Waiting with baited breath! What will the chancellor do with CB on Wednesday.

[chickydoo]

Probably been done to death, but holding my breath to see what the budget will bring for child benefit on Weds? Will there be a U turn?
What do you think will happen?

'
That is the disgusting attatuide that labour encouraged and god willing on the torys will get rid of the only earnings you should base wether or not to have a child is what you actually earn after tax'

yes that would save everyone. Especially those who then lose their jobs or get ill.

Goodness know what you do for a living MrBJ but your posts are almost indecipherable; you must have a very good talent somewhere other than explaining yourself.

My fear is based on this little gem: not for me but my disabled boys, especially ds3. We're already taking cuts a plenty to his support, seems as if there will be more. Dear lifelong disabled ds3, get well soon(er than 2016) !

Do please note my post - if you pay into a pension or give to charity, you may still get CB even if over 60k or not lose if 50-60>

that's shocking sancti how can they do that to a disabled child?
and your right mrbj should check what he has written before posting i was like ??? for most of it.

Am totally confused by all this - surely would have been simpler to say that as from 9 months from now, no CB. end of. Then anyon with kids who jhas factored in the payment keeps it, anyone planning DC knows not to count on it.

www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/tiin-0620.pdf explains as someone has posted previously the wording.

We make losses on letting our family home as HMG have posted us abroad; O wonder if those count, as we would then get it. This tax note is not clear, and is trying to get around the independent taxation principle. I wonder if this will be challenged in court - it would be interesting if it were.

Dh has his salary restricted by 8% by HMG for his pension contribution - I wonder how that works with the pension contributions bit.

We will be about £500 per month down with the cb cut, the pay freeze, the supposed 1% payrise, the cut to the overseas allowance, the lowering (again) of the 40% threshold so that HRTs don't benefit from the rise in the tax free allowance, and arise in MQ rents. Who says the middle classes aren't contributing to the deficit?

Two things come to mind for me

1. The covering of NI contributions - yes they all still covered but you have to complete the claim form even if you won't receive any benefit. As I see it your options are to claim but have the amount removed from your partner therough the tax charge or not to claim at all. So if you want to claim the NI you have to claim and your partner will have to pay the charge and all this will be administered because there is no other way for you to get the NI credit. Is it me or does that seem very clumsy? And what happens to women or men whose partner objects to them claiming a benefit that they, the partner, will be seeing going back out of their pocket? Some very nasty possibilities there.

2. Complexity of payments. At the moment the system pays out so much per claim dependant on family size. So you're claiming for between 1 child under 16 and a maximum of what - 15? (assuming no twins!) So the number of possible payment amounts is pretty small isn't it?
   After this change though you will be having anything up to 99% of the benefit charged to your partner - so that's a huge amount of variability to build in. And of course like the tax credits system it will be cumbersome, slow to adapt to income changes and time consuming to administer. I'm really looking forward to hearing how big the bill will be. There is no way you can implemet this scale of system with thsi number of variables - calculating what a payment should be, then calculating what percentage should be removed then incorporating it in tax code (I assume that's how it will be done?) without massive investment of manpower and potentially technology. George Osbourne really is a fool.

If you look at the pdf I linked to above it gives the potential costs.

Afaik, HRTs under PAYE who earn less than £100k, don't have to fill an ITR each year, so there is a huge cost in issuing ITRs (and I insist ours are paper, as it costs them more), and in having to assess those. This is at a time when HMRC are losing staff.

I know we all have to pay towards the deficit, but there aren't many teaching jobs in my subject going in Belgium (HM Forces abroad), so even if I work, HMG doesn't get the benefit, and there is a limit to how much I can earn without dh's status here being affected.

Child benefit should be across a household income.
Its unfair, deeply unfair. And so obvious, sod how cost effective it is to implement.

Traditionally this money was paid to the wife, often its a wife's only money that is entirely her own! He's taken my spends. And yes i could ask my husband for spends but no i don't want to.

Rainy day it is NOT your spends, it is for your children, the tax payer is not stumping up for you to get coffee and your bloody nails done you know

I think it's a good thing that it's done on a single income, not household income. Gone should be the days when the bloke went out to work and the woman had small change to look after the house and kids. This means that couples who both work hard and earn their money aren't penalised for doing so. If it was 50K household income you'd get teachers, nurses, train drivers etc out of the CHB bracket with two earners in the household.

Nice one George.

