Child benefit cut unenforceable

[mcquade]

It has emerged that the scrapping of child benefit for upper rate taxpayers is unenforceable and the Treasury is in a flap about, having failed to consult civil servants before making its headline-grabbing announcement. Yet another mess. Full story here:

blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/10/28/child-benefit-cut-unenforceable-treasury-in-a-flap/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

MaMoTTaT to use your figures then as they are "real"

£15kpa salary = £12424 take home after tax/NI
+£14k benefits
= £26424 NET

£35kpa salary = £26544 take home after tax/NI

therefore to be as well off without any benefits you would need to earn about £35kpa

(and yes I know the amounts vary)

I'm just trying to demonstrate that that you need to look at true comparables net vs net or gross vs gross

and when I said "you need to look" I wasn't meaning you personally, but "you" in the general sense of the word, ie "we all do" in case you take it the wrong way :)

LHA for a 4-bed in my area apparently is £218.63 a week for someone unemployed, getting FULL LHA. Yet we get much less because DP works. We get £56 a week. Christ on a bike, why does someone not working get rent of over £200 a week paid when we only get £56 fucking pounds paid? I think I'm going to ask the council to reassess us, that cannot be right, DP only earns £16K.

Methinks they may have been diddling us as we still claim HB (old, pre-existing claim) rather than LHA, we were told at the council we'd be worse off putting in a new claim for LHA. Methinks that may be bolleaux!

With £35k pa annum salary you would still get around £900 of tax credits a year (according to entitled to) and the £3.3k in CB

(just to show how comparing them is all rather complicated)

Loudlass - I read recently that if you were on the old system they kept you on it. Only new claims on the new system.

I would double check with somewhere like Welfare Rights or CAB that you would actually be better off before stopping your current claim and putting in a new one.

Would be awful to put in a new claim and find yourself worse off

Loudlass: according to the figures you give on your other thread, your family income (not including Child Benefit) is about £30,000. Not including CB, you apparently receive about £17,000 per annum in government support; your DH brings home £13,000 after tax.

Do you realise that this is nearly the same amount of money that someone on £42,000 takes home after they have paid their taxes? Therefore, your household income (not including what you receive in CB) is the same as if your DH was earning about £42K, ie. very near the HRT band.

You will still receive CB - worth about £40 a week to you, yes? So about £2000 a year.

Your CB brings your post-tax income up to that of someone on £44K. Effectively the income of a HRT payer. Do you feel well off?

Now, I agree with the CB cuts - if they must happen - to HRT payers. I'm one myself, and I feel it's fair enough (though I also think it's the government grooming us all to expect to lose all universal benefits over time, and generally to wind in a good deal of the welfare state; and once the "vocal" HRT payers are disenfranchised from the welfare state through the loss of CB, how likely are they to complain about even more cuts to people worse off? ...).

But I think that the picture is not so black and white as: HRT payer, therefore can afford to lose CB.

All this divide-and-rule. Sad, sad, sad.

"All this divide-and-rule. Sad, sad, sad."

Absolutely correct

With £35k pa annum salary you would still get around £900 of tax credits a year (according to entitled to) and the £3.3k in CB

agreed, but once the tax credit changes/lowering of HRT threshold/removal of ChB for HRT payers comes in then with an imcome of roughly £38k there would be no benefits payable.

Anyone would think on the face of it (I know I did until I did the figures!) that a family with one earner on £38k would be massively better off than a family with one earner on £15k + tax credits/HB etc, but once the changes come in they won't.

The family on £15k + benefits are "allowed" to whinge how hard life is because they are "poor" - whereas the family on £38k are "rich" so they should just suck it up...when the reality is there is not a huge difference in net income.

All this divide-and-rule. Sad, sad, sad.
Agreed :)
I'm just trying to demonstrate that not all the "rich" (ie HRT paying) folk are as rich as some people think they are!

Loudlass - your HB does sound wrong - have you plugged your figures into entitledto to see what it comes up with?

I agree totally about the divide and rule.

Many apologies if this has already been covered earlier in the thread, but reading this article in the guardian today, it appears that the coalition's CB proposal is to continue to pay CB as a universal benefit, but to claw its value back from HRT.

Granted there are problems with this proposal -- the institution of a system where one person's tax status involves disclosure of financial information from the other party in a relationship, thus undermining financial independance; the sheer inefficiency of the system for ensuring disclosure; the apparent absence of tapering of loss of CB-equivalent cash to tax people, hence regressiveness; the anomaly of dual-income householda at £88k retaining the value of CB whilstssingle incomes over £44k lose it.

