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?

sancti yes I'm lucky that I don't know much about that at the moment but I understand the issue is similar.

They are just coming up with all these schemes and they seem incapable of seeing past their ideology to what is fair, and more to the point, workable.

I don't get it. I don't get them.

mumsneedwine a very punchy and accurate post. You sum the difficulties up very nicely.

I particularly liked this bit "It is legally none of my business what my hubbie earns, and the CB is paid to me, so the Chancellor can go whistle"

My husband is a 50% tax payer, and we accept we will lose it (I am a sahm) I hope they cap it, to the first 2 children for each family, and up to the age of 16.

I also hope it is awarded based on a household income and not on one salary as sahm's shouldnt be penalised.

I suspect it will be a political fudge. My money is on they will raise it to say £50k and make an exception for those will kids with special needs etc. The latter to make it look like they've listened, are sympathetic and have compromised.

Personally I'd have much more respect for them if they said "We had a good look into this and actually it's not as simple as we first thought so we're not going to do this but we'll do xyz instead."

I've never seen what the problem is with a U turn as long as they are honest about it. We all make mistakes. I was always taught if you make a mistake, own up, fix it and move on. I don't see why governments can do the same.

Sancti - I remember the old thread about benefits for parents of disabled children. It was disgusting, and I signed the petition, and I've been wondering ever since if it had done any good. Not if you are losing £25 a week. That's a significant amount - half my food shop (if we don't need much of the non-food stuff that week). :(

We certainly don't need the money as much as someone like you, but as a family of four in the SE with a hefty SE mortgage and one income, we could do with the money a damn sight more than a HRT payer living almost anywhere else or with no dependents - how come it's only HRT payers with children that are "all in it together?".

When it comes to a coalition government one of them is going to have to perform a u turn! Both parties made different promises, neither expected to have to work together.

I think TheOriginalSteamingNit has it spot on.
There will be no U turn, but maybe they will make the cut off 50K?
Why they can't cap it after the first 2 children I have no idea (I have 4 by the way)
I think CB for 2 children in a family is fair, but maybe it should be phased out slowly, rather than one day X next day Y.
I don't think any of us with children are going to come out of this with a smile.
We will have to make up the shortfall in our family, DH earns just over the 42K
I earn much less. I think David and his buddies are just being totally and utterly thoughtless

Sorry, I think my last post has ended up at the top of the page, and my first post is now at the bottom. Have no idea how that came about, maybe it's my dodgy pc playing games with me.

MrsTittle- sadly no, but I know of families with multiple SN children who are losing £200 PCM- it's almost a positive that DS1 gets HR DLA!

But after UC comes in most carers will lose their carer status (ATM it's for MR and HR DLA claims, will only be HR) by which time ds1 will have been renewed and hardly anyone is getting HR now so things are going to get so much worse that the £25 has almost been accepted- I am trying to do my website to work from home but if not I will be sent on workfare which means DH will have to give up work to care for the boys. DS2 has been given a acting DX of ADD and ds4 SLD on top of the two for whom we get DLA for their autism so you know,

ARGH!

We have been referred to genetics, as if we'd have another one!

But- in the matter of CB- I still think it's been terribly messed up. An equal share of cuts across the board I support* but ones targeting kids with SN or handled in such a clearly unfair way- no.

Also, MrsTittle I hugely agree that this should be somehow regional. it is quite simply true that we can make £26k (as the cap amount) go further here in S E Wales than someone in the SE or London. I get that people say 'well don't live in london' but really? Do you want them living in Merthyr, or somewhere similar, where jobs are virtually non existent and services are already over stretched? That's just ridiculous IMO.

To prove this I would rather lose £7.50 per child from standard tax credits across the board, making me £30 PW worse off, than £25 PW targeted at the one who is autistic. That would be harsh, but fair. I chose 4 children, I did not* choose for them all to have SN!

Argh epic fail

Was meant to be an * at the start of the bottom line, forgot the attempt to bold not choose would backfire!

DH's disaster (I hate this job I'm chucking it) plan was always to sell up, move somewhere cheap and work at Tescos. I wasn't convinced, but assuming that there are jobs at Tescos (big if, I'm guessing), I've just realised that he's right, we could.

I just looked on Rightmove, and for the equity that we have in this house, we could buy a 3 bedroom house in Merthyr and be mortgage free. We'd have a ton of fun money, and loads of security. Isn't that just stupid?

I wouldn't chose to educate my children in a school in Merthyr tydfil, Just to have loads of money and be mortgage free!

Had to leave the computer to, you know, parent and stuff. :) My point being, of course, that if we packed it all in a lived in Merthyr that then we would get child benefit.

