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.

No bonkers. Many people in certain parts of the country do not have £200 to spare after paying for housing costs, council tax, energy, food, commuting costs and all the rest of it.

An annual travelcard is more than £2K. That is nearly £200 a month before you've even started on other costs.

bonkers - perhaps you'd be kind enough to give us a breakdown of your income/expenditure then if you think all us middle earners are living so extravagantly.

I think you're living in cloud cookoo land.Do you know how much it costs to commute in London or how far you have to drive to work in rural areas?Are people like us not welcome then in the city.

Are you not aware of rocketing prices(we have no control over),the banking crisis.

Either the higher TB is too low or other benefits are too high as personally I don't see much difference between what many on £42 K have in their pockets after bills and those on lower income receiving other help.

How much are your commuting costs and what is the average house price in your area would be good places to start

And childcare. Childcare around here costs an arm and a leg.

(We aren't going to lose CB but it's the general point that irks me. No-one has the right to tell another that they are profligate unless they have seen their household accounts).

Jee whizz....
So people have unworkable home lives with husbands' holding on to all the (secret) money... and the government should mop this us?
People 'live within their means' which seemingly entails mortgaging themselves to the hilt.

And people complain about not being able to afford holidays (because of their massive mortgage payments). I have news for you. That's life. There are plenty of people in this country who barely have the shirts on the backs, and feeding their children is why they can't afford holidays.
SERIOUSLY.

The only people who deserve to be excluded from this policy are those single parents who are marginally above the threshold but paying childcare.

I'm afraid if your household accounts show that you can't survive on 43k a year then you possibly should have (1) bought/rented a cheaper/smaller house (2) had less children (3) sold the car (4) start buying cheaper food at the supermarket. Need I go on?
You're hardly going to be so poor you can't afford to pay the utility bills. And if you are: it's your fault.

So people have unworkable home lives with husbands' holding on to all the (secret) money... and the government should mop this us?

The government who introduced this benefit, and the subsequent ones who have continued it, have all thought so

I think you are simply being provocative now to get a reaction.

I've just pulled figures from a previous thread rather than work them out again, as I remember being shocked there was so little difference in the scenarios...

1. One parent on £44k, other parent not working ATM - 3 children - ChB no longer payable due to HRT payer

salary 44k less tax/NI £12k give net/month = £2667

1. One parent works FT on £15k pa, other not working ATM, 3 kids

salary £15k less tax/NI = £12435pa = £1036/mth + ChB for 3 Children (£204/month) = £1240 + tax credits £726/month (according to entitled to) = 1966 + HB/CTB of £488 (according to entitled to)= £2454 net/mth

(I've used my LHA cap for the purposes of the calculation, assuming that anyone with housing costs higher than the LHA cap is making a "choice" to live somewhere more expensive, which of course isn't true.)

It's suprising how little difference there is in the net figures between the "poor" family and the "rich" HRT family.

(we are not HRT payers, so axe to grind here)

LOL Betsy. I did this a long time ago and got a right roasting for being anti-benefits, anti-single parents etc. etc.

Let's hope you have more luck.

To be frank: if in scenario (2) the parent is working full time, as (1) why shouldn't their income be approximately the same?

But the different is £200... and so many of you couldnt possibly survive without that £200 CB......

Well, we live in the commuter belt. In a tiny two up two down with virtually no garden. Currently one child, would like another soon.... and we've managed to pay child care and perfectly happily go out to work on one x 32k£ salary and another that just about covers the childcare. Oh and 1 x commuting costs + 1 x petrol costs of £250 a month. So yes, we run a cheap little banger too...

We don't manage holidays, but we do manage plenty of day trips. We budget carefully for food and I don't buy clothes. But we have quite a nice life!

So pull your necks in!

LOL - I'm not anti-benefits or anti-single parent at all :)

I'm just a figures person and to me the "rich" HRT-paying family aren't actually that much richer than the "poor" family once you crunch the numbers.

Obviously I'm not talking about the very rich HRT payers here

OK, well I am certainly NOT going to go into personal details of my families income on here.
I will tell you enough.

We are not HR tax payers - a long way off.

