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

Lowrib thanks for the link to Cath Elliot great article. How much will the fine be?

I am so up for civil disobedience on this. I will happily pay the fine assuming there are enough civil servants left to process this bollox.

How much of a tw*t is George Osborne? Thought this up with his rich chumps when they were all pumped up at Tory Party conference then realises it won't work. Leaves Danny Beaker Alexander to handle the press which tells you everything.

How can this intrusion into a couple's finacial privacy sit with the Lib Dem commitment to equality and civil liberties?

These arguments about cb being a lifeline for mothers etc isn't making sense as I thought the idea was that cb will still be given to the mothers but taken off the fathers, therefore, the money is still being received by the main carer.

Also a woman fleeing from DV will most certainly get cb and other financial help. So I don't understand how that argument stands up.

I get your point Lowrib but if CB is universal because children matter it should not be a lifeline for mothers. If it is seen as a lifeline for anyone besides the child it should be a lifeline for the carer. Not all mothers are the main carers.

Either parent can claim CB.

I'm up for a spot of action. Can we go for a long walk with our prams perhaps? Stop some traffic? Park ourselves outside some fuel depots? Lord if this was France the country would have ground to a halt at the mere suggestion of getting rid of cb.

It really comes down to spin. CB is a pr "win" because they appear firm but fair. Actually it's a stupid decision because it hurts the most vulnerable. Lets up the tax on big cars. VAT of 30 percent on a real polluter. Maybe a big tax on property transactions over a million.

I'm sure they could make money back by, for instance, stopping winter heating payments to higher rate tax payer pensioners and those who live abroad? The gov have been suspiciously quiet on cuts for pensioners.

Indeed. I pay HRT and my dh receives the child benefit (admittedly it's paid into our joint account but then so is my salary!).

I assume the 'honesty box' will be added to the self-assessment form as a standard thing rather than just on men's returns! Can't see how you could work that. Not that I do a self-assessment form anyway ...

We will be one of the families who are penalised for having one income higher than the limit rather than two just under it, but to say "this benefit is for mothers" is misleading. I think it is - and should be - a benefit for SAHP. Obviously, at the moment, most of those are women but not universally so.

christchurch by election

The conservatives have a bit of a dodgy history with fuel and pensioners.

Oh God, not another new goverment computer system. It will end in tears and chaos. -

Thinking it over, I'm not sure I meant specifically SAHP but rather main carer?

I have just emailed a friend of mine who has worked on a number of large-scale government IT projects to check his next assignment is not the "spot the family" database.

witcheseve what is you don't understand about this?

If everyone gets CB, it's a safety net. Here's just one example ...

Imagine your friend is suffering DV. She has two children. She works PT, and her DP works FT. She has put up with the DV for a long time, but she doesn't see herself as suffering from DV. Her DP says he is sorry and is working on his anger issues, and she hopes it will be OK in the end. She wants to keep her family together.

One day, her DP goes too far for her to bear any more, she is in fear of her life. She takes the children and runs. She has to cut all contact with her ex to feel remotely safe. This means leaving her job. She suddenly has no income. Now although officially she is entitled to means-tested benefits, this will take time to process.

As well as dealing with being suddenly homeless, and the immediate needs of her children, she will have to go and fill in forms and find emergency accommodation.

Having never dealt with the benefit system before, she's not really sure how to go about it (and it's not a quick process! I've done a "rapid reclaim" in RL which took a week and 5+ hours on the phone!).

There are DV organisations which will help, but she's never been in contact with any of them and doesn't know where to start. While she is working her way through the maze of bureaucracy that is the benefits system, she does at least have CB to buy food. The few quid she gets from CB stop her going home in desperation to feed her children.

... Or any one of a zillion other scenarios. Use your imagination - jeeez!

L

They will make this work as its ridiculous that someone paying higher rate income tax is recieving child benefit. I don't accept this argument its about valuing and protecting mothers.

lots of ways round it.paying it with tax credits being the simplest.

It is NOT unenforceable.

does the author of the article live and work in the UK?

It is the Treasury (allegedly) who are saying it's unenforceable! Whether the author of the article lives in the UK or not has no bearing on the fact that the government has made a monumental cock up!

