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.

In The Times - it's behind a paywall but relevant bit was:

"But Mr Osborne admitted that using the higher-rate tax band as a kind of means test was not infallible. Anyone earning more than £44,000 a year, including personal allowances, will be asked to declare whether anyone in their household claims child benefit and that would then be clawed back via their tax code."

"the majority of families have to claim to balance the household budget"

What's certainly happened is that families have got used to a certain income and many are using it all up with nothing spare at the end of the month. Housing costs are definitely high but if money hadn't been available in the past, people would have made different decisions. As it stands, we all have some time to rearrange our finances, save costs, improve earnings, move somewhere cheaper etc. I'm a single parent and would much rather keep the £120/month CTC and CB rather than lose it. But, on the other hand, my family will still have food on the table at the end of the day... and someone else needs that £120 more than I do.

What I don't understand is how immigrants who are looking for work in the UK are able to claim child benefit for their children who are still living in their own countries?
Why are we exporting our child benefit overseas to non UK children? I won't be affected by the changes in 2013 but I do feel sorry for the higher UK tax earner who will be supplementing foreign children with this benefit but will be unable to claim it for their own children, does'nt seem fair to me.

Well yes Chil I see your point but I am afraid that I am far from assured that the savings will go to those who need it most. I'm currently trying to work out whether it's worth me carrying on working. If I factor in what I have to pay to travel to work, the nursery fees, the childcare fees, and what I would earn from associated benefits (council tax benefit, free school dinners etc) it is going to be very close. And that's before you factor in the fact that I wouldn't have to work and would get to spend time with my children! I don't want to give up work, I have always believed that I should work and contribute financially to the upbringing of my children, but I am beginning to wonder what financial benefit I am getting from working...

You're just trying to get a racist fight going here and I think you're badly missing the point.

I have not heard of that Chinghehuang, but sounds staggering to me.

Also if you have two people earning £43500 each they get to keep CB, whereas someone earning £44,100 with a partner earning say £12000 loses - or have I got that bit wrong?

BellsaRinging - once they're out of nursery though you'll see a massive difference in income, and you'll still have a career.

I could afford to stay at home while my DD is little, and I would certainly much rather do so, but I'm going back to work for (once it's all worked out with nursery etc) a pittance, on the principle that if I drop out now, when I DO want to go back I'll really really struggle.

Sure Chil I agree.

My point was that the previous government should have tacked the things that make it expensive to live in the UK such as high cost of housing, rather than just handing out cash to 9 in 10 households with dependent children.

@BellsaRinging.... if you don't have a partner's salary to keep the family afloat and you currently have a job I'd suggest you kept hold of it.

Chil1234,
I am not trying to get a racist fight for gods sake, I am trying to make a valid point about how UK tax payers money is being squandered unfairly imo, if you agree that we should be sending child benefit overseas to children that are not Uk citizens and do not live here that is upto you, I am only stating a fact which I do not agree with and which many people are not even aware of. If I had a choice I would prefer my taxes not to be spent in this way.

@ornamentalcabbage. The last government were far to free with the tax money when it came to handing it out and far too slow to read the danger signs of massive personal debt, housing shortage etc. I can remember my amazement when I found out I qualified for CTC (albeit the minimum)and thinking 'this is too good to last'... and sure enough, it was :)

Attack on women - what bollocks!

Sounds like an assumtion that we're all at home using it for pin money until our DH gives us our housekeeping money.

@chinghehuang... and what about the UK citizens working in EU countries that have a reciprocal arrangement with the social systems there? I expect it balances out. £20m equates to about 19,000 children and, in your other thread, you were strongly hinting that most of these were 'children that didn't exist' i.e. thieving foreigners taking advantage of our good nature and conning us out of our tax money.

"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."

Quite Lucky - I thought I was the only one to get this

If they are doing this then I think the least they can do in compensation is allow DH to use my tax allowance!

It was my understanding that claiming CB in your name protected your NI status - so that if you had a few years off as a SAHM or worked at a level below NI contributions you could have those years counted towards your entitlement eg to pensions

Is this not the case now then? So say if your husband earns over the 40% bracket, you SAH, and then get divorced you will have a huge hole in your own personal state pension entitlement?

isnt an attack on women at all.trying to redistribute monies and drum up some savings.given that many families have shared finances male/female doesnt really come into it as it is family money

it isnt substantial money that i need,is nice but not essential

and arguably one could say in times of austere cuts it is right to redistibute to less well off

Cappster - The SAHM NI is still protected.

"This is completely unjust and decidedly ill conceived."

I think that the '2 low incomes vs 1 high income' anomaly sticks out like a sore thumb and will cause a lot of resentment - and I'm speaking as a single-parent higher-rate taxpaying family that will lose CB. However, I think that higher-earners losing this benefit was fair in principle and I also think that the Universal Credit, when it is introduced, will be a balancing factor.

I think it will be a major attack on women if HRP is removed.

it's already been reduced to end when your youngest child turns 12, but if it were removed altogether, then that is a lot of people (predominantly women) left with holes in the NI record.

This has clear potential to increase poverty in old age amongst women - a very serious prospect. I hope that it is not overlooked simply because it is not the immediate concern of withdrawing the payment.

Does anyone know what is to happen to HRP?

jackstarbright - where did you hear that? I can't find any mention of it

Chil - It does appear that single parents who just fall into the higher rate do come off worst - especially if they live in the SE.

Imo - the 'two people with one income anomaly' is less of an issue. I'm in that position - and I could always get a job if things got really tight. I appreciate that might not be an option for those with LO's.

It is a concern that (on the other thread) people, in this country, in the top 15% income group, rely so heavily on state benefits.

I'm not sure if that's a comment on salary levels, cost of living or something else?