Government to review child benefit cuts

[googlenut]

Was on lunchtime news (on phone so can't do link) that the government have confirmed that they will review the plans to cut child benefit. Sounds like they will still do something - what do people think we will end up with?

I agree that it would be a lot better to put an extra penny on the htr for all earners rather than take away child benefit, I think if people perceive something as fair then even if they moan about it, it is still not as big an issue.

It does get on my neves when people assume that a family that has an earner in the htr is rich. I have this argument with a family member all the time. They are both working and their combined family income is slightly higher than my partners wage. But on top of that they have both of their tax allowance so the amount they have to earn to pay tax combined is higher, also because neither of them are in the high tax band they would pay less tax on their total income. So the take home amount is very much bigger. I worked out that the difference in the amount of tax paid does actually pay for their child care (child over three so half nursery is state). And more.
They live in a better area, bigger house, better car etc... So how is it fair to take away our child benefit and not theirs?
And being a stay at home mum I obviously need more biscuits than they do, who is going to pay for them? :)

Further to Lily Bolero's post above you are not only not getting tax credits etc if you earn 42K but are losing out on the increase to the personal allowance which was given to basic rate tax payers only. The lib dems promised that everyone earning up to 100k would benefit from the change in the personal allowance in their election manifesto, then when in government offered it to basic rate tax payers only. Why hasn't the labour party ever picked them up on this? Higher rate tax payers are also contributing a substantial amount to the economy through the extra tax they pay.

I completely agree with the poster above who said that if the government needs more money it should raise taxes generally rather than targeting families.

jojobee - that is why the HRT threshold is coming down, to prevent HRT payers from benefiting from the 1st of the increases in the personal allowance. If you happen to be someone on 43k, you are therefore being dragged into the HRT bracket and losing CB precisely because of the LibDem policy of increasing the personal allowance.

niceguy - yy, you are right that there is the 50% bracket - but in answer to your point, I was really referring to the majority of HRT payers without children who fall between the 43k and the 150k incomes.

And as I said below, my long term preference would be for HRT to move to about 70k, which is imo where it was 'intended' to be, approximately (and would obviously need careful calculation), but should then be changed to be something like 45 or 46%, and at that point the 50% rate should be abolished.

I think that would be a LOT fairer. And certainly making the 40% rate 42% would be fairer than the stupid CB debacle.

And on a lighter note...

www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/capping-child-benefit-'will-lead-to-angry%2c-sober-middle%11class-mothers'-201203064974/

It'll be scrapped altogether soon enough so it doesn't really matter.

That is funny Cake. I thought the link was to the Daily Mail and I was outraged at first .

From that article:

Francesca Johnson, a London mother of three, said: "My big-earning, arsehole husband had a point to prove about his virility and saddled me with three fucking kids.

"I used to discuss Iranian cinema and go antique hunting in Bucharest. Now I watch Peppa Pig on a loop. Do you want a fight?"

Brilliant!

I think those childless people who are earning between £43k & £150k would argue that they contribute a lot of money already. They'd be paying between £11k-£59k EACH. And currently they get no benefits at all.

Taxing those to give families their CB would sound unfair to me if I were in their shoes.

As for moving HRT, why do we even have it. A flat rate system incorporating a high tax free allowance and merging NI would be much fairer, simpler, easily understandable and harder to avoid.

The vast VAST majority of higher earners already contribute loads to the tax revenues. The top 1% of earners contribute 25% of all income tax. The next 9% contribute another 25%. Continually raising taxes on the rich to pay for things we basically cannot reasonably afford is blatantly unfair on those who have worked hard for their money.

Niceguy I think that the "I am paying tax for other people's children" argument is wrong. I think there should be more of an "pay taxes to pay back for everything I have received" attitude. These people have had schooling, very much cheaper university than our children will have, their parents would have received child benefit for them, maybe free school meals or uniform grants.
The fact that they have no children themselves makes no difference... They were children once.

niceguy2 - those childless people may well end up having children of their own a few years down the line. They will also benefit from the younger generation paying tax to fund their pensions and healthcare when they grow old. Their parents received child benefit which they benefitted from. Their tax is not paying for higher rate taxpayers child benefit anyway as higher rate tax payers pay more than enough in tax to cover the amount they receive back in child benefit.

There are lots of benefits that are paid out to various sections of society that I will never claim. I don't object to paying tax for other people to receive them though.

