Apparently there will be a rethink on the scrapping of child benefit

[emkana]

according to the times today.

If they could look at the fact again that a household on 80k will keep it while a household on 42 will lose it then I'm all for it.

I thought one thing about the universality of CB was that it would cost more to means test it

hence theese plans would only save maney if higher rate taxpayers didn't claim it (which seems unwise to me since you never know when you might need HRP) however maybe claiming it then having it clawed back is also unwise (after seeing some peoples experience with CTC)

I'd be surprised if people were really having more children because of more CB it's really not that much is it? £13 somethng a week? having more dcs will increase other benefits change housing etc but really having them for less than £14 a week?!!

DH is currently about £5 away from being in the HRT bracket, so this may well affect us in 2013. We have 3 kids, so it's a sizeable amount we'll miss. How do they know you are in that bracket-do you suddenly start having to fill in tax returns if you go over that threshold?

yes, they plan to clawe it back via PAYE or SA or to discourage people from claiming it.

nope, if you are paye it will be atomatic - however if you have savings interest you have to pay hrt on it, after salary once you are above the threhold.

If you go into the 40% tax threshold then you have to start paying h igher rate tax on any interest on savings as said above and you have to declare that on a tax return. It is up to you to contact HMRC. YOu can also then claim back higher rate tax on charity contributions and things like that, pensions too so it's worth completing a tax return anyway for those reasons.
CB is cheap and easy to administer. The changes were unfair and complicated. It would be sensbile to retain things as they were. It would also help Cameron with unpopularity amongst families in the middle.

Appuskido if you're a higher rate taxpayer with "simple affairs" then you don't do a tax return. Ie only have a salary as income. But anything more then you do one.

I reckon they will keep it as it is. I think it was a ploy. Why announce it for a few years time when they were implementing other cuts earlier. I just don't believe they will take money off people who are already 'doing alright'. They like to hit the poorer. At least people earning above the HRT might have a more sympathy because it isn't nice to be threatened with less money let alone have it actually taken off you. I'm not bothered either way if they bring it in or not. It doesn't affect me.

I just see the reaction as being jealous of people who earn less than you and find all the talk of putting it into pensions as evidence that you don't actually need it. It's hard to understand when people are running their household on half a HRT salary why people would need a hand out from the government. I also hope that it makes people who are doing better slightly less likely to benefit bash those less fortunate.

Hope people remember it when they vote in the next election .

The point about pensions is actually particularly relevant to people who do need their child benefit (and so HRT payers really do). If you're, say, 100GBP over the HRT threshold then putting that money (not even all of it because of the fact contributions are non-taxable) in a pension can enable you to keep the child benefit. Yes, others who don't 'need' their CB can do that to dodge the rules, but unless they change pension rules too then it's perfectly legal.

I cannot see many people earning just £100 over tbh. If employer a lifting salaries into that tax bracket it's going to be a couple of grand over.

'If employer are' damnit!

Not necessarily, dh was literally a few pounds into last year because of a bonus. Also as tax brackets are lowered then more people get caught.

'If employers are'. Need to switch this damn thing off and get out in the fresh air!

Well Daisy in that case I would be putting it into pension tbh.

Exactly, DaisySteiner - putting cash into your pension doesn't mean you don't need the money. If you have to put £1,000 into your pension to keep your CB worth £2,000 that makes good financial sense. Any family with three kids on around £45k does need it.

Our household income is £90k+ - we don't need our CB (£188 a month). In fact it gets paid straight into a savings account, we don't use it at all. And we give more than that to charity every month, so you could say we give our CB away anyway.

But CB should remain universal - the govt should increase income tax instead, but of course the govt knows that if they increase income tax then the rich will just employ accountants to avoid it. Which is why the 50% tax bracket is currently not bringing in as much as had hoped. Scandalous.

if it's payable to the mother (as it always has been), base it on mother's salary. Then we'd keep CB in our house.

I'm in year 27 of claiming it and still waiting for the day when it's unneeded and just spare money to be saved. It will probably be removed from me before that day comes.

If it is going to cost more to administer the new scheme than remove the benefit then they ought to leave it alone but I would be surprised. It costs nothing to require people who pay tax over 40% to complete a tax return and like many taxes small and large employers have heaped upon them without compensation the obligation to adminster these things for nothing. It would be the employer asking their workers - okay you seem to have 3 women, do you live with any, have you children with them, etc etc. It was going to be fairly complex. Say you're John Hemming and you keep two women and cats and have children with the wife and the mistress and split your time between them whose income is used - how many nights a week do you have to have sex with and live with a woman or man before their income is included for child benefit purposes?

Oh look they make cuts to everything so they can say we are all feeling it, not bothering with details on some so a fuss rightly emerges

Then they rectify that making people think yay they listen to us and forget all the vulnerable people who are facing homelessness and poverty and an end to benefits when they are dying because they are OK and maybe even the vulnerable ones did not make enough fuss

Cynical, moi?

Peachy, I agree with you and was very cynical about this one at the time they announced it.

I hate means testing it, because I think it's the thin edge of slowly withdrawing it. A universal benefit, paid to one co-habiting carer of the child (it isn't always the mother, despite posts here claiming this) was simple and defended by all, even if just bunged away for a trust fund. I fear it will disappear once means-tested, on the grounds other benefits should pay for children too, as those not on those benefits have no help paying for children.

At the risk of a justified flaming, though, the 80k vs 43k thing is a very simplistic way of thinking about fairness. A single Mum on 40k working fulltime and paying childcare, or two people each earning 25k by working fulltime far more need of cash to help with the expenses of children than a woman whose husband earns 40k but who provides childcare herself. And only 7% of households with one top-income tax payer are not in the top 10% of households by median income....

It isn't always the mother but the Mother has to agree to it being signed over- though I imagine that would be easy for some controlling idiots to sort.

DH gets ours; not because of any reason other than I was considering changing bank after a dispute when it came up, and never seemed to be a point in changing back as bills go from his account anyway.

Fairness could be called into question when you consider a couple with 2 children, earner getting 100K per year £33 per week CB. A couple earning 20K each getting £33 per week CB.

adamschic

"If employer a lifting salaries into that tax bracket it's going to be a couple of grand over."

why should that be? In my case my salary has crept up with inflation increases. The next one will take me over the threshold. May cost me more to receive the 4% increase than accept it.

And those who work on comission/bonus may have to be careful not to go over by a few quid in case it costs them a few grand!!

Grossly unfair. Basing it on a combined household income would be much fairer. I also know people who put this straight into the Uni/gap year fund it is not 'needed'.

Nellie, I can understand that there will be a transition year, think they are proposing to address this as a starting point but it should sort out with the next years increase.

You're saying that employers will be expected to cover the cost?

For example where the SAHP loses the CB the working parent will expect/need a salary increase that is much larger than they would previously have received? That is just not going to happen. Many companies already have pay freezes in place or in line with inflation only. They can't be expected to suddenly dole out massive pay rises.

Or have I misunderstood you?

Hmmm 'rethinking' scrapping child benefit cuts?????

More likely they've effing realised that to administer the new child benefit debacle of a system (including changing IT systems, dealing with fraud etc)would cost a lot more than the savings they'd actually make and so are cynically shelving this flagship budget cut and making out that it's cos they care.

WANKERS!

aaaaannndd breathe......