Right you lot we need to get our act together

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

So many threads about Child Benefits, but we need to get our act together and speak as a cohesive voice.

Lottiegal has started n FB page: MAKE CHILD BENEFIT FAIR FOR ALL.
Has anyone else started one too?

A FB is a small start, so is writing to your MP. But they are just small actions that need to grow. We need to get our act together on this.

bethanbach - no of course he didn't!

Which is why I've written back..

Have mailed my MP too as I see this as unfair and badly presented - we'd lose out whichever way you do the sums. As a Conservative voter I have no issue with the need to address the defecit stuff but common sense was clearly missing when this was not completely thought through!!

A FB won't do much - has anyone started an online gov't petition - once it reaches a ceratin level I believe gov't are obliged to respond.

I'm really confused actually. Taking a universal benefit away from higher earners but still giving it to low earners is rather, erm, a left wing thing to do isn't it?

Is it the tories' core voters who are mainly against this? And does it mean that us lefties ought to be allying ourselves directly to old DC after all?

FA - I agree with the need to close the deficit and support the abolition of child benefit for wealthy households.

My challenge is to the unfair and divisive approach to means testing, and the fact that while they've honed in on removing a universal benefit from one demographic (CHB for wealthy families with children) they're ringfencing the universal benefits for another (state pension, winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for wealthy retirees).

And now they're banging on about the married couples allowance as some kind of compensation

what a rubbish response from the mp. saying '85% of households will be unaffected' is a terrible argument. First of all economists think the number affected will be much higher as tax bands are adjusted. Also, playing the numbers game on unfairness is not the way you run a fair society. The government are trying to divide and conquer on this. A dirty tactic which if we allow them to get away with they will use for withdrawing benefits from other parts of society.

If you want to target higher rate tax payers, then increase income tax. Don't target families.

I heard them say on Women's hour that 85% of the country support this-has anyone been asked coz i havent!?

I wouldn't go joining the Conservative party yet Flightt. They have pissed off a very small minority. 15% are affected, many will be earning much more than £45,000 so tis small change they are losing, but are pissed of that their neighbours who BOTH go out to work are still getting it.

So the actual amount they have pissed off is very small. Then they will probably give some, the marrieds, some of it back one way or another and all will be forgiven.

In the meantime they will casually announce taking a higher proportion of income off poorer working people and no-one on this thread will give a fook. They have already announced a benefit cap, only noticed one thread about it and no call for marches.

Forgot I wasn't going to post.

FA
I don't think that £45k family income is massive, depending on where you live of course. It is a decent wage in Scotland, where house prices for a family home start about about £80k but in London where house prices are much higher it won't go far.

Much of the anger is based on a simple fact.

If ONE earner in the family earns more than £44k then they will no longer get CB.

Following scenario:

Family 1
Husband works, earns £43k. Wife works, earns £43k. Total family income: £86k.

Family 2
Husband works, earns £46k. Wife SAHM. Total family income: £46k

Family 3
Single parent family, earning £46k. Total family income: £46k.

If the government said: No CB for those earning over £60k (or £90k) then it would be hard for those over that earning threshold but at least fair.

This way penalises one parent families most as they do not even have the opportunity of making up the shortfall. The SAHM has (in theory) the chance of working part-time to help make up the shortfall.

Meant to say, that in the scenario I outlined, only Family 1, with the highest family income will actually still receive CB.

It is no surprise that there is much outrage on MN about CB cuts, abouteve, considering it is a parenting website. I suspect that the further benefits cuts have not yet sunk in.

Ok everyone, just received MP's reply number 2, as follows:

"The Government wanted to avoid creating a complex new means test for household income that would have fundamentally changed the nature of child benefit.

The Government states households with at least one higher rate taxpayer have much higher median incomes than households with two incomes but no higher rate taxpayer ? around £75,000 compared to around £50,000 for joint income households with a combined income of more than the higher rate threshold.

This is no different to income tax - two people earning £40k will pay base rate each, one person on £45 will pay at higher rate.

Please be assured that I will pass on your views; I always welcome feedback from constituents. If you have any further questions, please do let me know."

