Abolition of child benefit for higher rate taxpayers is an attack on women

[Cerys36]

The whole point of child benefit is that it is paid to the mother to support the children. It used to be a tax allowance, but it is paid instead as a "benefit" so the mother can receive it - including those who are not in paid work. Abolishing it for families where there is a higher rate tax payer (usually the father) is an attack on women. If you want the higher earners to contribute more, as Osborne says, then increase higher rates of income tax, don't cut CB for families with a higher rate taxpayer.

its not an attack on woman, what a stupid thing to say.

you should be ashamed of yourself

Yes it is, it's a tax measure which has a wholly disproportionate effect on women. Either there has been no assessment of the effect of this proposed change on women, or the government simply don't care. It is another example of blindness to the effect on women in the choices this government makes to reduce spending or increase taxes.

Also your reply fails to put forward any reasoned intelligent response, you are merely trading insults.

I quite agree Cerys.

Cerys36 in a way I agree with you, but I also think that things have moved on since CB was introduced. It was the last government I think who moved away from the principle that CB should always be paid to the mother, and I think that was right overall, as part of a move towards more equal parenting.

I certainly would much rather that CB were means-tested than for it to be left to wither with inflation so that it becomes irrelevant. I'm a bleeding heart and this move looks reasonable to me.

Sorry, child benefit is NOT a woman only payment and it's not meant to be pocket money for stay at home mums with high earning partners. It's meant to help people (not just woman) support their children when they might not be able to afford to otherwise.

DwayneDibbley - I suspect it is to do with childcare, your friends have an income of 82K, but if they have a couple of children then the childcare cost is going to be a large chunk of someones wage, whether it's nursery or wraparound care or similar. While you aren't having to pay these costs, so can spend that money on other things the children might need thus need an additional cash payment less.

I am pretty annoyed that it is going because although my husband is a higher rate tax earner I am not and all of my salary goes on nursery/childcare

Not always Lucky - they may both be teachers with children at the school they teach in - have known this to happen. Child came to school with parents, went home with parents. No childcare costs.

What about single parents lucky? I have to pay all the childcare costs out of my income.

I seriously might be better off working part time and getting more benefits

I thought that the reasoning behind taking it from higher rate taxpayers rather than means testing was that it was cheaper and easier to administer.

scaryteacher - there will always be odd exceptions to the rule. Your example is only going to apply once the children had gone to school in any event, unless you pop one parent into the nursery and another into primary. What percentage of people in the country do you think that is the case for though?

LadyBiscuit - if you're earning over 40K and thus going to lose your child benefit then I seriously doubt you will be able to build up enough in benefits by going part time to make you better off in any way.

Men and women are jointly responsible for their children so I don't see it as a deliberate attack on women. A lot of people in the higher rate tax bracket will manage without the money every week. What I find insidious would be if removing child benefit removed the home responsibilities protection that stay at home parents currently enjoy. These parents may then end up with a state pension shortfall when they retire (if it is worth anything by then!)

The universal CB was never 'fair'. It was simplistic, it was paid out to millionaires as well as the poor, and it made some very old-fashioned assumptions about the structure of family life and family finances. It has long since been overtaken with CTC which reflects household income, childcare costs and other factors. Much fairer

I'd expect that there are more details to come about how the '40% tax band' applies. I'd also fully expect that CB will get rowed in with CTC and become part of the Universal Credit in due course rather than a separate payment.

It isn't an attack on women

it was originally paid to the woman as plenty of men earned lots of money they then kept all to themselves. judging by some threads on here, that's still happening today. this money was for the woman to spend on her children. of course we've now moved on in a sense so there are some dads who are primary carers for the children.

I'm hacked off. dh earns just over, by about £500, but we've got 3 kids so the non taxable child benefit is worth a lot more to us. I'm going to ask him to take a pay cut when this comes in (or we'll have to scrabble round with some tax dodge or other). why isn't it going on household income? there's already a scheme in place - tax credits - so this must also be a death knell for tax credits if they're not going to do household income data collection any more.

"if he were going to integrate the two I think he'd be announcing it now."

The emergency budget was only a few months ago and CB was announced as 'frozen'... not abolished for higher-rate tax-payers. Now we have a different picture again and, by 2013, I expect things to have progressed further. Administering CB on its own as a means-tested benefit would indeed be complicated and costly which is precisely why it'll end up as part of the Universal Credit.

Benefits will remain with the low-paid, unemployed and those with disabilities. Everyone else will be looking after themselves and their families without assistance. That is as it should be.

I agree Chil, I'd rather not claim any state benefits personally. I'm not low paid, unemployed or disabled, or in any other group with additional needs and I would rather those that are received more and I received less, but we are in a crazy situation where the majority of families have to claim to balance the household budget. Housing costs were allowed to spiral out of control under the previous government.

Having seen more details on the proposal, the lower earning partner is still going to claim and recieve CB. This amount will then be deducted from the higher earner. So, if we accept the premise of this thread that men are the high earners, then the removal of this benefit is actually an ATTACK ON MEN as their pay packets will be the ones affected so I think we should ask mumsnet to retitle the thread appropriately.

:)

I don't understand completely, but it seems I am going to lose out totally, since I am a lone parent on just over the threshold, so as I understand it I will not get child benefit, and will also lose tax credit and don't have a partner to stay at home to look after the children. So working lone parents seem to be the very worst affected. Please someone tell me I am wrong!

Where did you find the details Lucky?