So child benefit to go for higher rate taxpayers #2

[Lottiegal]

Facebook group set up, it's called MAKE CHILD BENEFIT FAIR FOR ALL. Please post your opinions a vote your protest by joining, we can then organise a petition or perhaps a demo

Well it's certainly got everyone back stabbing everyone else. Pensioners, two income families, people who earn less than HRT. The example of a family income of £86,000 is probably very rare so not worth worrying about the fairness of that.

Everyone was warned what a conservative government would do, but I reckon most of their voters thought they would take it off poor people and not the likes of them so this has come as a shock.

I see the City is paying itself £7bn in bonuses this year. Much of that courtesy of tax payer funded bailouts of the banks.

Society is going to rupture at some point.

I agree with you Beta. We are in for some scary times.

"Not sure the government should be giving child benefit to help people with massive mortgages really!" If that was aimed at me alfiesmadmother please rest assured that no CB is being used to cover my mortgage. Around £80/month would not go far had I applied for it in the first place.

sad that so many tory voters have been duped.

Having lived through one or maybe two previous tory administrations I know how ruthless they can be, how they don't give a toss about ordinary working people and also middle income earners.

Sad but true

lottie - in your blurb can you make it for all people who want to protest rather than just those affected, will 'splain why later, got a young child here who needs my attention.

Ok - I think this campaign should include people from across the board and not just those directly affected, no need to limit it :)

OYBK - yes as a Tory voter who will not be affected I will be writing to my MP and to Cameron who used to be my MP.

Interesting comment article in the [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8043087/Child-benefit-row-David-Cameron-holds-out-promise-of-tax-credits-for-couples.html Telegraph]]. Clearly some Tory MPs are not happy.

"Several Tory MPs have privately expressed amazement that Mr Osborne has taken the surprise step of taking away child benefit for households where one partner earns more than £42,000."

"Another minister said that Mr Osborne had failed to consult the rest of the Cabinet about the announcement. ?It?s typical Treasury team stuff ? George just does his own thing without discussing it because he thinks he doesn?t need to. But sometimes it turns out he?s not as clever as he thinks he is.?

"A senior Conservative MP said: ?This is our 10p tax. This is going to be a disaster for us. It?s the wrong decision and it?s been done in the wrong way.?"

cs/conservative/8043087/Child-benefit-row-David-Ca meron-holds-out-promise-of-tax-credits-for-couples .html Telegraph.

One day I will do links properly...

Telegraph.

To the person who made the comment about massive mortgages - sadly many people have large mortgages but don't exactly live in mansions! This is because house prices have increased massively over the years, which means that even a modest house is now out of reach for many people.

I'm one of the lucky ones, as I bought my house when things were a lot better (15 yeasr ago) and then dh sold his, I sold mine and we bought our current one (12 years ago) at a reasonable cost. If we were buying it now, there is no way we could afford it.

Just to illustrate, in 1995 I bought my modest 3 bed semi for £50k. I had saved £5k, so had a mortgage for £45k. My salary (for full time work) was then around £15k, so the mortgage was approx 3 x my salary, which was affordable. If I did the same job today, I would be earning around £27k - but the same house would now cost around £150k. Even if I had saved up £20k, the mortgage would be £130k, and that would be more than 4 x my salary. It would be really hard to afford. I don't envy young people today trying to find affordable housing - even renting is much more expensive than it used to be.

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.

It is similar here SMTB. 3.5x33K will buy you a one bedroom flat, just about.

Thanks Beta :)
As a Lib Dem, I feel utterly let down by 'my side'. I feel like starting a Mumsnet Party movement - a bit like the Tea party movement over in the States.

Ok - I haven't reads all the posts on the previous monster thread. I am one that will lose child benefit but I'm in a lucky position that life will go and I won't miss it too much. I agree that we should all share the pain and that the current proposal is inequitable but..... what the government should do is simply the whole system and raise the threshold at which people start paying tax. What about this scenario:

One household one income (through choice) > 44k - loss of CB

Another household two incomes both lower rate taxpayers income say 70 k - keep CB

You could argue that the first family have chosen not to maximise their income - their choice. The second family have chosen to maximise their earning potential. If you take child benefit away then they are effectively subsidising the first family for their decision to have one parent at home.

Don't want to turn this into a working vs. SAHM debate but I don't see this as simple as looking at a family's joint gross income -there are too many other factors that need to be taken into consideration.

Celtie - I am a Forces wife abroad, so even if I worked, I would not be making NI contributions for my pension. I kept my UK child benefit rather than going for the higher Belgian one because I got HRP.

You also ignore the cost of childcare, and that often the cost of childcare is greater than the net wages when someone returns to work, so it is uneconomic to work. Also, life isn't about 'maximising your earning potential' when you have kids. It's about finding a job for which you can get childcare, preferably not work in the school holidays, and that doesn't mind too much if you need time off if your child is sick as nursery won't take them, especially if you have no family around. You evidently don't have children, or employ a Nanny.