They announced that CB would be linked to tax - but didn't think to find out if this was actually possible. Which it isn't as it turns out - unless they build an expensive database, and I thought this was about saving money.

Well thought out? I think not.

I know, I've got a great idea. Why don't we just give it to everybody, and take more from the rich in tax. Costs next to nothing to administer. Sorted.

There are a lot of inaccuracies in the article quoted.

I want Barbara Castle back.

She won this for us and now they are taking it away. Free contraception will go next.

1. Most tax payers even higher rate ones don't fill out a tax return. They just have tax taken by PAYE. I do a tax return and am a higher rate tax payer. So for people like I am it will be pretty easy - they'll just add a question on the form do you claim CB. If you do claim it then they will add the CB you've had to the tax you owe them - simple. If you say you don't claim CB and you do then they'll need to check. Probably most people will answer that properly.

1. If you don't fill in a tax return like most higher rate tax payers then they are going to need a load of new forms probably sent by employers to employees - do you claim CB. If they do claim CB then their tax coding at work will then change.

1. The examples on the radio have been rather silly ones - some Labour man saying if a widow spends the night with a lover who pays 40% tax he will pay more tax as he'll be taxed on her CB. They also mentioned a widow moving back in with her parents and her parents pay 40% tax so does she lose CB then. I would imagine not. I would imagine you had to be a sexual relationship and living with in the same terms as benefit claimants are assessed with the person you pays 40% tax.

if they could just abolish all these benefits, CB for everyone etc and bring tax right down, no tax credits, nothing complex just simpl very low tax rates we'd all be a lot better off.

anyone know any information about home responsibites protection for sah parents?

if cb is stopped for wives of higher rate tax payers

anyone know what will happen to the wives state pension?

as obviously when you are recieving cb you get home responsibilitys protection.

i know at one point they were saying something like you carry on claiming cb, even if your dh is a hrtp
then you have to pay the money back, but by claiming it in the first place it covers your home responabilites protection

It isn't ridiculous Huddspur that people on 44 K get CB when you're just on the threshold and pay over 1k a month in mortgage payments(thanks to the huge amount of 2nd home owners in your area).

It also isn't ridiculous when your CB was counted as income when applying for your mortgage which went up big time thanks to the banking crisis.

It also isn't ridiculous when you pay a huge amount in tax,always have done and have never once claimed other benefits.

It also isn't ridiculous when another universal benefit(WFA) stays put even though many of those receiving it are some of the most wealthy people living in this country,aren't even here during the winter and don't have children to support or mortgages to pay.

Not all people on the HTA are millionaires. The people that complain are those like us just on the threshold who are really going to feel it when it goes.

I can't believe that not only is it grossly unfair that we will loose it whilst other families on 88k will keep theirs we've got to actually do the governments paper work and tell them they need to take it off us!!!!

HMRC has a wide variety of forms for tax payers of different ages. EG there is a "Pension Coding Form" were the tax payer is asked for the DoB of their partner. Because tax allowances for people over age 60 can contain many complexities.

Another example is the Winter Fuel allowance.
The claim form asks for your date of birth. The Winter fuel payment is £250 per household.

MilaMae The mortgage you took out is of no relevance as to whether you should get child benefit. The reality is this country has an enormous deficit which must be reduced and I think this is a very obvious saving (I say this as someone who will also lose CB).

Winter Fuel Allowance was kept universal because the Government claims that the cost of means testing this would outweigh any savings (no idea whether this is true)

But you don't have to have situations as extreme as women suffering DV in fear of their lives. There are some relationships where the woman is the SAHP and has no money of her own. She only has the money her husband chooses to give her and sometimes they don't. That means in fact that they have nothign even where their husband is a HRTP. Except child benefit that is. In that scenario child benefit is doing exactly what it's supposed to and is badly needed even where on paper this couple look financially ok.

I also agree it's going to cause resentment amongst the squeezed middle who pay taxes all their lives, never claim any other benefit, may well work for the public sector, now have to pay for their children's university education, work until they're 66 and get a pitiful pension. When they pay their taxes they may well wonder what's in it for them?

and going through millions of tax forms from higher earners will be costly too. so will the fines be costly. savings???

savings?? firm but fair?? when couples earning combined income of £80k per year get CHB yet another on £44k dont?

keep it universal for these reasons and all the reasons mentioned above.