Going completely off tangent... I don't get the cuts to families with disabled children. I just don't see how it's politically viable. Even the most rabid frothing benefit hating DM readers always put in the "but not disabled children, of course", because that's one of the most fundamental parts of having a welfare state. A proportion of people will always be born disabled (or have accidents and end up that way), and in a decent society, they will be looked after. I always thought that we lived in a basically decent society. :(

I'd like to know what happens with pensions - when filling in my CB forms, the notes said that you got credit towards your pension when on CB.

So, if I lose CB because DH is (just) a higher rate taxpayer, and I become a SAHM, do I also lose all rights to a state pension in the future? That'd be one hell of a financial penalty to look forward to.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume every SAHM will be supported by their DH's pension once they reach retirement age.

I haven't seen a politican mention this once.

A 12-point guide to George Osborne's Budget 2012

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17431379

It IS stupid (I don;t live in Merthyr but not that far away- 40 minutes). But then there are no jobs in Merthyr, huge drug and social problems.... when we moved here we wenty from rented ex council house near a pub on A38 in rough town to lovely cottage in nice village for same amount of cash but whilst I know I am lucky to live in this little pocket (Goodness for how long, every year we face homelessness risks as no local agents accept self employed but anyway) but my eyes have been opened to Valleys life for the most disadvantaged, and I know I will do all in my power to avoid having to take my boys there, vulnerable as they are anyway.

But even comparing Somerset prices to here when we moved up was- enlightening.

Government has been very clever with 'disabled children' they ahve not touched DLA (yet) but what they have done is basically change the actual definition of what a disabled child or carer is: so ds3, who has severe SLD< autism and attends a SNU won;t count after Oct 2013. he will get DLA but no carer's for me and from April halved tax credits. bit worried long term as can;t see ds3 working but that is a long time away.

misslinnet the silence on HRP full stop has been very noticeable; it is a question carers are asking as well, as we also get HRP as part of our 'deal'

It is clearly a deliberate silence IMO

I still don't understand how what my husband earns has any bearing on MY CB. To assume I am to be taxed as part of his income is so against equality law that I am amazed everyone doesn't think this is pants. Means test on household income -yes. To tell me my income is defined by my husband - no. I will be stating I have no idea what my husband earns and he will state he has no idea whether I claim CB. Means test us by all means but do not tell me I can't claim something my neighbour who earns £30k more than me can. It's my money to spend on my kids and has nothing to do with my husband !

However..... If you are together and have children you have a joint responsibility to care for them and if you have made the decision that 1 of you stays at home to care for the children, thn the working parent can and should be expected to pay for them. Although child benefit is paid to me I certainly don't see it as 'my money' and 'nothing to do with my husband'. It is family income that helps towards the cost of us jointly bringing up our children.

If this was the case I would have no problem. Family income is fine by me - means testing is fair. But don't tax me on the basis of what someone else earns. And how is MY state pension protected if I can't claim CB - or am I supposed to rely on my husband in old age. If you can't claim CB then you don't get a state pension for the years you don't work. No one mentions this but it's a huge issue as anyone taking time out to raise kids will be stuffed - if they dare to live with someone who earns £42k.

I don't see it as a tax on YOU though, they are talking about removing CB if one of the parents is earning over £42k, presumably because they believe the earner is earning enough to support their own children without help. I agree that something has to be put in place to protect state pension for SAH parents and I also agree it seems unfair that 2 parents earning £40k each would still be able to get CB but just don't agree with the argument being used that seems to imply the CB belongs to the 'mother' and shouldn't have anything to do with how much the father earns.

Medented - I claim child benefit. It's a sole claim in my name because that's how CB works. Now the government want to remove that payment from ME because of my husband's earnings. Where have I gone in this situation - it's like I've disappeared and only dh matters? Eh? It's so demeaning.

I agree that the HRP issue is a huge hole in this situation as well. This policy is going to damage the position of women in our society.

Ive never understood how this can work. If your partner is a higher rate taxpayer om Paye and you as mum are either a low rate taxpayer or unpaid - how are they going to connect the two to decide whether or not you are still eligible? Am i missing something?

Northernlurker - But the child benefit isn't for YOU it's for your children and if the other responsible parent is earning over £42k the govt have decided your children don't need you to claim cb. You haven't disappeared and it's not that only DH matters, I see it more that that they recognise you are both equally responsible for bringing up your children. And I don't believe It HAS to be the mother that claims CB although I accept it is usually the case.

And just because something had always been the case "because that's how CB works" doesn't mean it is right and can't become outdated.