I find your comment about no children and a nanny quite insulting. I do have children and don't employ a nanny, I have to juggle and over the years I have paid significant amounts in child care, I am very aware of how much it costs. I just want to put a different perspective out there. People keep quoting the inequitable nature of what is being proposed. I just want people to think about the fact that those familes with a joint income of > 44k may have made real sacrifices to get that joint income, it probably wasn't a simple choice to go back to work and they are being penalised for that choice and effectively subsidising others. If you take your argument on the cost of childcare removing CB may be what tips people over the edge to say that it is just not worth it. Many people seem to see this in black and white - there are many shades of grey. I would rather see the whole system overhauld.

I have been at party conference this week and spoken to quite a few party members about this. Despite understanding that it's not terribly fair, none of them really seem to care apart from it being a bit of a PR fuck up.

They don't seem to get that people aren't necessarily ideologically opposed to child benefit being means tested, it's the unfairness of how it is being implemented and that is disproportionately benefits households with two earners. It could have been a great opportunity to reinforce the 'we're all in it together' and 'we're protecting the poor and distributing the cuts to everyone' but Osborne has ballsed it all up.

"But sometimes it turns out he?s not as clever as he thinks he is"

no shit Sherlock!

"The example of a family income of £86,000 is probably very rare so not worth worrying about the fairness of that."

2 teachers could easily be earning £60k - £80k. Not that rare I am sure!

'What about this scenario:

One household one income (through choice) > 44k - loss of CB

Another household two incomes both lower rate taxpayers income say 70 k - keep CB

You could argue that the first family have chosen not to maximise their income - their choice. The second family have chosen to maximise their earning potential. If you take child benefit away then they are effectively subsidising the first family for their decision to have one parent at home.'

Your scenario is precisely why people are riled; because the first family doesn't have the double tax allowance that the second family does; neither does the second family pay tax at 40%, but at 20%, as they must both be under the threshold to keep the cb. Thus, the first family is already paying more in tax; losing cb; having to pay 1% more NI, and also more in tax from April 2011 as the threshold for paying 40% is being lowered to ensure that HR taxpayers don't benefit from the extension of the basic rate threshold. Explain to me please why precisely this is fair. One could also argue that the higher rate taxpayers subsidise others by putting a lot in and getting not a lot out.

Your scenario is not logical because if you remove cb, the second family is not subsidising the first at all, and it wasn't in any case as the higher rate tax covers the cb.

If you actually bothered to read the other thread you would see that we had thoroughly explored the different perspectives already.

I think my primary school aged daughter could see this is a rubbish idea - in fact I think my toddler could....hang on I'll ask the cat. Would get more sense out of her than out of George Osbourne!

celtiethree - also your scenario leaves single parents out the equation. HRT single parents are most heavily hit by this policy, as they lose CB and have to pay childcare costs.

I agree that my first post was illogical it should have included a family that still retained CB, both families in my original post would be subsidising families that still receive CB (if you take it away from the family that earns 70k). The only point that I am arguing against is that that there is a focus on joint income without taking into consideration the effort that some families have taken to get that joint income (not withstanding that it is not possible for all, but for some families it is a choice that one partner stays at home when they could work). My argument is that we should not make policy like this - there should be informed debate where we as a society agree how we should support families and other vulnerable people in society - single parents included.

On the extension on the basic rate - yes higher rate tax payers would benefit but that could easily be clawed back through amending thresholds in the upper brackets.

As I said.... 'and also more in tax from April 2011 as the threshold for paying 40% is being lowered to ensure that HR taxpayers don't benefit from the extension of the basic rate threshold.'

The point is that there is not a focus on joint income at all; it's purely on one partner being higher rate. How you think that people manage to be higher rate taxpayers without a lot of bloody hard work is beyond me.

The point is that the couple who are both lower rate don't lose cb, and have more take home than the person who is higher rate and who isn't there much of the time perhaps to enable his partner to go and work; or who can't take the day off if the kids are sick because the high paying job expects them to be there all the time. There are huge efforts and compromises made to enable someone to earn the higher wages to pay higher rate, believe me.

well said Scaryteacher.

I am a SAHM after being given redundancy whilst on maternity leave. We did the maths - I didn't earn that much - and it just didn't make sense for me to go back to work, as after childcare costs (high in this area of London - £45 per day) my take-home pay would be a pittance and why pay someone else to do my job of raising our kids?

My husband works long hours, it is very difficult for him to take time off or work from home for sick children etc. As he is the only income earner he has taken a higher paid but more responsible and stressful position at work which puts him into the higher tax bracket. (One of his colleagues without children actually left the company for a less stressful but lower paid job, but then without dependants he could afford to.) Without me at home it would make it very difficult for my husband to carry on doing the job he does.

BTW we don't live in a huge house (a flat in fact) and have already made many compromises in reducing our living costs since having kids (not easy in London) so I really resent the implication that a HRT is rolling in it, or that because I don't go 'out' to a job I am lazy, looking after kids well is bloody hard.

I feel everywhere we turn our role as mums is totally undervalued.