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

I have a question for those of you who think CB shouldn't be given to higher eraners.

If it turns out that it is prohibitively expensive to give CB only to the poor, because of the admin involved / building new databases etc, then what's wrong with giving it to everyone and then taking more tax back from the rich to compensate?

What's the point in giving it only to the poor, if the cost of doing so makes any savings negligible?

If the cheapest way to administer it turns out to be what we're doing now, then would that be acceptable to you?

higher earners sorry!

It seems (I think) that is is what the govt proposes to do -- see here.

I posted a question about this article earlier in the thread. I still feel confused.

Can I repeat my confused ponderings from earlier in the thread?

"... 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.

"

On another thread someone was asking how much in benefits you get if you are on a combined income of £17,000. It would appear that a family on that income would receive £700 per month in benefits (CB, CTC & WTC).

For those of you who think that everyone who is a HRT is loaded need to think again. It would appear that someone on £17k has a take home pay of only £300 less than dh (HRT) and we have almost £600 on commuting to pay each month.

I received my response from my MP on Friday. His response was "I cannot argue for a family on £15k to pay for the Child Benefit of better off families."

My response to you Mr Gauke is

The whole thing is a nonsense. I am applying for a new job, if I get it our gross H/income will be £78k - and because we both earn under £44k we would retain CB. We have 1 daughter Yet my best friend, a SAHM would lose it because her husband earns £500 over the limit. they have already made serious cutbacks to ensure she can be a SAHM to their two boys, how on earth is it fair that we retain it and she loses it ?

I would be very glad to see the current way they are looking at cutting it fall on its face

dollshouse: presumably they're taxed on that £17k so say 14.5k after tax, plus the benefits of 8.4k giving a total of 22.9k. not exactly on a par with the net income of a hrt earner is it? and presumably they too have to pay for their travel, childcare etc.

also want to point out again that as single disabled mother of one i get a grand total of less than 14k. think we do need to differentiate between people who are getting top up benefits because they can't/don't earn a living wage in their jobs (govt subsidising industry) and those of us who are currently dependent on benefits due to disability or being a carer. we certainly aren't getting these huge amounts, flash cars etc being cited.

Can't say I have any sympathy for families complaining about a lack of money when one parent is choosing not to work.

Wallows. I'm talking net not gross.

I'm not saying for one minute that they shouldn't get the benefits. I'm just saying that there isn't much difference in the net pay of someone on a much higher salary and yet everyone seems to think there is. Net pay of someone on £17k is £1k less per month than dh and they receive £700 per month in CTC, WTC & CB so the overall monthly amount is not that far apart.

Bailedowen I'm not choosing not to work. I'm currently on maternity leave, if I return to work I will earn £3 per month after paying for a childminder. £3 per month is not exactly mega bucks is it?

I would happy if the government said that they would stop CB for HRT once the child is 5. Once children are at school childcare costs are more manageable.

you haven't lost your CB yet and they haven't had their 10% cut in working tax credits plus the reduction in the childcare element of working tax credit.

everyone is going to feel these cuts. i appreciate HRT earners are going to feel the loss of their CB, people already on the poverty line are going to feel the cuts in their money too and single mum's losing 10% of their HB if they can't find a school hours, public transport reachable job.

we are all going to feel this.

i don't necessarily agree with this policy but i don't think this one group is being hit anymore than anyone else and the idea that a working couple who have to pay for childcare and only earn 17k a year between them are in the same boat as a couple where one adult does not work and they can still afford their mortgages, pensions, etc.

they're just not the same.

seeing as we're having so much detail about the benefit peoples income i'm curious how much you earn thedollshouse. what is your own usual income and your husband's combined per month?

you appear to be £300pm better off than that family plus whatever it is you receive in CB plus your salary. it's adding up.

you're assessing their scenario on your husbands salary alone and not including CB or your salary and their situation on both incomes and CB. for a fair comparison of your current scenarios you need to tell us your income and how much CB you get.

Wallows. You seem to be under the impression that I am of the view that HRT are going to be the hardest hit. I don't have that view I am merely saying that being an HRT doesn't mean that you are rolling in it. On another thread today someone asked how much one would receive in way of benefits if their pay was £17k per annum. A few replied and generally most people seemed to receive in the region of £700 per month of top up benefits.