Oh Boffin Mum, please be prime minister, we need a safe pair of hands like yours to run this country. We are off to hell in a hand-cart if the current lot stay for too much longer. We dont all have a private family trust fund to fall back on when the going gets tough................ and not all of us are lucky enough to have family nearby who can help with childcare to enable us to return to work without paying the enormous childcare costs or nursery or childminder (or nanny if you are one of call-me-Dave's mob).

I am not going to get started on the Child Benefit one - or else the rant will just go on and on and on, agree with all the points made re protecting the SAHP NI contributions, the ridiculous judgement made where if one parent earns over the threshold, support is cut, but if two parents earn just below, it carries on. JUST. DON'T.GET.ME.STARTED.ON.THIS.ONE. GRRRRRR.

Ill have you know,my nails are filthy love, i dig mud pies with my children.

Its my spends for play group, swimming, craft. Mummy spends! Stuff i do for and with the children.

I drink tea also.

The grass is not always greener, a high income can come with high outgoings. Having one income should be taken into account.

I don't claim my free hours ( childcare) so get a grip.

You don't know my circ.

Link missing from my post earlier

here

please join my facebook group:-

www.facebook.com/groups/136267416421467/

Child Benfit cuts still penalise 'stay at home mums'.

Thanks

bowmanduo you can think of it as the chancellor supporting households with two working parents. Stay-at-home mums aren't shelling out thousands on childcare so life isn't too unfair.

Some are.

I am paying for childcare. More than my £55 PW carers I can tell you! but otherwise I would never get to sleep more than 2 hours on the trot.

And that's the problem with these rules- they are in no way sensitive to circumstances. Many people have no option about being a SAHM or will have based their finances on a different set of circs- carers, people made redundant, people who simply can't find the flexible childcare their job requires... it's what my dad would call a 'gert 'ammer to crack a nut' approach

What about those of us who chose not to have children (to revert to the original post) but who are now going to fund the difference, i.e. as step-parents.

In our situation, DSS2 lives with us, DH earns less than the threshold. I however earn over the threshold and now we/DH will no longer be able to claim. If however, DH's ex had decided not to end the marriage and they were still together, they'd still get it.
They would be unhappy though, so probably not a prospect to dwell on!!

This may be rather an obvious solution, but shouldn't CB remain as a universal benefit for all children. Thus saving confusion consternation and significant costs in setting it all up and policing who gets what.
However I know savings have to be made - the proposal that benefits should be capped to £27k per household should be implemented. There are many hardworking families who don't earn that amount, and have to pay income tax, whereas those getting more than the £27k benefits are getting them tax free..........
Is it me or is this a bleedingly obvious place to make savings?

Wimini, I'm a sahm and as far as I can see my cb payments stay the same. I think the government are also supporting us.

So...how does my husband know if I claim Child Benefit? Just wondering. If I don't tell him, since I believe by law I don't have to share my financial arrangements with him, how would he be able to declare it? Equally, if I don't know how much HE earns, how can I tell HMRC?

They will know that we live in the same house, but how will they know he fathered my children? That's yet another layer of admin. Or doesn't that matter - if it's household income? What about if you have a rich lodger?

There are just too many flaws in this system for it to WORK.

I have no problem with the government trying to decide what sort of income means child benefit should go however , although I can accept it might be difficult to " police " it makes me cross that I as a higher rate tax payer single parent ( and arguably not in need of CB ) will lose it where my nextdoor neighbours if they both worked could bring a total household income in between them greater then mine retain it .... it doesn't seem fair that a household with two earners could earn @100K and keep child benefit whereas a single parent household on say 60 loses it .

Thankfully some sensible questions about protection of pension for mothers who take time out of work to look after children! I have asked a number of government departments about this and this has not been covered. We need to ask MP's how mothers with partners earning over £60k who take time out are protected pension wise (my hubby does not earn over £60k). Currently if you are in receipt of CB then you are covered if you are not in receipt you are not covered! Does this mean further penalisation for those people who have done well and pay through the nose for everything! I do know that anyone living in the south east earning £50k is not rich and it's not about choosing to live an extravagant lifestyle with expensive mortgages - there is no choice! I think it's totally unfair how the whole CB system has been handled. Cut it completely from everyone and make the system simpler!

Those without children will be supported in their old age by children being born now paying taxes! That's if anyone can be bothered to work in the future as the benefits system can be so profitable! (a LOT of people work the system and expect free money!!!!)

I think the silence on the NI credit is telling (especially as they have said the new single tier pension will be contributions based).

As is the requirement for spouses to know/declare elements of each other's income - big backwards step from independent taxation. Another sign of their dismissive attitude?