BUT BUT does it not mean that all women will continue to be able to get the CB (whilst possibly losing an equal amount in tax), thus ensuring that it remains as a direct payment to women, possibly protective of them in abusive situations?

I am entirely confused about this and genuinely need an answer. For me, in a climate where the poorest are suffering the most from the spending cuts, I just don't care enough about the squeezed middle to feel strongly about HRT loss (through taxation) of the cash value of CB, if CB itself is still paid as a universal benefit in a manner that gives women an autonomous direct payment that is potentially protective against abuse from partner.

I prob haven't been clear.

Yes, did that a short time ago (tonight). Seems we should be getting £90-£100/wk of our rent paid...not £56!

And yes, we do get quite a bit in tc's etc. And we don't feel well off, can't afford to lose CHB etc. but I can't see how, if a HRT payer is barely any better off than us, how they manage to run a car or go on holiday? Even camping is beyond our budget?

And while I can see that the benefits bill needs to be cut...surely making employers pay a living wage would be the first step to cutting the benefits bill, as with a better wage, low earners wouldn't be needing half as much TC's/HB etc.

And people (be they HRT payers, really rich people on £100K+, the government) starting to appreciate the hard work and shitty jobs that are done by people earning £12-£16K pa. Care worker? Hospital porter? Hospital caterer? Hospital cleaner? Bin man? Why are people doing those sort of jobs not appreciated for all the hard work they put in by being given a decent wage?

I've heard some people say on these sort of threads that the market pays a wage according to how much it values that job. So how can anyone not value the people who clean a hospital? Or take away their rubbish? Surely they would value them a lot more if these jobs were no longer being done?

Every Child Matters.

This is a Child benefit, supposed to be used for the welfare of children.

I agree that those earning over £44k probably don?t need it. Funnily enough, I don?t know any children who earn over £44k...

My child does not need it either and bunging her £17 a week does not make her feel any more valued.

Loudlass - as an aside - I think refuse collectors are quite well paid these days.

I remember seeing an ad in our local paper about 2 years ago and was at how good the salary was.

Long hours,and very early starts though - wouldn't much fancy it in the dead of winter

Nah, not round here, it's all done through agencies (dp did it about 4 yrs ago before he got this current job), they pay the agency a ridiculous amount quite a bit, and the agency pays the bin men minimum wage!

oh right - our council was still employing them - irrc it was about 20k, finished by 3pm though, no weekends, bank holidays and Christmas etc guaranteed off.

There is a philosophy behind child benefit which doesn't apply in the same way to any other benefit. It is about valueing children as future members of our society and in a sense rewarding families who are willing to bring them up. Think it is a moral question this cancellation of CB and hate the tories for doing this in one fell swoop. They should not be allowed to do this and should make us all quake in our boots about what they are capable of.

i worked out recently that i get about 13k a year (all in except CB as currently everyone gets that anyway) as a disabled single mother of one child.

sounds like everyone has lots of money to me but then i gave up my mortgage and moved to cheap accommodation after becoming ill and a mother in quick succession, am aware i can't afford to run a car so don't and looking around mn posts it seems i spend relatively little on groceries etc by buying carefully though we never go short.

it's also clear from looking at the figures listed here and my own income that i would be better off working.

i can't see how/where these people on benefits exclusively are rolling in money and driving flash cars. surely as a single mum who is ill i'd be on the better off end of benefits and as you can see i'm not on a lot of money - in fact less than i earned 15 years ago. seems weird that people who work are getting more in top up benefits than i get altogether. crazy world where the govt needs to subsidise salaries to that extent.

I think a lot of women who are the main child carers in a family have managed to gain a sense of financial independence with CB. They have a small amount of money, which is for the specific use of spending on their children and the way in which they spend that money is (often) entirely down to them. It can be extremely rewarding and liberating to not have to feel entirely dependent on the breadwinner in the household and buying nappies or food for your child with your own money from your purse feels good.

just keep it as it is.

no arguments over who gets more/less etc. just keep it as it is. just go and pick on someone your own size mr.chancellor, oh I mean, cut back on something else

simple.

Albansanne are financially independent if you are relying on welfare?

There is something wrong in your relationship if you rely on a state handout to feel independent IMO. My husband supported me for years and I felt we made a great independent team.

I agree waterloo people say its giving women independence, why do women want/need independence from their husband and if they want their 'own' money then they should go and earn out not expect a state handout.