Dh's take home pay is £2,100 and mine is £0 as I am currently on maternity leave. As I said earlier if I return to work I will receive £3 per month after paying a childminder. I won't be returning to that job for £3 it just isn't worth it. I'm intending to become self employed as eventually I think I can earn a very good salary but it is going to take a while to establish a regular income and the childcare situation is going to be tricky, I haven't got my head around that issue yet.

We spend a fortune in commuting costs (£600 per month). We can't move closer to Dh's work because house prices there are even more expensive than they are here.

We are also paying £1k mortgage on a starter home. I want to sell our house and move somewhere cheaper so we can reduce our outgoings. It would mean that dh could move in with his parents (commuting costs would still be the same) but we could reduce our mortgage/rent by around half (I think). Dh doesn't want to do this because he wouldn't see us very often. I can't see any other way.

Out of interest do you think I am being unreasonable in wanting to move to the other end of the country or do you have any other suggestions. As much as it stresses the hell out of me I'm starting to think that if he is made redundant it might not be such a bad thing at least it forces the issue and I expect we could claim jsa.

what is your salary is the question - you can't compare their income to your husbands when there are two of you earning. they too will have childcare and travel costs. so you in fact are £300 + your current child benefit + plus your net salary better off per month than that family.

i'm guessing that's at least £1.5k better off after tax than them.

that is quite a difference of extra cash per month i'm sure you'll agree. you can't make comparisons without including all the figures. everyone pays childcare and travel, everyone has to live to their means.

if as you say you choose not to go back to work you will be £300 + CB (for now) better off than them plus they will have childcare costs to pay that you won't incur as a SAHM. i wonder if one of them wishes they could afford not to work?

if you need to move, move. i had to when my circumstances changed. in the end my property was lost to this recession that perfectly coincided with my health problems and unexpected pregnancy. i've lost my career, my property and much of my future prospects yet i still seem to feel less hard done by than you strangely.

i chose to have my baby not abort it so i had some control over that i guess the same as you've chosen to have children and now another one. we have to do what we have to do.

Wallows your posts have a very aggressive tone. Not feeling hard done by,worrying etc isn't a competition. The fact you've had previous problems isn't the fault of anybody on here.If Dollshouse wants to feel hard done by at the thought of living apart from her dp,not exactly sure why she can't to be frank.

nothing aggressive about it. and i'm not griping about my problems here milamae. that was the irony.

imho misplacedly starting to accuse someone of being 'aggressive' is pretty lame.

Wallows you've catalogued a whole list of woes,we all have problems along the long,why aren't people allowed to worry about life's problems all of a sudden?

Woopy do you don't want to gripe about your problems well you know what I don't have a problem with anybody griping about their problems. Worry is worry and sorry I don't think dictating when people are allowed to voice that worry is very nice.

You don't have the monopoly on worry,what may seem very insignificant to you maybe a big deal to somebody else especially somebody who is pregnant.

And sorry your posts do come across as aggressive to me wether you like it or not.

.

Lowrib i agree that perhaps it may be best to charge HRT more tax to claw back CB, I uspct this would bring in more money as it would bring money in from al HRT whether they have children or not.

Quite, waterlooroad, but as this is very much more about sending a message than saving money, it's not going to happen.

for goodness sake. here we all are quiblling over who should get what and why, who should be taxed and why, giving chb and taking it away with tx etc etc. fine.

hows about the alternatives here?
hows about leaving it as it was intended? for the benefit of ALL women and children? we all have un-agreed reasons to want to keep it or give it up and can all justify those reasons with our own experiences. we will never all agree clearly.

there are alternatives here. read the facts and figures-no great savings will be made by doing this. meanwhile the banks get off with hardley paying anything, a levy that will hardley tickle the sides of the banks; just for instance.

while we are talking about CHB, there is great risk of people loosing homes, the disabled and elderly loosing care that they need, schools bugets being cut, our childrens education being screwed etc etc. the list is endless.

we should not be arguing, we should be supporting eachother as MOTHERS, mothers to our own children and with empathy to mothers and children in other families besides our own. other peoples children will be the people our own children have to live with. hows about they grow up caring for eachother, no matter if they are rich or poor, but being treated and treating everyone fairly.

legostuckinmyhoover should we not be discussing and debating the cuts that the Government makes in order to reduce the deficit

in other words, lets work together to keep it as it is.

yes byrel. try knocking on the doors of the banks for starters. not the doors of our innocent children.