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.

Cappster - it was mentioned on the other thread (several times).

Also - my understanding is that they are not stopping mothers claiming CB - but if you continue to claim then the higher tax payer need to declare it and pay it back.

It is a reflection primarily on the high cost of property, jackstarbright. £44k is a fortune if have a low fixed rent, or bought a house when prices were low. But if you need to be in London, say, to earn your £44k and are renting privately/trying to buy/only just bought, then the difference that child benefit makes is very substantial indeed.

Jackstar that sounds like a bit of an admin mare

also aren't they asking people not to claim?

Zeph - I wonder how many of the top 15% are living in the SE? A good number - no doubt. So perhaps we have less 'wealthy' people in this country, than commonly thought.

Cappster - if they want to encourage women to stop claiming they'll need to guarantee NI credits - that's my guess, anyway.

I like the way this method, quite elagantly, removes the need for 'means testing'.

@Jackstarbright... I also think it's surprising how many people on what I'd call 'decent money' (£40-50k) still seem so dependent on extras to get by. I'm sure much of it comes down to house-prices and enormous mortgages. But I also think the huge levels of personal debt have had a lot to do with it as well. And what drove that personal debt, I think, has been this atmosphere that we'd seen 'the end of boom and bust' (who said that?) and that things would only ever get better - not worse.

Being in my forties and having experienced the recessions of the mid eighties and mid nineties at first hand, my fear is that there's always another pinch around the corner. And now there is.

Jack, maybe so. Also the wealth is not quite where we think it is - a lot is in property. House prices have risen so massively far ahead of incomes over the past 15 years or so that if you look solely at incomes (as we tend to do) and not at assets, you get a very distorted picture of what constitutes a wealthy/average household.

It is NOT the removal of cb for higher earners I object to, but the fact that it's based on the tax bracket alone and not the household income.

If as some suggest, cb will become part of a universal benefits system which is based upon the household income, then that is fine by me. However, I don't think it's fair for a household bringing in over 80k to continue to receive it when they are removing it from some households who are just into the 40% tax bracket. THAT is absolute nonsense.

Chil - we are of a similar age! Once you've experienced negative equity and 'lost' £k's in the dotcom crash - you tend to become risk averse.

Zeph - I'm not convinced there is much you can do about taxing wealth in property. As people either have pay 'wealth tax' out of income or are forced to sell up / remortgage. And it would penalise those in the SE.

In a way I sort of agree that it feels like a little bit of an attack on mothers, even though rationally I in principle agree with the decision to give the benefit to those who most need. It is hard to explain, though.

I think it is the fact that 2 people earning just under the threashold end up with vastly higher take home pay plus child benefit (which if you have several children is actually wuite a bit), whereas in our family one earner just over the threashold we will get zero child benefit. I accept that such a family may have high childcare costs. If I work I will be able to earn up to £10k tax free, but if we choose for me to look after our pre-school aged children myself (2 of whom are breastfed and have never had a bottle) then even if dh tries to find more work to make up the shortfall he will pay 40% tax on that. This feels deeply unfair and it feels like the Govt is trying to push us towards one family model where 2 parents must work and children are in childcare. It does not support families to make their own decisions on these matters. I think this devalues the role of parents as primary carers of their own children. I am absolutely not saying all women should stay at home, but I would like to see a society where women in all familes, irrespective of income, have this option as well as the option to work. I have no problem with others choosing to work, nor with child benefit only going to the poorest, but somewhere here it feels like there is a deliberate inequity and we are saying we only value adults in our society if they are in paid employment.

How does this fit with the flaming "Big society" agenda? With one hand the govt is saying it values voluntary work, yet with the other it's implying those who aren't in paid employment don't count. Is it all about economics? What about the values of our socitey? I do hours of voluntary work a week. If I am forced back to work I will be unable to do this (though I suppose I would generate additional work for another individual through needing a paid childcarer, and then both our incomes generate tax etc -economically 'good', but what about the child?).

I was recently helped through a really tough time breastfeeding by volunteers on the national helpline and more volunteer peer supporters locally. Many of the local volunteers are mums with babies and toddlers in tow who aren't working and do this support voluntarily. Force them back to work and those vital support services will disappear too. Nice one Dave and Nick .

think you have just pulled a lot of unrelated stands and tried to pin them all on abolition of cb for higher tax payers

given the depths and severity of the cuts i think the affluent can afford to lose cb if it raises much needed cash

The money perhaps: what about the HRP?

