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.

I wondered that about HRP Northernlurker.

Is the 50% tax rate going to be brought down as well?

Jeez if your working partner is 'really tight' and you're dependent on his/her money then you need to sort your relationship out, not depend on the government to mop up!

I have always thought they way they worked out the cuts was unfair. I can see why people are angry and confused about it.

However as this comes at a time when people are commiting sucicide because they fear their disablitity benefits are going to be removed and move are still going ahead to limit awards to cancer patients, I cant help but feel this countries priorities are skewed beyond belief.

It IS worth remembering that Mothers Allowance (CB) was awarded to mothers to protect those in relationships with abusive men. This happens to women of all classes.

Its not always easy to just 'sort it out'

When I woke up to this on the news at 6:30am I have to admit I laughed out loud (only to myself). When was this announced originally - October 2010? And it's taken until now to realise that it was unfair?

I have no problem with there being a limit for CB. But this way a family could be earning up to about £80k and keep it, or about £44k and lose it. How is that fair? And as the higher rate band lowers (as the personal allowance increases) it gets worse. I even wrote to my MP at the time about how it was being done in a silly way.

I hope that someone with even a modicum of sense looks at this.

But there are clearly other mechanisms of assisting mothers in relationships with abusive men other than doling benefits out to all women willy nilly.

It doesn't seem fair though pamplem0usse, my sister left uni, and got a job in the same city as her boyfriend of just under a year, to save money they moved in together, then after 6 months she was made redundant ,she can't claim any JSA as she hasn't paid enough NI as she is just out of University. Should a boyfriend of 18 months really be expected to fully support his girlfriend financially, it's a massive strain on a relationship.

pamplemousse this benefit isn't to assist mothers, it is to assist children.

It is going to take so much money to sort this all out as this is a benefit that every mother or main carer is entitled to, whether the claim it or not - it is a total nightmare to have to sort out and I can see that the policy markers too the easy route out by marking people who are higher tax payers as the ones to have it cut - the info is readily available so therefore easy to get .

I know that they have info on what we all earn regardless of what tax we pay but easier to work out with higher tax payers.

I don't agree with it being cut at all .

Makes me laugh that Osbourne is basically saying 'we are going to do this but at the moment don't know how we are going to do it '

A knee jerk reaction to the economy as this appeared the easiest benefit to cut but as always with knee jerk policies - they are never thought through .

Inital proposal very ill thought out. It should be based on total househould income.

As plans currently stand would leave to alot of just higher rate taxpayers requesting flexible working. HR tax payer may aswell have every friday pm off and keep the benefit especially if you have 2 or 3 children.

DH works full time, me equiv of 3 days in same profession. We had discussed possibility of both doing 4 days (so DH would no longer pay HR)

I was just thinking that dixiechick - it is goign to become just like the stamp duty thresholds - people do whatever they can to stay under the line when you get near to the threshold by funnelling money into pensions etc. Otherwise the moment ou get paid that 3% more you will effectively be losing thousands as a family.

I though there was a proposal that women/carers would still receive the benefit but then it would be upto the partner to declare it and pay the tax -what happened to that idea?

"Should a boyfriend of 18 months really be expected to fully support his girlfriend financially, it's a massive strain on a relationship." - Doubtful.... BUT certainly where the level of commitment having a child entails, then the partner should support.
Sardine.... but the children aren't spending it.
Agree with the points that have been made about DLA. The case is: there isn't an unlimited pot of money. For HRT earners to get CB that same money cannot be used for something else. Personally I'd rather we scrapped our army and the money spent on nuclear defense. HOWEVER..... I'd MUCH rather CB was removed from HRT tax payers (albeit implements in a better way than this).... or indeed also households with more than a 40k ish income.... and used to support people who are genuinely poor. You are NOT poor if you are earning 44k a year.

Given that most people spend the money they receive in child benefit, cutting it for millions of families is going to mean less money being spent (whether on basics such as food or luxuries like piano lessons) which will have a negative economic impact.

It's so badly conceived on every level.

The fact that you would lose every single penny in one fell swoop on movement to the higher tax rate is stupid.
The fact that a family bringing in £80k will keep it and one on £43k won't is stupid.
Gideon the millionaire telling me what is a good living wage is stupid.
Tories appropriating the discourse of 'fairness' and the rich being taxed to help the poor being 'right', when it is convenient for them, is really fucking laughable.

I honestly can't see how anyone could think for a moment that this was in any way good.

Avantia they don't know how much everybody earns - ie self employed people.

Also, it's often not going to be the person who earns at a higher rate who is claiming the child benefit - so it's not that simple.

How are they going to work it where eg a man who is HRT has a family and then leaves them and starts another family? At the moment all the women get CB, after this change what will the situation be?

Your post has made me think and actually I think there are far more questions here that have not even been thought of yet.

Yes Notso. I always wonder about that, it seems really unfair. the NI contibutions seem to only apply to some people whereas others qualify for benefits whether they have contributed to the NI system or not.

I am self employed and I fill my tax return in every year so they know how much I earn .

CB was never designed to be a benefit for the poor. It was a universal benefit for anyone with childcare responsibilities.

I am glad they are looking at the fairness of it, but to be frank I don't think a family who earn over £42,000 really NEEDS the CB. If your family is so dependent on it then I think you are living beyond your means.

In the interests of saving the country money would restricting child benefit to one child only be a good idea? I know it used to be that way. Then it remains universal and poorer families could be helped further through tax credits etc. Or am I missing something and that is a terrible idea?

bonkers - I think s unfair to say that people are living beyond their means for an extra 200quid a month - thats a lot of money and I dont have that much slack built in - do most people?

Avantia I'm sure you realise that not all self-employed people are 100% straight when it comes to their tax returns.

I remember listening to the radio once and someone from the ONS was speaking and they said that the child poverty stats were somewhat overstated "due to the way that self-employed people declare their incomes" which I thought was very diplomatic!

I am also self-emplyed BTW and honest but the other day someone offered me £20 cash to do something and I was tempted. Most people we have had to work on the house have wanted cash as well and there is a reason for that.

Yes Sardine I appreciate that .. but then there are people on other benefits who are not honest about what money they have.

I am just saying that it is easier for them to pick on higher tax payers as that info is readily available and easy to target without too much effort .

Looking at combined household earnings will take a bit more effort the civil servants.

All of it is so wrong ..

Kind of makes you think you'd be better off not being married in the first place and claiming not to live with the father of your children.

jojomo - I wouldn't have a problem with that idea - child benefit for one child only. I dont get any other benefits .