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.

Surely it can't be that fucking difficult to find out what household income is automatically. Govt had P60 figures on everybody anyway, why on earth can't they just put together something that decides automatically on household income??

I don't understand this about tax credits either - why do I have to report our annual income, surely the govt have this information from the amount of tax we've paid?

I think you are assuming that Govt departments talk to each other/ have compatible systems, Jareth

Zeph, I thought that was it, but thought surely not!

I did hear something about 44 being what it will be then, rather than now (on the news), musthave reminded me.

What is the 10% tax thing refered to.

(OMG, I h ave clearly been in a baby fog for years!!!

Jareth - we have independent taxation of married women, so the govt can't find out what my household income is in theory. Neither do I have a P60, as I don't work as I followed dh abroad with HM Forces.

I'm utterly confused

(not that it affects me I am so far below the threshold for it to be ridiculous)

It appears that the new policy which is going to be back to a "married person's allowance" which is transferrable to the WIFE (Christ) is going to probably cost more than this CB Cut is going to raise.

Oh, yeah. Tory Policy...making nonsense out of everything (oh and FUCK YOU LONE PARENT'S, FUCK YOU)

Cut it from age 16.
Cut it for more than 2 children.
Or more fairly, 1% on the 40% tax rate or bring the threshold for the 50% rate down to £100k.

Or just taper it from an income of £70,000 and above - gets over the anomaly of single vs. dual income earners in household, etc. but compensates for lack of tax relief on childcare.

Hey,

How is the married person thing going to work, and how much is it?

And do both of the married persons get it?

And does the married person allowance apply to people who are mmarried but live apart ~(e.g.for work/forces etc)?

And what if the partner dies? Does the single parent left lose it?

And does the tax threshold in questino include other income - e.g spouses pension (spouse has died) or just what you earn at your job?

Does it apply to gay couples who are 'married'/civil partnership?

So a family with married parents earning £86k will get the CB and married person allowance. And some poor bugger who was married but loses her husband ups her hours to earn more money as she is now the sole earner gets neither cos she is earning £45k now?

Sorry for all the questions. really embarrassed about how thick I am

Imregular

No one knows the answers to any of these questions...please don't forget that this has only emerged (for the higher tax payers) today.

I don't expect even George Osbourne (bless his little face of evil) knows the full spec yet...

Imregular - there used to be a 10% tax rate, but it was abolished. Gordon Brown said that there would be no losers as WTC would be changed to make up for the loss. The only problem was that not all the losers could claim WTC.

I get the impression that it's a transfer of allowance that is being proposed, where any unused tax allowance can be used by the working partner. I'm not sure though.

LOL at bless his little face of evil

Keep the ideas coming. Then I want MNHQ to email this to George Osbourne and David Cameron who both said there "wasn't another way of doing it".

Given that the married couples allowance (which is a crap bit of policy, not making allowances for lone parents) will wipe out just about all of the savings made from the Child Benefit cut, my suggestion as below, but altered slightly after watching Newsnight;

Cut Child Benefit from anyone with 1 person earning over 88k
Cut Child Benefit from any families with 2 earners in 40% bracket
Limit Child Benefit to 1st 3 children, irrespective of income, but implemented retrospectively for low incomes
Don't introduce married couples allowance.

I reckon that could be implemented in the same way as the current proposal, would probably make MORE money and doesn't have the inherent unfairnesses that are prevalent in the current proposal. Lone parents and SAHMs are not punished, and there is not a disincentive to aspire to increase earnings until far further up the scale, by which point the loss of child benefit is far less significant (at 44k and 4 children it is 10% of take home pay, at 88k it is much less significant).

Ah, but how much money would that save, lily?

Given that the current Child Benefit plus Married couples allowance will save NOTHING (the BBC have done the calculation), my proposal MUST save more money, as you aren't giving money back

The scheme I've suggested not only targets the cuts at the highest earners, but disincentivises having children as a source of income which has got to be a good thing, and would help remove the charge of the "rich subsidising the poor to breed" which the Daily Mail is so fond of!

Suggest the bankers donate their bonuses to cover this as a gesture of goodwill.

I do not support cutting this benefit at all. It's not cost effective and once again sets us against each other, trying to work out who should lose out.

Abolish it for everyone, use the money saved in doing that to give it back to the people who need it via the tax credits system which if they earn less than £44k they will already be in anyway right? Shouldn't incur much in the way of costs but stops it being completely unfair.

Ditto. But to avoid being unfair to the children of single mothers who can't work (possibly won't, but I'm not getting into that), retain CB as an add on to income support.

gaelicsheep - even those of us not currently working (single mums) get CTC - so not a problem to add onto that.

oh and god NO please don't suggest giving it to DWP to sort out - ok TC's can be shite and get it wrong........but they're nothing on the DWP.

That's simple then. Why on earth did they not do that? Idiots.

well a a year or so back they stopped giving the child care part of IS from DWP - now it;s only the adult benefit that comes from them and it was handed over to HMRC (CTC's) - so I see no reason why CB couldn't also be added into it.

From a practical point of view from where I'm sitting right now it would be much easier if they added it onto the CTC. They're both paid every four weeks - from the same government department.

One of the things that bugs me the most (apart from the obvious that I'd rather be working blah blah blah) is trying to manage your money

IS once a fortnight
CB once every 4 weeks
HB every 4 weeks (though you can have it paid weekly)
CTC every 4 weeks.

So you have money drip dripping into your account through the month - and with the major ones being 4 weekly you get 13 payments a year, there are only 12 months in a year (duh! ) and 99.99% of bills have to paid monthly (not 4 weekly),.

I have very few DD's now - and I know many others on benefits that don't either because it's just a night mare to try and work out when in the month one of your 13 payments a year is going to drop into you account, and hoping to god that it comes in before the DD is due out and not the day after.

Of course that means I pay more for my bills as most places these days seem to givge a discount for DD's.

Petty I know - and I bet some reading this are thinking "OMG you're complaining about THAT" - but I'm lucky, I like to think I'm fairly intelligent, I can sit down and convert my fortnightly/4 weekly payments into how much a month. I know when I have to scrape by with extra budget meals to make sure that x,y,z bill can be paid on time as benefitA isn't due in until 3 days after. Many find it really really hard.

- sorry went off on a big of tangent/rant there. I've just been sat working out where my payments come this month in relationship to when the money is coming in so it was fresh in mind

I would rather they added another 1% to the 40% bracket too. I think its fair that those without children contribute too after all its the children of the country that will end up being the bigger losers.

We have a joint account but after all the bills are paid there is very little left. The CB which goes into my single account was used for the those last 10 days of the month when the other funds had run out. I always thought of the money as my earnings and it was a relief to know that once dh's salary had gone we had mine to fall back on. Perhaps I ought to claim constructive dismissal or go on strike.

The only issue with doing it through tax credits is that a lot of families don't claim them even when entitled; for a variety of reasons but mainly because of the overpayments/underpayments stuff ups that have really screwed many families over.

a) The mess ups will need the be got rid of once and for all.

b) There will be more people's paperwork to deal with when these unclaiming people come onto the system.

That said, 'a' needs to happen anyway for all those still claiming.

I would stop CB to all households earning over £50k. I would limit it to the first 2 children and I would also stop it at 14.

That would just be the start of the cuts I would make.

Scrap it entirely and review the tax system to make it more favourable to families with children.