(He didn't address my points about 1. why aren't they touching universal benefits for wealthy pensioners or 2. the irrelevance of the married couples allowance for single parent families. Sorry I haven't reproduced my correspondence in full as didn't want to overload)

... comments please?

abouteve the £25,000 benefits cap is a net figure. We currently receive a net figure of £25,200 per annum and we are higher rate tax payers so if we should shut up and stop whingeing than surely you must think that the benefits cap at £25,000 is also fair.

tripping.

I don't understand the response you have received. Why should households be financially better off because one of them is a higher rate taxpayer. Maybe I'm being a bit thick here but I don't understand the logic behind it.

dollshouse - thank you for saying that, I didn't understand it either. Was hoping it might make sense to someone

I don't get tripping's response either.

As far as I'm aware (I may be way off here), but in the UK, couples aren't assessed jointly for tax purposes, are they? I know in many other countries (e.g. France, US) they are, but not in the UK.

As for my views on the cut (in case anyone's interested, doubt it), I agree there should be a cut, but not in an arse-about-face way. Why aren't they going for household income rather than individual? They really didn't think about this, did they.

tripping/thedollshouse
I have read that several times and cannot make heads or tails out of it.

It is pretty irrelevant though.

Means testing is all very well, but why make it more complicated than it is? Put a cap on the amount that a family is allowed to earn and be done with it.

At the same time, they should also means-test other benefits. My uncle is a wealthy man - but still receives winter heating allowance. He pays more than that a month for golf club fees.

So - as this thread is about creating a cohesive voice, I need help in constructing a response! Thank you

I'm affected by the CB cuts. And I think it's completely reasonable that I should NOT be receiving CB. A good number of my friends are also affected and they all think the same as me.

The only peopple whinging seem to be those NOT affected which seems bizarre.

Have you come up with a few Mumsnetters who are affected and are willing to explain precisely what aspect of the loss of CB is so troubling?

The median seems to be the statistic of choice, because it is the middle figure. However all it tells you is that there are as many below it as above it. Every household below it COULD be on the 45k. Until they show a distribution curve for HRT households, I will mistrust the stats.

What's more, the statement comparing median incomes is meaningless. They have restricted the 'no HRT payer but joint income' to households earning between 45k and 88k (as they are the only incomes possible within that parameter), but the incomes for households with a HRT payer go from 45k to infinity.

A much more meningful comparison would be to use the households earning between 45k and 88k WITH a HRT payer, as these are the households unfairly targetted.

swedes I am 'Family 2', literally, in the earlier example. I'm 'whinging' (writing to MP) and it DOES directly affect me. I am a SAHM with a DH earning just above the threshold. We live in the south east, in a not particularly great house, in a not particularly great area, with 3 kids (including baby twins) under 4. That CB makes a huge difference each month on being able to afford to live. We don't have holidays other than to family, we certainly don't live a lavish lifestyle, and working for me with two babies (who will still be preschoolers come 2013) and a primary aged child is financially untenable. I agree cuts need to be made for the greater good of all but where is the fairness in this approach?

Swedes2 - I'm affected too, and I'm happy with the fundamental reasoning behind wishing to remove CHB from wealthy households too.

But I am not happy with the unfair and divisive approach to means testing, and the way CHB has been targeted but other universal benefits have not. Etc.

Swedes, most of the protesters are affected by it, they wouldn't be whinging if not.

Main reasons are that it isn't fair, it will cause them hardship, don't agree that their lower rates tax paying neighbours are still getting it, if missus goes to work.

Can you explain why you don't mind the cut?

also swedes - to decribe why it's so troubling... well we aren't buying our children Christmas presents this year because we can only just afford the groceries (and believe me I meal plan and budget) - but I don't even care about CB in relation to that because cuts have to be made, if I didn't know my neighbours who each work (they have family for childcare I might add) who earn just below the threshold but nearly double what we do overall will still be getting it... it's the fairness that is so diabolical.

Weegle - I'm sorry. That sounds hard. Do you own your own house?

Mme Lindt I can totally see how unfair that is - it was bonkers not to base it on a combined family income.

Surely they might be able to change that though before it goes through?

I'm really struggling to understand though, and forgive me, why it's so difficult to live on £45 odd thousand...I am on benefits so don't get nearly that much, but we manage fine.

Not trying to sound worthy or anything but what do people USE that much money for?