A few people have suggested on this thread that it isn't the state's responsibility to ensure that SAHPs with financially abusive partners get some money of their own. While that's true, it's also true that if all these financially abused partners left their spouses, it could end up being more expensive for the rest of us. Imagine the costs of setting up X number of abused, escaping new single parents from scratch. Housing benefit, income support/JSA, child tax credits as well as the CB. Some of them would find sufficiently well paying work not to need this in the long run. But the job market is brutal atm. The SAHP trying to return to the workplace after a few years out is going to find it hard to get such work, unless their skills are in demand.
Hence, it might cost less just to keep paying CB. I think this, rather than some of the arguments articulated in this thread is likely to be the most persuasive argument. Additionally, I don't think some of you realise how completely alienating a few of the posts here are to people who have less money than higher rate taxpayers, even with TCs etc. There are people who are in poorly paid jobs who have to work extremely long hours in poor conditions, who'll get booted if they try to avoid the 'voluntary' overtime. There are also people on minimum wage in London who aren't with parents or in housing association/council homes. Now, I get that a family on 43k with a SAHP and 2 kids in the south east won't have much left at the end of the month. And that the child benefit might mean the difference between eg whether the kids can have swimming lessons or not, or whether the car can be fixed. The rants are legitimate, but not necessarily the best way to present a case. Better to focus on the costs, rather than how difficult things can be for a higher rate taxpaying family. Simply because a lot of people just aren't going to sympathise, whereas they might be more receptive to a financial argument.