Hi I'm new to here but have been moved to write to my MP. as follows... a bit of a rant I know (and apologies for any typos and plagiarism from other members)
<span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span>__
I am writing to you to express my strong objections to your proposed
reforms to child benefit.
Firstly, please let me explain that I am a stay-at-home-mum of 2 two
children, whose husband earns just over the higher tax threshold and
therefore we will be affected by this policy.
I fully accept that cuts have to be made and that those higher income
households should share the burden. However, the anomalies in this
system are so great and will affect such a large number of families
that the policy is unworkable and unfair.
My objections to your policy to abolish benefit when one parent earns
more than £44,000 are on several levels.
- Sole income households penalised
While I do understand the need to limit child benefit, even to my
detriment, the very fact that you can countenance a policy which allows
a family with a household income of £45,000 to lose out, but a
household with a joint income of £87000 to still receive the benefit is
an outrage. I feel that this is a direct attack on those families who
have chosen one parent to stay at home whilst the other works full time
and also lone parent households. Also, this is placing an unfair burden
on those families with pre-school children, who are the most likely
families to have a parent at home and for whom the option of working
also raises the need for massive childcare costs. You are directly
taking money from families at exactly the point that they need it most.
I do not see the justice in some households of joint earners with
almost double the income of a one-wage household to still be able to
receive Child Benefit. Your party leader and colleagues have described
this as an "anomaly", but I feel it is blatant unfairness.
If the cut really is necessary, it must at least be seen to be fair and
apply to household income, not just to higher-rate payers. It seems a
huge injustice that a couple with a joint income of £45,000 would keep
the benefit when a single income household of £45,000 would lose out.
Especially when a dual income household benefits from 2 individuals'
personal allowances, and so is putting less into the government's tax
pot to start with.
- Simplicity versus fairness
Having worked in the benefits field for some 20 years I understand that
using a tax code is a simple way of administering this cut rather than
a full means test, which to be a true means test would need to take
into account income and expenses such as child care costs and require
evidence gathering etc. While this new policy may be simple, it is
definitely not fair despite what your party is repeating to the media.
Also, as Child Benefit is usually paid to the mother, and the father is
the person taxed, further forms/administration will need to be required
to cross-reference such households claiming Child Benefit with a high
earner. Also there is an issue with adoptive and step families. This
"simple" approach of using a higher rate tax code does not seem to be
thought through thoroughly. There will still be administration costs
and will be open to fraud, whereas Child Benefit was previously a
universal and relatively cheap benefit to administer.
- Ramifications for State Pension Entitlement
Furthermore the cuts to child benefit will have worrying ramifications
for women's State Pension entitlement following the replacement of Home
Responsibilities Protection (HRP) in April 2010, which now links with
the receipt of child benefit for a child under 12. Women like me who
stay at home to care for children while a partner earning more than
£44,000 supports the family will lose their entitlement to the carer's
credit, and thus the full value of their state pension. How will this
continue to be administered is I am no longer eligible for Child
Benefit? I assume I need to continue to claim Child Benefit, which
will in turn be recovered through my husband's taxation. How costly in
administration.
- Disincentives to work harder
My husband has just entered the higher rate tax threshold this month
after striving for a better paid job within the public sector (which is
facing cuts and pay freezes), and works long hours in the office and at
home. I had to give up work due to the cost of childcare and journey
to work, which would mean my children requiring childcare for 11-12
hours a day. Instead as one wage household we have budgeted
accordingly and rely on Child Benefit. We thought we were providing
the strong family values and moral grounding for our children with mum
at home to nurture and care and dad out working hard. How wrong we
were. This cut in Child Benefit seems to undervalue stay-at-home
parents who are generally undervalued for the stabilising element they
add to a child's upbringing.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies, has warned the cuts would 'seriously
distort' incentives to work harder and get a pay rise. A one-earner
couple with two children and an income of £43,875, just under the 40p
tax threshold, will need a pay rise of £2,975 or more to ensure they
are no worse off after losing their child benefit. The anomaly raises
the bizarre prospect of people turning down increases in salary so they
do not to lose their allowances. We are now in fact left in a position
where my husbands increased salary means a net loss in money with the
loss of child benefit and the reduction in Child Tax Credit from April
2011
- A high earner?
It has been repeatedly stated by your party colleagues that this policy
will affect families with an average income of £70,000. However this
is a median figure and creates an inaccurate impression to the public.
This figure takes into account all high earners, not just those with
children and is not reflective of the unmistakable fact that just by
earning £10 over the threshold, families can lose all the Child Benefit
entitlement in it's entirety. Also, after tax, National Insurance
(soon to increase) and pension contributions the net income is not high
for the south east, with higher property and transport costs (rail
fares are also set to increase).
I understand that there is a benefit cap of £26,000 to be introduced,
which equates to £35,000 gross pay. Although this will incorporate
Housing costs and living costs, there will still likely be provision of
extra help (not benefits) such as free school meals, free school milk,
uniform vouchers, free music lessons at school, 15 hours free nursery
for under 3's and free adult prescriptions and NHS costs on top of
this. Suddenly it seems a family earning £45,000 gross, which is
approximately £32,000 net, before pension contributions, travel to
work, school meals, school milk, uniforms, nursery costs, prescriptions
and NHS costs as above, is not such a high earner after all.
Further to this, if tax bands and personal allowance plans remain
unchanged, it will not be those earning more than £44,000 from who
cannot claim child benefit, as it would stand now, but those earning
more than £42,375. Changes in the Emergency Budget in June meant that
from April 2011, the income tax personal allowance will rise by £1,000
to £7,475, but so as not to benefit higher rate taxpayers, the 20% tax
band will be trimmed. Currently 40% tax starts at £43,875: a personal
tax allowance of £6,475, plus the £37,400 20% tax band. From April
2011, 40% tax will start at £42,375: a personal tax allowance of £7,475
plus a smaller £34,900 20% tax band.
Also, much has been stated today about a tax break for married couples
to ease the problems of this child benefit cut, however this was
suggested for married couples on the basic tax allowance which does not
apply to those affected by the cuts.
- Big Society
With this policy you seem to have missed the fact that the
stay-at-home-parents that this will hit are the very people they want
to rely on to volunteer as part of the Big Society - parents who fund
raise for schools and nurseries through the PTAs, who volunteer for
charities, who are supposedly going to have the time and inclination to
set up free schools. And yet, unless Mr Osbourne has an answer for us
on HRP, this will effectively make stay-at-home-parents invisible to
the state. A progressive Government?
May I refer you to Mr Cameron's speech to the Welsh Conservative
Conference, March, 2009 in which he stated "Families are the most
important institution in our society. We have to do everything in our
power to strengthen them." I distinctly remember your campaign posters
and broadcasts of the 2010 election which said 'I've never voted
Conservative before but I like their plans to help families'. Well, I
have been a lifelong Conservative voter, however I feel incensed that
this is the latest line in cuts which impose a disproportionate share
of the burden on families, and in particular middle income families.
So yes, please reform child benefit if necessary to assist the current
financial deficit, but please not in this unequal and divisive way. If
you must withdraw benefits from families you should adopt a fair
approach across the board.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to my views.
_
hope this helps.