We are a family of 4 living in a 2 bed house on the Cambridgeshire/Essex border. We cannot afford to move unless we use a massive chunk of our savings. We may well do that or we will move somewhere cheaper and increase fuel costs. We run one car (a 22 year old Micra). We have 2 children. One in state secondary and one in nursery 4 days a week.

Our utilities reflect the size of our house I imagine.

I think this makes people think why bother to better themselves if they are going to be a HRT payer at such a paltry sum.

Also some people probably are mortgaged to the hilt because the housing is so expensive and they don't qualify for social/council housing.

I have started shopping at Lidl.

"pamplem0usse Fri 13-Jan-12 12:42:02
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....."

well actually it IS comparable to childcare costs IF you have a disabled child. Many, many mumsnetters on here will have a disabled child and will be unable to work BECAUSE of that. It would cost me £15-£20 an hour to pay for care for my disabled child if I worked when they needed care, instead I do it myself and yes, I claim carers allowance because I am carer and I have had to give up well paid, full time work in order to become one. Please don't assume I don't contribute to the economy, society is based on more things than monetary contributions. The small amount the government pay me in carers allowance is a drop in the ocean to what they would have to pay if I refused or became incapable of caring. You would be talking £60 p/w in CA, you would be looking at £1000s per week. They are comparable because children can be disabled too and there will be plenty of women at home, not out of choice, but out of necessity

The fundamental point is, when you have children, especially young ones, it IS expensive and quite often one of you will be at home / working part time. However when they get A BIT OLDER it's quite possible for you both to work.... at which point things become easier...
I hate this 'entitled to' attitude.

Exactly Bestsy.

Actually we only have 1 very old car(no car loan),dp cycles miles to work.We have pulled our necks in.I had my dc ages ago before all the current stuff and I have twins.

Obviously if I was TTC now I'd stick at 1 and live in a 2 up with no subsequent children.

I've paid tax all my working life,we were told CB was universal.The gov moved the goalposts with not enough warning to actually do anything.

To be frank I could see them starting the cut off at £80 K as anybody could live within their means on that amount but 42 K just isn't a large amount of money.If it is we are paying waaaaay too much on benefits.Surely a higher tax earner shouldn't be having in their pocket very near those on other benefits.

To be frank: if in scenario (2) the parent is working full time, as (1) why shouldn't their income be approximately the same?

Because the salaries are vastly different. Once you start create such an illogical tax/welfare system where there's no incentive to work harder/take on more responsibilities then people stop doing so.

So in the above scenario, person #1 would probably have a job which involves a lot of responsibility, long hours and probably travel.

Person #2 would probably have a job where you turn up, do what the boss says then goes home.

If there's no real difference, why doesn't #1 quit his job and go be person #2 instead? Yet we need people like #1 to earn more and therefore pay more tax so person #2 can get all his benefits.

We already see this as many people stopped doing overtime because of tax credits. We all know people who've turned jobs down because it's not worth it once you take off benefits.

My child will never leave home

Entitled don't make me laugh.Dp and I have worked our arses off from the age of 13 which is when we both started earning money,alongside studying then working hard at demanding jobs.Oops then I decided to have kids-how greedy.

I just don't think the two are comparable Agincourt..... care for a disabled chair is astronomical in comparison with care for a child without extra needs. It's up to carers allowance to make up for this, not child benefit. I personally think it's ridiculous that carers allowance is at such a low rate.... but the reason that you get paid that and stay at home parents don't is to reflect the special demands on you. Carers allowance should be (1) higher and (2) not means tested, as I completely get that you are at home because of necessity NOT choice. You see... you misunderstand me, because I would far rather the HRT tax payers money was used to reflect what you do.
But this isn't my treatise on how to re-do benefits.... it's about CB!

DP and I have never,ever claimed for any benefit other than CB,we have contributed a lot.In a few years time we won't be needing the money as our dc will have left home.We willingly pay a lot of tax to help others who need it and always have done.

We need this money,why can't we be helped for a change?

MrsHeffley, we have two PhDs in my house.... and neither belong to the baby. And we work bloody hard! It doesn't mean I should expect CB forever irrespective of what I earn.....