High income child benefit charge

[clifden1974]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652076
Please take the time to sign this petition to get the high income child benefit tax abolished

May I ask why?

It isn’t a tax - it’s the removal of a benefit.

No thank you.

No.

So if someone earns over 80K they should still get child benefit

Nothing wrong with higher earners having to pay it back.

The problem is the rules, i.e. a couple earning £49k each keep it, but a single person earning £61k has to pay it all back.

Sort out that stupid rule and it'll be fine.

Why? We don’t claim it anymore because my husband earns over the threshold and the tax return to pay it all back the first year was a right PITA

It's paid to HMRC, the organisation which deals with taxes. It's not paid to DWP, which is the organisation that looks after benefits. 🤷‍♀️

Child Benefit should be abolished full stop. Add the equivalent to the Child Element of Universal Credit so that it's means tested. That would mean that only the poorest get it. Unfortunately no government has the guts to do it.

No. I’m an additional rate taxpayer; I don’t claim it, I don’t need it and certainly don’t want to pay more tax for others in the same bracket to claim it.

Oh my god it took me hours. I wept.

Yes to this. Same as the way in which single parents are penalised regarding funded hours - a single parent earning £101k gets none, two parents earning £99k each get 30 free hours.

It's a benefit to help lower income families therefore there is an income threshold.

I don't get it anymore. I thought it was ridiculous when Dh and I earned 48/49k each and got it but our friends who's dh earned 60k and she was a SAHM were no longer entitled, makes no sense!

Change how it looks at household income overall not Individual income is the change I'd propose

This.

We don't get it now as DH went over £60k but I'm on £20k - I know couples both in high £40k and they get it.

I think the whole thing is flawed though. Why pay people just for popping out a kid.

Literally the only flaw is the fact that it's the mechanism to give NI credit to stay at home parents, predominantly women.

back in 2012 -budget speech the chancellor Mr Osbourne - . “I simply could not justify asking those earning £15,000 or £30,000 to go on paying child benefit to those earning £80,000 or £100,000,” the chancellor told the House of Commons today. “All sections of society must make a contribution to dealing with the deficit – without this measure we wouldn’t get the job done.”
Then set the threshold at 50,000 and there it remains
I know that i pay more tax the more I earn.I can not agree to pay more tax -remove money from my family simply because I have children . These children are the tax payers of tomorrow and I will do my uttmost to instill in them the sense of wrong feel about how this generation of children have be treated -TO PAY FOR THE BANKING CRISIS OF 2008 .

- . “I simply could not justify asking those earning £15,000 or £30,000 to go on paying child benefit to those earning £80,000 or £100,000,”

I still agree with this. And I’m in the second bracket.

I think the rules should be reformed so, say, a single adult household gets a threshold of £60k and a two-person adult household gets a threshold of £50k to split however they like between them, increased to £60k where one of the adults cannot work due to disability, caring for a relative or having a child with SEN.

This would be fairer, and reflect how single parents have additional costs they can't share with another working adulting, and how one adult in a two-person household staying at home isn't always a lifestyle choice but a necessity.

However... pay a child benefit to everyone, even if they're loaded? Why on earth for?

Just an FYI...

People earning over £50k but paying into pension schemes can still claim it, so long as adjusted net income is below £50k...

The 'income' used by HM Revenue & Customs to calculate the charge is 'adjusted net income'. Any pension contributions made by an individual, whether it's a contributions to an occupational pension scheme or to a personal pension, will reduce the final amount of adjusted net income.

Because its a seriously flawed tax.indiviual income not household income .drives a coach and horses through independent taxation .isn't adjusted for inflation.impacts single income households. impacts PAYE tax payers more than self employed .
It's time to see families as the future not a tax cash cow

No, I don't agree with abolishing it. It needs tweaks as PPs have mentioned, but it should remain in place.

Just another threshold not uprated. £50,000 in 2013 would be closer to £70,000 now.

It's clear that the plan is to let inflation remove this benefit.

The thing about child benefit was that it was a progressive move, designed to "move money from the wallet to the purse". Presumably by a government that recognised if you gave money to women with children then those children would benefit because the money would be spent on them. Study after study has shown this to be the case.

How many threads are on here do we see with women being financially abused by high earning men?

I earn well over the threshold but have always taken it and paid it back through my tax. Reason being if I ever got made redundant it would be good to have that £100 a month straight away and I don't trust the DWP not to dick about for months without paying it. Now I'm being made redundant it feels like the right choice even if the tax returns have been a PITA.

Mr and Mrs A have 3 children under the age of 16. Mrs A claims the child benefit and receives £24.00 per week for the eldest child and £15.90 each for the second and third child. Mrs A does not work.

Mr A earns £49,000 and has also received a bonus of £5,000.
Total adjusted net income = £54,000
Total child benefit claimed = £1,248.00 for the eldest child and £826.80 for each of the other two children = £2,901.60
Tax charge for child benefit = £54,000 - £50,000 = £4000/100 = 40
40 x 1% = 40% of £2,901.60 = £1,160.64
Mrs A will still receive the child benefit of £2,901.60. However, Mr A will suffer the tax charge of £1,1,60 (the charge rounded down to the nearest whole pound).
Therefore the effective rate of taxation between £50,000 and £54,000 is 67.65% (£270 taxed at 20% plus £3,730 taxed at 40% totals £1,546, add on the £1,160 HICBC means that the tax is effectively £2,706 (which is 67.65% of £4,000))

But it’s a tax on money you’re being given by the government simply for having a child. Which you don’t need if you’re a high earner.

You seem to see it as a tax on money you’d earn regardless of having children - as if you’re ending up being penalised beyond your single colleagues earning the same amount. Which you aren’t.

In your example, the family still ends up better off.

And if Mr A isn’t sharing his money with SAHM Mrs A, to the extent she’s relying on child benefit even though he’s earning over £50k, then Mr A is a financially abusive arsehole.

I’m coming from the point of view of being a higher earner, by the way. I think it’s mad that the government would pay me thousands of pounds for my two DC despite my high earnings. It was very nice when I was on statutory maternity pay and then on unpaid maternity leave, but it’s just not necessary now. This is despite DH earning (just) below the HICB threshold.