Hoo-bloody-ray! Child benefit cuts to be 'looked at for fairness'

[NoWayNoHow]

Basic logic and maths prevails at last!

Fingers crossed they actually find a fairer way to implement - I remember the uproar when it was first announced, simply because it was so ridiculously prejudiced against single salary families.

Agree mrsheffley.

Surely there aren't people who are reliant on benefits that get benefits to the tune of a higher rate salary.

And karma I think most of us understand that salary is expressed pre-tax.

My DH will earn just below the HTR after his payrise. Does this mean he shouldn't do any overtime?

Pekka surely he should do if he wants to bring more income in. But benefits are there to support those who cant support themselves, not those that choose not to.

Down here you get your water capped too if you have 3 kids and receive tax credits.You roughly save £20 or £30 a month so going by Betty's figures there is nothing in it between the two a family receiving benefits and a family on the higher tax band.

Personally I think due to the economic nightmare we're all living in tax credits are much deserved as it's nigh impossible to survive on less these days and actually the sticking point is that the threshold for higher tax is far,far too low.

Basically the Tories don't want to touch the rich as they are rich and can't touch the poor so they hammer the squeezed middle over and over again.I'm guessing they'll stop when more and more families go bankrupt and rely on the state more thus costing them more.

So please those of you lecturing us on £42K consider your own finances first before you judge.

But Hairy it's a valid point if you're going to looses 2K if you take on £500 more,who in their right mind is going to do that.

Dp is just under if he does no overtime then he's just over.Pointless working late and weekends to loose over £2K.Not sure how his company are going to cope when they have a big release date but there you go.

My hubby earns just over the threshold - £45k - and we are what I would call "well off" we save the child benefit each month towards the kids future education. I earn enough to cover the kids "extra curriculars" - £150 a month now since I am doing part time dinner lady work while the kids are young (no childcare costs). We save another £300 a month too. We have a mortgage, a car and the rest of the usual bills still allow us to save.

We have cut our cloth according to our means - probably foolishly- and would not miss child benefit - BUT I still feel it is unfair that we will not get it, but the family across the road will, despite an income nearly double ours - and they do not save a penny and she has said "God I couldn't do without it, so I'm glad we won't lose it"!

"But benefits are there to support those who cant support themselves, not those that choose not to."

CB is not a means tested welfare benefit. Therefore that point is void. It's similar to winter fuel payments, state pension, NHS access, free school milk and so on. Not to something like JSA.

This thread illustrates perfectly what happens when things are changed from universal to means tested. All of a sudden everyone has an opinion about who shouldn't be getting it, and before you know it it's been chopped right back and it's stigmatising to apply for it / receive it.

Or are there posters on this thread who believe that all benefits in the UK should be means tested (NHS, schooling, state pension etc etc).

Mind you - my mum was horrified when I claimed CB - she never did (with 4 kids) as she felt as a matter of principle, claiming "benefits" from the government put you in the pocket of those in power, you should provide for your own and not expect handouts when you are fit and healthy and able to earn.

I saw it as money for nothing as I had no political affiliations, though I do admire her for taking a stand- if a lonely one.

What happens with couples were the mum genuinely has no idea how much her partner earns?

They need to get rid of this stupid cut as it is totally unfair, not just to families where there is only one "high" earner, earning just over the threshold who will lose their CB when two slightly "lower" earner household will keep their CB but also because it penalises people in work who better themselves.

In contrast, workshy households on multiple benefits with lots of kids are actually getting a "pay" rise of 5% this year. How is this supposed to encourage people to go out and work and be responsible if those people who are responsible are stripped of the tiny morsel of benefit that they are actually entitled to in order to hand it over to those that can't be bothered to work and just keep having more kids. And why should a household with one earner slightly over the higher rate threshold have to pay tax and NI to support other peoples kids when their own kids are missing out. Disgusting.

There is no electoral mandate for the government to tamper with child benefit. This was not in any party manifesto. What is the point of manifestos if they are completely ignored once a party is in government?

Once child benefit is no longer a universal benefit I'm sure the government will start looking at means testing for benefits for the over 60s.

OH is a HRT payer. I'm a SAHM and we bought our house when they were cheap!( all boxes ticked ).

I use the CB to pay for DS2/DD' clothes,shoes,activities,music,trips,school books etc.(oh and now a tutor for DS2!).

Sorry , pressed wrong button!

I don't brgrudge losing CB as long as it's done fairly!

