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.

Muminbeds I was thinking mainly of paying for childcare to be honest. But yes point taken. This policy making is tough!

My point is that people recommending higher tax rates usually want them to kick in somewhere just above whatever it is they happen to be getting. If you're in the 40% tax bracket it's 'everyone on 50% tax' I've noticed.

chil if this were to be brought in right now then we would benefit - dh is under the higher tax rate and I don't use all my tax allowance but I still don't think this is the fairest way to change things. What our situation will be in 2-3 years I don't know.

I don't think that's fair Chil.
A lot of people have said that they don't mind losing it but just think the way its done is unfair.
I am OK with CB being cut. I would rather that than cuts to public services (cos then I'll lose my job ) but I do think that the way they're doing it is perverse and seems ideologically driven.

And I say that as someone on the winning side of the current proposals with the two of us earning about 45K between us.
Even though I win this way it is still unfair.

I agree not fair, I am in the 40% tax bracket and am happy to lose my child benefit and if it was needed I would pay more tax.

lol riven

I don't think you've noticed that exactly, chil. More sort of made it up.

I agree that the Treasury brains trust have completely dropped a bollock on this one - must be the same maths-challenged bunch that did the calcs for Browns 10% tax removal. But I've been reading these threads for a couple of days now and once you get past the 'couple on £80k!!' thing I struggle to find too many people affected that say 'I don't mind losing it'.

I have noticed quite a few Chil, ( I agree perhaps not enough) but maybe we notice the opinions we agree with.

To answer OP: just leave it the fuck alone.
Worked fine. This is a big distraction from all the things we should be worrying about.
The amount of money spent on child benefit is hardly what brought the country to its knees, is it?

I don't think it is fine to be honest.

1% tax rise for dh on 40% is approx 3 times less than losing cb. If everyone on 40% paid 1% more, I wouldn't mind, but this is manifestly unfair with an arbitrary cut off.

I also agree with the poster who said that 14 year olds are far more expensive than 7 year olds. I know, I have one!

It's the HRP hit I object to for women affected who are just over the HR threshold. Surely it would be fairer to tax the higher rate payer for the amount the NI credit costs for that.

It is also retrograde in that I am taxed as a separate entity from dh; how then can this be linked, unless we are removing independent taxation for married women?

Being really thick, but can someone confirm:

What's the deal about two earners?

Why 44k,isn't the 40% bracket about £37500?

And where does the 50% bracket come in. i thought it was 40%?

I think Riven has a sensible point and isn't just being arsey.
I do find it laughable that my dear parents with their huge detached house and two holidays a year get winter fuel payments and free bus passes just for being 'old'. I don't class 60 as old these days anyway.
They think our income is huge but our mortgage payments in a year (for a terraced house on a council estate) would have bought their whole house in the 70s not to mention their free university education (PIL bought a house on their student grants!) vs me still paying off the loan 10 years after graduation. And it goes on as we sub their final salary pensions whilst our scheme is 'closed to new entrants'.
I don't think this is unfair bashing of old people just saying that if we are indeed 'all in this together' then cuts should be considered to all universal benefits including those given to core Conservative voters!

scary, that's the reason they give - that taxation is done on individuals. But they don't apply that consistently, because dh pays higher rate tax based on his earnings alone, but I lose 3k child benefit based on HIS salary. Double standards.

chil, not true that people are only thinking about themselves, I think the fairest thing is to put a penny on the HRT, even though that would be us, because that spreads the cost and includes HRT payers with no children, rather that essentially introducing a tax on children.

Means test the mother. This is a woman's benefit.
And for the record Chil, if they means test me I would no longer be entitled and I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is that if I played the system, paid a little more into my pension, the current suggestion means we would be entitled to it even though the single mum across the road would lose hers. Please don't assume that all of those opposed to this crass, anti-feminist proposal are opposed for self interest.

44k is the figure that the 40% tax bracket will be by 2013 when this comes in. 50% tax bracket is for earners over £150000.

scary - don't you fill in your claim related to the child - so only one of you can claim but the other (if they live with you of course) are on the claim. And you can only claim for each child once - i.e. seperated parents can't both claim for the same children

Means test the mother..
Would this not mean that a SAHM with a DH earning, say £100000 would still get the benefit, and a single mother earning just over £44000 would get nothing?

I think we have moved on from assuming that children are the sole domain of women, I find it quite patronising. If you are going to means test, do it on the family unit

Thanks musthave (can't remember the rest of your name - ha ha)

And can someone just clarify the two earners £80k thing versus single earner thing?

Actually I think £44k is the £37k on which you are taxed at 20% plus your tax free allowance. The deal with couples is that they can have a household income of £86k if they earn £43k each and keep the CB, whereas a household with a total income of £44k earned by one person will not get any CB at all, even though their income might be just over half of that of the dual income family.

One of the advantages of CB is that is is cheap to administer, once you start messing around with it too much, it becomes expensive. The whole point of the cut is to save money - and I can see that taking it away from a HRT payer is a straightforward way to do it. But, like the 10% tax debarcle, it just wasn't thought through.
I agree with MuminBed it should have been announced as part of the universal benefit, so everyone can see where they stand. Losers on CB may gain on something else. But, I have a nasty idea that they know as much about the details of the universal benefit as I do.

I can't decide if it was ill thought out and the rumpus was totally unexpected, or it was an act of genius to deflect from other policy decisions.