So cutting child benefit is fair...not...

[Zabian]

Who does Mr G Osborne think he's kidding...

Cutting child benefit is meant to be fair..?

• it's patently unfair not fair
• it is bad for our children (a family tax rise of 5p in the pound)
• it is bad for marriage (you'd be better off divorced)
• and it creative perverse disincentives to work

It's unfair...
Compare a household with a single parent who earns £50,000 to one where there are two parents who each earn £40,000. It is totally unfair for the first household to lose the benefit when the second is allowed to keep it. If anything, single parents need more support from society, not less.

Bad for children...
The policy is effectively a huge tax rise targeted specifically at families with children - equivalent to some 5p in the pound. We all know that children represent our future and that bringing them up is extremely costly - £200,000 is an oft quoted cost. As a society, we must support the families who have responsibility for bringing up our children. A massive tax rise targeted at this hugely important group is just terrible policy.

Bad for marriage...
Married mums who would be in line to lose their child benefit would be better off if they separated from their husband. At the margin, this policy will cause some families to split up. And I thought Mr Cameron was keen to encourage marriage?

Provides perverse disincentives to work...
The marginal tax rate when one household member moves from the lower tax threshold to the higher tax rate is unbelievably high ? well over 100%. How can it be right to put people in a position where they should refuse a pay rise? You are taking away an incentive to get on in life. We should be simplifying the hugely complicated tax system, rather than adding to the complexities.

This policy is completely unfair.

Zabian, who do you think you're kidding? Ever considered those less fortunate than yourself? Those on a total household income of much less than half of the £50,000 income that you mention!? Why should basic rate taxpayers have to pay for child benefit for much better off households? That's the real unfair part isn't it.
Mr Osborne has done absolutely the right thing, the only thing he could have done better would have been to introduce it sooner. There's far too much greed going on here from better-off households. Stop whinging and be thankful for what you have, it's much more that lots of other households. Life must be pretty fantastic with a salary of £50,000

Jo1111 are you kidding?
Its about fairness not about whose more fortunate.
If you are right and people above £44000 should not recieve benefit, ok. But do you think a household with a joint income of £80000 should still recieve it?? They will!
This is not fair.
Yes £44000 is a good wage for someone that has worked hard for it, it pays a mortgage, for bills and food etc,we have no spare money and are finding things hard too. So we are fortunate to have a house to live in but I am afraid you are wrong about life being fantastic. Its not greed when you have worked hard to pay your way and all that you ask is to be treated fairly. We would accept the loss and manage, but why are households with almost double our income still going to recieve it ?? (confused)

I agree Zabian and gsbe,its naff isnt it,why bother trying hard and working hard,and trying to better ourselves and our kids,We pay huges amounts of tax which supports everybody else ,I agree the most vunerable need the help,but why do we bother working hard??
perhaps we should not bother paying our morgages just go bankrupt?most people only got in the position to be classed as "middleclass" through sacrafising everything like going out,smoking ,drinking,buying nice things,holidays,putting everything they work hard to earn into paying their morgages and bills and taxs,those rich toffs had the money to start off with so they dont appreciate what its like being in the middle,your're looked after if you have lots,you're looked after if you have nothing,while who looks out for us,we're just squeezed dry until theres nothing left.
Having to work every hour of everyday just to get by.
I also feel women are the targets the women and the children,I was watching those old harry enfield clips "women know your limits"
I think thats how the torys see us only interested in fluffy kittens with no rights whatsover.
I think i could except all these things if everyone was getting hit but its not its just the familys,mainly where one person works and one stays at home to bring up the family.
Anyone these cuts arnt affecting seem to be loving it and supporting it,i wonder if they will agree when the cuts hit them,families have been hit with the majority,obviosly they'd sooner p*ss us off than the rich pensioners,or the forigners that claim and send money back home?
sorry for the rant

Totally agree, the docking of child benefit will increase divorce rate. Does that keep families together? Child benefit was brought in by labour govn to allow women to feed and clothe their children when the men spent their wages in the pub. As a middle class mum, I still rely on cb as my husband gives money to charity! Equates to the same thing, ctrl and ultimate the kids suffer and more divorces are bound to occur. Not an incentive to keep married couples together any more, when not much else in the society does!

Totally agree.

What are you people on? We are not benefit layabouts, husband works very hard for every penny we get, but we still only live on an income of less than 20k a year! We have 2 kids at home our third has just made us grandparents. We are trying to make ends meet and child benefit is essential to that. What the hell are you spending your money on if you get BENEFIT when earning more than 44k a year? My god if you heard of someone claiming a governmnet benefit for anything else, when their income was over 44k a year you would be writing letters to your MP.
Mortgage, Gas and Electric bills come in to us too, as do water bills and council tax and obviously broadband charges.

Why should my family pay taxes to keep your cushioned lives happy when ours is a daily struggle?

child benefit has always been there for a very long time. it's not a benefit (imo) more a thanks for taking 10 months off your life to populate the next generation)

i honestly think it's a fab think for a modern society to have. i think all mothers, whatever they earn should stick togher on this income as it's the one thing that truely marks what we do as worthy

though sorry its more like 10 years for each child

Why have you posted this in the webchat section?

go to chat or AIBU or something and add to the millions of CB threads there.

Justthewifey said it for me.

darla1969666

Because take home after £44k is actually only £30net. Take away pension/mortgage/life insurance and bills and there can realistically be a very small amount to live on.

gah.. being sucked in again. Go and look at the other threads.

The way they are doing it is unfair. It is not equitable. A family earning £80k will still get it (both earners under the high bracket) while a family earning £44k won't (single earner - either part of a couple or single parent). Say what you want about how much money relative to the general population either of these families have, but THIS IS NOT FAIR!!

It is also stupid as it will bring in extra bureaucracy, the costs of which will cancel out any savings.

And finally - those families earning BIG money (e.g. the 50% tax payers) are losing their restaurant tipping money, while as usual the middle take the hit (leaving aside all the cries of "I manage to make ends meet on a 10p per annum budget and a sprinkling of fairy dust...") Again, not FAIR

They had to do something to make it look like the middle classbetter off were being hit by the cuts

Gosh this is a real divide and rule isn't it.

Hard work and sacrifice can result in 20000 a year or 500000 a year, so I see that in many ways it's completely inappropriate to say "I worked hard and sacrificed and paid taxes so we deserve our only benefit" because others worked equally hard and sacrificed just as much (and not through choice) but still pay taxes that help fund better off people.

There's the truly unfair part about household income. But I think what is getting the goat of many "squeezed middles" is that they have never claimed, are hugely net givers, earn just too much for tax credits, have to pay top whack for unis, top whack for mortgages in the SE and this is the only money they claim and it feels a real kick in the teeth to take it away.

I've said this elsewhere today, I would be better off divorced. All in our family would. While married I'm not seen as an independent woman -- for Pete's sake, if an earning wife is considered a separate entity for child benefit, why can't a non-earning wife be considered a separate entity for JSA etc etc? So it's household income for everything else but for child benefit we're considered separate people. That's not fair either.