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.

niceguy - yes, it did originally look as if noone had spent even 5 minutes thinking through different scenarios of how it would work out; incredible.

let's hope they look at DLA for fairness as well then

"cornastasiaski Fri 13-Jan-12 11:53:36
let's hope they look at DLA for fairness as well then"

???

DLA is being cut also

Go figure what? Your personal home circumstances in the early 90's has nothing to do with what makes someone middle class. As one of 6 children growing up in a 3 bed council house and parents earning peanuts, our family hardships are probably not dissimilar but I don't share your immediate assumptions about others.

cornastasiaski, I thought you meant it should be means tested!

TBH Nice Guy 42K goes nowhere particularly if you live in London because of the cost of housing etc but this is never taken into account.

i am glad mine are nearly old enough for me to lose it but DH isn't a higher rate tax payer and I earn a part time wage.

Also I suspect self employed people may 'earn' less to avoid paying it and it will be the people who are paid a salary who lose out.

I still think if the government can afford to pay people in the EU who live in Britain child benefit for children who don't even live here or do they even exist?, then they can afford to pay it to people who are higher rate tax payers. maybe 60K would have been a fairer cut off rate.

My point remains: if you have an income of 43k+ a year, and believe that you should be entitled to governmental top-ups, then your attitude is both Middle Class and provincial.
Personal circumstances have everything to do with it. I'd have hoped that with that sort of background you might have more insight into where governmental money should really be spent.

Agincourt - Don't go giving them ideas now....!

Has everyone remembered that the threshold for higher rate tax payers is due to be lowered to £34,370 by 2012/3? That's a pretty modest household income if you're earning it in the South East or other areas with high housing/travel costs.

lets hope they now re look at the cuts to DLA

Sorry it's £34,370 plus the personal allowance. But even so.

I am also hoping for a rethink...my DP is just over the threshold so if it's cut the only thing I can cut back on is kids activities like playgroups as all the ones nearby charge at least £3 a session nothing is free no surestarts or nothing and yes we also spend a ton of time at the park!

Agree 43k is not much in London when housing is 40-50% of your income. Any Boden I have is second hand or from eBay!!!

I really don't understand why they don't just merge child benefit with tax credits, and then families would lose it on a sliding scale based pn a families own income. The system is already in place for that, so they could do it at hardly any cost, surely?

I don't mind losing CB fairly, it just seems that there are so many couples we know who have a joint income of equal to or more than DH's who would be keeping it.

I also think the 40% tax band is going to become far too broad.

Personally as a SAHM with a 40% tax paying DH, Id be delighted if they reviewed the changers.
I accept that cuts need to be made and even accept that we do not "need" our CB.
However, CB is the only money entering the house in my name. Apart from a few pretty worthless pension credits, it is the only acknowledgement society makes that bringing up children is a valuable and worthwhile activity.

I really resent the idea that if I went out, earned the minimum wage and paid 99% of it in child care, the world would some how be a better place.

Startail, I feel like that too about the acknowledgement of being a Mother

so with the personal allowance, how much could a person earn before becomming a higher rate tax payer.

34k seems a very low threshold. Not good.

People seem to be missing the fact that if you have two earners who are under the HR threshold and paying for child care then your economic contribution is significantly greater even if your personal balance sheet is around the zero mark.....
Just an interesting one in relation to 'fairness'.

" don't mind losing CB fairly, it just seems that there are so many couples we know who have a joint income of equal to or more than DH's who would be keeping it"
Exactly - and as half of one of those couples I agree. It's madness.

although I do agree with the prnciple of providing money to a mother who is in an abusive relationship (and I know the same happens in reverse but I refuse to believe it's anywhere near as common/affects the children of the family in the same way) so not sure how to tie that in.

pamplemousse, if you are a Mother caring for a disable or sick child or relative in an unpaid capacity (as many women are) your economic contribution is the same is it not? as the care does not have to be provided out of the public purse.

No, your economic contribution is less. If you went to work and used all of your earnings to pay for care, you would still be paying tax. There would also be paid employment for a 'carer' who would also pay taxes and not be claiming unemployment benefits....

Pamplemousse - if you are a higher rate tax payer you are contributing more to the economy by paying more tax. You are also not claiming tax credits, help with childcare and all the other benefits people not paying higher rate tax claim.
You are also ineligible for the higher personal tax allowance which was given to basic rate tax payers only. Single parents paying higher rate tax would need childcare anyway.

The point is, only very rarely wouild the care be being paid out of the public purse in any substantive way.
Besides, the two situations aren't comparable...