.

I do not know what your family are employed in perhaps their contribution is more direct. My brother is a doctor and I have other family members in legal and caring professions and i do recognise that they are at the sharp end - I really respect them for it. My sister, like yours, has chosen not to have children for personal reasons. I guess that many people feel that they do not have a link to the welfare system.

Kirsty a salary of £44k is not over £3k a month, it's £2689. Take away pension contributions and it's more like £2400. Add in a £1200 mortgage (fixed rate on a tiny terrace in the SE) and substantial student debt, Mum being SAHM because she has 3 under 5 and working is pointless. Add in the fact that a lot of people never considered that CB would actually be taken away so considered it as part of their family benefit and you can perhaps see why it is difficult. Yes, they'll cope, but losing £200 a month is going to have a serious effect on families like this.

On the other hand, imagine the family where both parents work and earn a combined salary of £70k, but neither is a high rate tax payer. Also imagine that this family has £200k in the bank. This family will still get CB.

THAT is what people are pissed off about.

In the majority of situations £44k is more than a liveable wage, of course it is. As always though it's going to be families just over the threshold who'll actually feel it the most.

We'll lose it and (after the initial shock of them daring to take CB away) I do agree that we should (as our combined income is substantially over the HRT threshold)

It's the way they've done it which irks.

(that would be £1200 pcm mortgage, in case that wasn't clear )

People aren't unhappy because they have lost the benefit - people up till now have astounded me with their stoic approach to the cuts - most people 'get' that the cuts have to happen.

What stinks is Cameron with his we're all in this together and it's tough but fair . Whilst this cut is tough, it is demonstrably NOT FAIR because a family on 1 income of 44k and 4 children (us) loses TEN PERCENT of their income, whilst another family earning 40k more, taking home THIRTY THOUSAND MORE AFTER TAX will keep the benefit without losing a penny.

THat's what people mind about. ANd I honestly don't think the Tories had spotted the anomaly, which is a scary thought - that they are not scrutinising the cuts, and are rushing them out. A married couples tax break is NOT the solution - there is no reason why a married couple need a tax break over 2 single people, married couple with kids DO have extra costs. And a married couple allowance does NOTHING to alleviate the unfair pain suffered by a single parent on 44k.

It is not as simple as 'find a part time job' - dh's job for example is unpredictable in the hours, and in return for a HRT salary he is expected to stay for the duration. No getting home in time to allow me to go out to work.

U the Conservatives did actually SAY that they would not cut a variety of universal benefits. I do realise that the economic policies of the eighties did cause the creation of an unskilled sector of society which found it impossible to gain employment.

I think the coalition realises that too. Well I hope they do.

The Tories could have come to my house and tattooed it on my forehead. I wouldn't have believed it.

I think that because Labour were so long in power, and so unelectable towards the end, the Tories were well able to talk the talk. It was always obvious that they would stick to an ethos that has had a lasting bad effect on the children of the 80s, whilst benefitting the children of the people who benefitted in the 80s.

The Lib Dems made them electable, didn't they?

Somebody earning 43K is paying around £11K in tax and NI. A salary of £12K means tax and NI of under £2K. (So £2K tax wouldn't actually cover CB for 3 children? I may have got this wrong, so please correct me if I am).

Child benefit just reduces the tax burden of tax payers with children for a few years. For tax payers, it isn't really a 'benefit' at all - it just takes back out some of what you have put in.

I can see that in some areas £43K must seem like a lot of money. However, in the area where I live (not particularly spectacular, lived here all my life, near my parents), two up two down terraces with a downstairs bathroom can't be found for less than £300K. It is the rule of supply and demand in an area where there is a lot of demand because there are lots of jobs.

If you have found employment in an area where you can survive on a much lower wage without state support, I am truly happy for you. That is great, it really adds to the sum of human happiness. Wouldn't we all like to live in such a place.

However, you might think twice before deciding to swap lifestyles with some people who earn £43K.

David Cameron was working for the government in the early nineties. I remember that shot of him standing behind Norman Lamont when there were all those problems. I think he would have taken notes.

Yes, they sure did

I don't actually get it

My dh earns nearly £50K, but I earn about £7K (very, very part time). I take it we will lose it??

alicatte, can you expand on that?

fartmeister, yes, you lose it. If your earnings were more evenly distributed, you wouldn't. That's what people are confused about.

are you hoping your child will grow up to work 12 days a day in a care home wiping bottoms for minimum wage, personally I am not

No, but I am hoping that my child will grow up to do a fulfilling job, pay (hopefully hefty because she will be making a decent whack) taxes and thereby pay my pension and yours. Not to mention our winter fuel allowance, the child benefit for the next generation, benefits for those in need, money for hospitals and schools and GPs. Etc.

fartmeister, yes, under these proposals you will lose your CB.

Under the present proposal - yes. It is to be cut for households where there is any higher rate taxpayer.

It has just occurred to me - why not tie it to the 'parent with caring responsibilities' salary. Would that work? Just make it assessed on the salary of to the parent to whom it is paid. I am sure that would be perceived as fair.

Just make it assessed on the salary of to the parent to whom it is paid. I am sure that would be perceived as fair.

I thought that to start with, but then I realised that it would unfairly penalise single mothers on higher rate salaries. I think it is inarguable that they face more challenges (some of them costly) than the people who are in a relationship.

alicatte, they wouldn't do that because then you could have the 'super-rich' getting it because they have one massive income and one small.

I know of a couple where they have probably around a million pounds in assets (mostly property) and neither of them are higher tax payers. They will continue to get child benefit, yet my mate who is single and earns just into the higher tax bracket but pays a huge amount in childcare, will see hers removed entirely.

How is this fair????

U - I am just hoping that DC will have learned from the mistakes of the Thatcher years as well as from the mistakes of more recent years.

It occurs to me that the financial meltdown during the previous Conservative administration may well have contributed to the coalition's strong desire to attack the deficit as a priority. They were young politicians but still within the loop of the treasury when that all unfolded and I hope they have learned what they could from it.

But I still think that this CB cut is not a sensible way to go - it feels like a principle has been abandoned.

Horton and Lily - I see your point.