What is going to happen next are childless couples going to say they object to their tax being spent on education as they don't have children?

Absolutely, 'pay tax for everything I received' is a much better philosophy.

"I think those childless people who are earning between £43k & £150k would argue that they contribute a lot of money already. They'd be paying between £11k-£59k EACH. And currently they get no benefits at all."

But HRT payers with children are also paying that, and as a society, we need this group of people to have children, because statistically speaking, these are the children who will keep the economy going into the future.

The last thing we should do is price this group of people out of the parenting market, so that the only people who can afford to have children are people on benefits and the uber-rich.

Given that if you have a family of 6 to support (as our's is), then your salary needs to go further, I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a benefit, or even better, a tax allowance, to recognise your increased costs. As a parent your disposable income is very much less, and the Child Benefit goes some small way toward redressing this.

and yy to paying lots of taxes for things that I do not and cannot benefit from.

I think that hrt tax payers with a child under five should still get child benefit. Child care is expensive whether its a SAHM or a nursery. Going back to work does not increase many family's income. A SAHM with pre school children is not lazy. I also think that single parents or those with disabled children who are HRT payers should be allowed to keep their benefit until the child is 16 because its hard to increase a family's income

Once a child gets to school age the cost of childcare comes down dramatically. It becomes much easier to make work pay. A SAHP can increase the family's income by working and its reasonable to encourage them.

ReallyTired - I agree with you up to a point, but there are still childcare issues - eg after school, before school, school holidays. And you are probably tied to using a school play-scheme or a holiday club, which may be more expensive hour-for-hour than a childminder.

But yy, I agree, once children are at school it is easier to work. In our situation, that would still be difficult though, as with my eldest about to go to secondary, they are getting ever more expensive (even the bus fare to secondary is £££), but I have a nearly 2 year old, so am caught with the more expensive older children, but problems about working outside of the home - fortunately for me I am able to work from home, and weekends and evenings, which means we have a little bit extra coming in, and I don't have to pay childcare - means I am totally exhausted though, with 4 kids, working about 16 hours per week with no childcare!!!

I'm just offering an opinion which I've heard from quite a few childless people. I'm not saying I necessarily agree.

My point is that whilst us as parents may think its fairer to tax high earning childless couples more so high earning families can keep their child benefit, those who do not have kids I suspect would strongly disagree about the fairness.

Surely it's more politically expedient to raise a penny on income tax in the current climate than it is to remove child benefit in such an unfair cliff edge way?

In my area childcare is roughly £5 per hour. It is a no brainer for most women to return to work if they have more than one child. At my son's school breakfast club is £3 and after school club is £8. Having two school children in child care and working starts to get a bit more realistic. However the holidays are still a nightmare financially. I am not sure what is the best or fairest solution if there is going to be cut. Frankly I would prefer it if the basic rate of taxation was increased rather than picking on families.

I cannot work in the evening as my husband often works long hours. He is often home at 8pm and leaves quite early in the morning. He often has to upload software he has written onto the server at night. What this governant doesn't understand is that many high rate tax payers work their arses off. Often someone has to look after the rest of the family to make it possible for someone to work in a highly pressurised job.

LilyBolero, you must be shattered.

We seriously had to think about it on paper before having our 3rd, and ofcourse it was down money that decided we would not have a 4th.

People with no children shouldnt subsidise though of us who do, likewise i dont realy see why just because you decide to have a larger family you should be entitled to any more money.

It will be carers allowance next. You mark my words

Then they will means test the over 60s for winter fuel allowance, bus passes etc. Its the beginning of a slippery slope.

"Then they will means test the over 60s for winter fuel allowance, bus passes etc."

Why is that a bad thing? Some pensioners are better off than the average family.

I'm not holding my breath.

SAHP's are the lowest of the low. How dare we bring up our own children!
And how dare our hard working partners earn enough for us to be able to.

Yes but Carers aren't and yet they think a carer with a partner that earns over 42k is fair game to have their child benefit taken off them.

i dont see a problem with means testing.

My cousins wife is his carer, they are loaded, (he has taken early retirement and sold his business) she was told she was eligible for carers allowance, and point blank has refused to apply for it.

the thing that makes me laugh the most about it all is that Big Dave said he wanted to encourage traditional families in the run up to the election

hahahahaha