I'm a SAHM and will lose out as DH is just a 40% taxpayer. Being a SAHM should not be penalised.

As Karmabeliever, quite rightly, keeps pointing out, the threshhold is NOT take home pay so for that reason alone saying 'if you can't manage on that you're a profligate overspending twat' is rather obtuse! It's been interesting reading about the 'top-ups' and the argument that it discourages people from wanting to achieve/have a career etc (was Niceguy2 I think originally?)

DH a few hundred pounds over the threshhold, I work part-time as childcare costs would negate any point of working F/T at present. I actually resent the suggestion 'just pay more into your pension' to come in under the HRT limit - what if people do that and don't live to see a penny of their pension, not so unlikely due to retirement age rise (and it will rise again!)

I take a small comfort from the fact that Scotland never voted these millionaire fuckers into Government...

It does need re investigating and wording properly. To instead be cut for "houseold incomes" over whichever threshold they choose. otherwise it is ridiculous

However i would much rather they sorted out the asonishingly ill considered plans for cuts to the disabled.

I did write to my MP (borrowed someone's letter off an earlier thread) and got a standard reply that didn't actually reply to my point about the fairness issue (2x40 versus 1x43).

I agre with niceguy etc. I am currently just under the threshold, but I've slowly worked my way up from a v low salary to this point. DH is a SAHD though and earns nothing. DH claims the CB in our house. There is a possibility that I'll be offered promotion at work in the next few years, but why on earth would I take it???? To do more work for less money? Crazy!

Actually, I'd probably go down to 4.5 days or something if it meant staying under the threshold. We definitely feel like "the squeezed middle" here

Why does this discussion revert to comparisons between different types of families with children, and not make comparisons instead with people who have no dependents? Any family with dependent children has necessary, unavoidable costs - food, clothes, not to mention childcare. Why should families/single people with no dependents need the same income?

i hope it changes 2!!
i realise that cuts need to be made2!!

my partner earns over £43k i only do betteware as full time mum to two dds
i use cbs for there clothes,shoes etc
would be in trouble if i didnt get it anymore
dh uses all his money for bills, food etc cost of living is so much

The key thing here to me is, no matter how they administer it they will spend mre administering the system and managing it than just paying it to all.

The cost of a system to manage it, then what about when peoples circumstances change like my hubby got made redundant just before christmas?

Before he got made redundant we didn't earn over £44K each and combined income is less than £80K, we get no benefits.

We live on the commuter belt, so our train fair is approx £4K each a year, childcare is our childcare bill is approx £12K approx a year (2children 20months & 4.5yrs), thats before mortgage, heating or anything else!

The area you live in pays a massive factor as well, when both kids get to senior school and we have child care costs finally we'll be a bit better off...

We don't struggle persay but we do use the CB every month. We worked it out if we split up and I claimed all the benefits I could, we would be better off financially than we are together, so the arguement of single parents being worse off isn't always true! We had to wait to have our second child as we couldn't afford until the eldest would be starting school shortly after my return to work.

The advantage of me working full time is I get to keep my career on track, its bloody hard work though I work in the evenings when home as well as full days in the office. But I need to do this to get by!

I think its very easy to put on Judgy pants and say £42K is a lot of money it is,if that was our joint income we'd be living in a 1 bed bedsit/studio, and be struggling still as rents/mortages are so expensieve around here.... moving even further out of the "commuter belt" means i see my kids less andthe commuter costs would go up even more! but it depends on individual circumstances.....My train fair went up by £300 this year, and I've not had a pay rise in 5yrs! So its tough we've had to tighten our belts again even more!

"Bonkers, £42,000 is something like £2300 a month after tax. Mortgage on a 3-bed semi might be £600 a month, a nursery place might be £800 a month, after school club might be £100 a month, commuting costs might be £200 a month, you could have a family of four quite easily living on £150 a week after all that and having their child benefit being taken off them, which doesn't seem fair at all."

but, if they're a family of 4 with one sahm parent and 2 kids.... they don't need nursery or after school club, do they?

And if they're a single parent household... they do...

Not all single parent households need paid childcare. Admittedly most probably do, but in saying X amount of money is enough, it takes no account of individual circumstances. The same as the mortgage might be £600 or it might be £800, there might be debts that need paying. Few people owe nothing and have a clean slate when it comes to their monthly wage.

or heaven forbid the SAHM may want a break just for one day or to pay for a playgroup.

The whole thing is rotten to the core and hasn't been well thought out.