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.

So true startail. My dh earn just over the threshold and I stay at home. I have investigated going back to work but after childcare I would be no better off.
I find child benefit gives me a little bit of independence so Ii can treat children myself instead of taking from joint account. Many months it also helps us balance the books. Living close to London is expensive.
It also avoids the "what are you spending my money on" comment which my dsis ex said same on numerous occassions.

pamplemousse, your logic is flawed. Do you really believe people add more to economics because they are paid? do you know how much professional care costs? Residential placements and the like? and care would be paid oout of the public purse in a lot of cases

This doesn't affect us as neither of us earn above £44,000.

I have been taking an interest though.
How can it be right that a household with earnings of,say £80,000 can keep child benefit,when a single salary household earning £45,000 will lose it.
This seems very wrong.

Single parents excepted.....
The more tax aspect of being a higher rate tax payer would only outweigh the contribution of a second earner (where both are standard rate payers), if both earners one and two on standard rate tax were on the minimum wage and/or working significantly reduced hours......

I know the debate has moved on, but yes, hoo-bloody-ray to revisiting this head numbingly ill conceived policy.

Of course the people most affected by this are single parents paying for childcare. I really hope this is addressed for them in particular.

HaThe point is newcastle, you might not be better off but your economic contribution would be better for the government.....
Professional care is EXPENSIVE but the point is, (1) this is in no way comparable to childcare so it's a moot point and (2) very few people are actually going to get residential care. In any case various carers allowances do come into the picture.....
I don't agree that two of you should be able to earn 80k between you and claim credits and with one higher rate tax payer you shouldn't. i would reduce the threshold such that anyone with a family income over 44k, say, lost it - but that there were greater incentives in terms of childcare related tax credits for both of you to go to work.

pamplemousse - have you noticed the unemployment figures at the moment? Encouraging stay at home mums to return to work will just take jobs away from families where no one is in employment or young people who are unable to get their first job.

I'm glad they are looking at this again. DH is just under the 40% bracket at the moment. When the 40% threshold is lowered he will become a high rate tax payer. And we will lose CB as a result. Double-whammy.

Recently we have been discussing ways to reduce his taxable income by a tiny amount to keep him under the threshold and keep the CB. For example by paying more into the pension, or cutting his hours slightly. Not sure how practical these things area, but I am quite cross that it's the middle-earners (NOT the 'middle classes', whatever they may be) that are constantly taking the hits.

pamplem0usse, thanks for making such a strong argument for a more progressive taxation system that affects higher-threshold earnings in an exponential rather than a linear manner .

I can kinda agree more with pamplem0usse... but maybe I am very biased in my view as my partner and I earn 28K and I feel that if we were earning the 44K, we wouldn't NEED the help of child benefit... benefits should be for people that have no means of affording things for their children etc.
Also, will make myself very unpopular and say for the women with 'tight' partners/husbands, maybe you need to reassess your relationships? It is not the government's fault you are with someone that doesn't believe in sharing their income with their family.

It cannot be denied that the system is absolutely dysfunctional however, and it should be means tested. If this costs so much to implement, why not do as another poster said and combine with the CTC's?

Also they need to re-visit the childcare tax-credit cut if they want to actually stop being horribly regressive towards single parents in work. Most comparable countries have fully subsidised childcare, so cutting the small subsidy there was for low earners in the UK is backwards.

katykuns - your disposable income is probably the same as a family with one parent earning 42k by the time you take account of the extra tax they are paying and the fact they cannot claim tax credits etc etc.

Exactly jo jo. If i stay home it allows another person actually claiming jsa, tax credits, housing benefit, fsm etc etc to work. Surely that is much better for the government.

The point about 'independant taxation' is a really important one.

I pay tax on my earnings.
Dh pays tax on his.
I receive child benefit in my capacity as the children's mother. Dh does not claim, never has claimed, has nothing to do with it at all.

The government intend to remove Child Benefit from ME because of DH's income.

How that ever be justifiable? This measure is massively anti-women - and that's leaving aside how Home Responsibilities Protection will be delivered.

Hate to labour a point but whilst £44k sounds a lot, it really depends on individuals' location and circumstances as to how far it goes.

"for the women with 'tight' partners/husbands, maybe you need to reassess your relationships?"
Yes, they should, but many can't/don't.

"The government intend to remove Child Benefit from ME because of DH's income."

Quite.

I too hope they re look at DLA for fairness.

Cuts/changes to DLA will have a much more devastating impact than cuts to CB.

Agree too that if not getting CB anymore when you have an income of 44k is going to affect you that much you need lessons in budgeting.

I do agree that the single income/double income thing is unfair but again re read my last point.

Btw - just watched the Daily Politics and Charlotte Vere (failed Tory candidate in Brighton I think and now working for that universal catch all, the Right-Leaning Think Tank) said that working parents had a much harder job than those staying at home............

Agree with niceguy2 that should be dealt with alongside Universal Credit otherwise there will be a placa-tory fudge. (My, that sound tasty).

The main issue with this proposal, whatever the rights and wrongs of CB, is that families who jointly earn £80k would keep CB, families earning less but with one earner above the threshold would lose CB. It;s plainly unfair

The main argument against this cut is that it is ludicrously illogical.

The secondary arguments are abundant:

• Being a higher rate tax payer used to mean you really were earning a lot. Govts are not keen to raise taxes so instead they fiddle with the thresholds - the earning level in real terms that you need to have to be a higher rate tax payer has been reduced and reduced over the years, and continues to reduce
• When a benefit is universal (NHS, schools, bins, CB, free school milk) it is seen in quite a benevolent way by the population at large. As soon as a benefit has criteria applied to it, arguments about who should get it always start, and continue. In difficult times when public attitudes harden, the argument to reduce / restrict further / do away with becomes much louder
• What are they going to do about protecting NI conts for those raising children? They have not said anything as far as I can see
• Will it even be cheaper once the new admin systems are in place? Universal benefits are cheap to administer, ones that are tested in some way are not

That's just off the top of my head.

The most awful part of the proposed policy is the way it discriminates against - and shows contempt for - single parent families.

As if we are a minor sub-section that can be overlooked as opposed to representing close to a quarter of all families in the UK.

I have no objection to child benefit being reduced for high wage families. I don?t even care if child benefit is cut for all families who have a combined income above 42,000, single or otherwise.

But I don?t see why a single parent who earns above the cut off (and probably has to pay child care) has their benefit take away, while my neighbours, who are dual earners, do not.

Also, if this government is so 'pro-family' why are they also discriminating against SAHM in dual parent families in a similar way?

I find this government revolting and patronising. Also Cameron makes a slurping noise when he speaks.

Yuck.

For those saying that it is quite right that families with two working people should get the benefit (both just under HRT) while those with one HRT should not

Why are single parents over HRT not being mentioned?

Yes northernlurker. a really good point. It's the same with the whole benifits system. I know someone who has a partner who is really tight with money. He has savings (not masses) so she can't clain JSA. She has to rely on handouts from him. Not good when their relationship has at times been volatile.