So what would you have done with Child Benefit?

[LilyBolero]

We all know the reform they have come up with is divisive, unjust and GROSSLY unthought out. Dave and Gideon say there 'is no other way'. So how would you do it?

I would remove it from households with TWO HRT payers (thereby removing the anomaly of a family on 45k losing it whilst a family on 88k keep it).

Also remove it from households with ONE 50% taxpayer

Restrict it to the 1st 3 children to discourage having children as a source of income

You could administer it EXACTLY the same as it is proposed to be now, with a box to check on the tax return, and it would be much fairer.

Or alternatively add a penny on the 40% rate of tax so everyone contributes.

leave it as it is and instead chase the 1% of people with 20% of the wealth and 80% of the land (not nec the same people!) in this country - they can fork out a bit more
don't forget those bankers either

I would have scrapped it entirely in favour of the existing (or better still improved) CTC arrangement. CTC takes into account household income, number of children and things like childcare payments. A small increase to accommodate the old CB basic. Set the cap for receiving it at something realistic... £44k for the sake of argument.

that's quite a good idea Chil - CTC has already been changed to take into account what used to be the child element of IS/JSA - so the latter is now only paid for the adults - what used to come from the IS for the children was combined with the CTC so surely they can do the same for CB?

Raised the higher rate of income tax.
But then I am a leftie.

I would have either :

just given it for the first child only, but probly up the rate a bit, or

abolished it completely and added it to the family tax credit system so it could be properly means tested.

But I have no idea how much this would cost/saved.

Abolish CB but replace it with a rise in the personal allowance for people with children.

Announce it at the same time as you announce similar means testing to winter fuel payment and free bus pass.
Then I will believe that we are 'all in this together'. Not that you are deliberately avoiding targeting core Conservative voters.

Always seemed daft to me that we were happy to have two payments to compensate some of the costs of bringing up children ... CTC as well as CB. I thought freezing CB back in the budget was so that 10 or 20 years down the track it would be worth so little in real terms that people wouldn't miss it when it was finally phased out. There would be no extra admin charge that I could see because everyone on

I would have removed it altogether at 16. Or I would have bothered to do means testing for households to make it fair.

I'd have gathered it all up, bought loads of gin and thrown a huge paaarty for the end of society as we know it.

I would have done something similar but have made it fairer. So perhaps have said no CB to any families whose joint income is over £55K ( number plucked from the top of my head).

I would also say that from now on there will only be CB for two children, regardless of income.

vespasian - so how would making it for 2 children work for those that already have more than 3 children? You could be talking a huge hit for some families that are well below the talked about 44k mark

Abolish it for earners in the 50% tax bracket effective immediately.

As others have said, linked it in with CTC which is already means tested and on a sliding scale and phase out any payments once household income reaches 75k.

CTC system needs a complete overhaul though, it's a joke with under and overpayments.

I think limiting the number of children it is payable for is a good idea, though I would say 3, not 2. But you could say that for those under a certain income it would not be retrospective. So low incomes wouldn't be taking a 'hit' but no-one would receive money for subsequent children over the limit of 3 (you would have to factor in children currently in utero!).

Waited until releasing the details of the Universal Benefit and at the same time reduced CB by about 25% but put extra into that UB to compensate the lowest income households.

MaMoTTAt, when I said from now on. I meant for children conceived from a set date in the future. People then know that they will only get help for 2 children.

I don't want existing children to suffer but it is not fair if only middle income familes have to base their fertility choices around finances. We all need to be responsible.

There would need to be a get out clause for people who have multiple births

oh ok - let you off then - I was thinking blimey - sorry DS3 you're lovely and all that but look ducky - you're going to go and have to scavenge out of the bins

I am in a bad mood tonight, but not quite that bad.

OP, I whole heartedly concur.

Musthaveaveryshortmemory I agree with you too. (DP earns more than £50k so we would lose it, but I would agree with the cut if done in this way)

Left it as it is and raised the higher rate of income tax.

Judging by other threads the 'real answer' to the opening question of course is either.... A. change it so that anyone better off than me doesn't get it any more or B. don't change it and tax everyone earning more than me a huge amount instead.

Abolish it for those in the 50% bracket.

Stop it at age 7 for those in the 40% bracket.

Stop it at age 12 for everyone else.

For future claimants it should also only apply for those with up to 2 children with the exception of families who have twins/triplets.

Stopping it at different ages is a good idea.

I think a 14 year old is much more expensive to feed, clothe and generally care for than a 7 year old.

Er, chil, people who want to raise the higher rate rather than abolish CB for higher rate earners are in effect suggesting taxing those people rather less than under the current proposal. It would mean a smaller tax increase spread across all higher rate payers instead of what is in effect a huge increase targetted at those higher rate payers with young children.