How many years contributions can those under the umbrella of HRP afford to lose?

What would it mean for the likely level of the state pension between women and men? And mightn't the greatest impact be on the poorest, eg widows?

its another ill thought out headline grabbing policy which fails to take into account the wider ramifications - particularly, for example, on working women who pay tax and childcare costs and take home miniscule amounts of pay given the work they do and the talent they bring to workplace.

keeping mothers working where they want to or have to should surely be something we should all support?

When the Family Allowances Bill was introduced in 1945, Eleanor Rathbone was determined that the allowance would be paid to mothers. Today, 65 years later, on average women in the UK still earn less than men and mothers usually earn less than their partners. Statistically women who work part-time earn less ph than their colleagues - male and female - working full time.

Of course CB can be paid to either partner but I don't know any families where the higher earner chooses to have it paid to them.

I think withdrawing Child Benefit is a sign of how little our society values children and families and yes, it will disproportionately effect mothers and children. Not all 40% tax payers share their salary equally or value the contribution of the primary care giver , usually the mother.

"Not all 40% tax payers share their salary equally"

If people are happy to stay in a relationship where their partner is so selfish as to not to use their salary on their own children then why is that something for the state to address?

I agree with the Op.
We all paid thr taxes that pay for this benefit. Not fair that now some won't benefit and others will.

Why are they picking on people with children? Why not tax ALL higher earners a bit more and keep CB?

This is the beginning of the end for CB.

All to save a measly 1bn, a drop in the ocean of public money.

Bellsaringing, this is what I don't understand why are the government targeting working people when over and over again they are telling us that they want to get the unemployed benefit dependent people off of benefits? I know people who work but will not do overtime @ £15.00 an hour because it will affect the extra benefits they receive from the state, crazy.

Correction. The government are targeting relatively wealthy working people.... those with above average household incomes (in the case of CTC thresholds) and those in the 40% tax-band (in the case of CB). If people really are turning down overtime or pay-rises because it affects benefits then that is what the proposed Universal Credit is designed to offset.

The way the welfare state looks and works will be quite different in 10-20 years' time than it is today. We're at the start of a generational wholesale change.

Very gallant of the government - women and children first

i just have to add my opinion here. I was a stay at home mother for a number of years but as my children are at school I now work, although only 3 days. My partners income just tips him into the higher rate bracket and I think we will miss the Child Benefit, although we wont starve as we tend to use my income for food etc.

However, if Child Benefit had been pulled say 6 years ago when I had children under school age and chose to stay at home then we would have struggled.

I think this is another case of the typical Conservative attitude of "slashing and burning" - and going for the weakest members of society - Children - lets not forget this benefit is intended for children. I lived with the Thatcher government and feared that this would happen again. I was moved to anger last night when watching Newsnight and Polly Toynbee mentioned how Child Benefit has and still can be a lifeline in families where one partner, often the man, but not always, may drink, gamble or just be feckless with money - I got her point. The anger I felt was directed at ?Phillip Hammond - Conservative Minister - who actually laughed at this point and said "while earning enough to pay higher rate tax". His inference there was that anybody paying higher rate tax was not going to drink/gamble/demonstrate fecklessness - which for me highlights that the Conservatives haven't changed at all. In their eyes. earn lower salary = drunk, scounger, gambler, loser. Earn higher salary = responsible member of society, hopefully conservative supporter!!. I can feel a letter coming on to David Cameron. I am so, so, irritated. I must really annoyed as I normally only post on Travel threads!! Katie

This seems very unfair on single parents whose salary just takes them into the 40% tax bracket. Perhaps we should campaign that the 40% tax starts at a higher salary level.

To have a couple earning £87k combined and keeping the benefit is ludicrous when a lone person on £45kpa loses it. I do believe benefits need to be fairer. Combining it in with the Child Tax Credit may be a fairer thing to do? And have it on a sliding scale? We do need cuts, but it seems to be families and children who are taking the brunt. Cameron/ Clegg/ Osbourne all went to elitist schools and had privileged upbringings, as yet, they haven't forced any of their own kind to pay more tax. In fact they are happy for party members to be tax dodgers (Lord Ashdown!) I don't believe they know what it's like to live on a middle income. Ok it's not the breadline, but it's not brand new cars and luxury holidays either!

I would quite honestly do naked cartwheels down the street if I had an income that meant I would be affected by this move. I stay at home dh works giving us an income of less far less than 20k a year. We have a mortgage, two cars, my 2 kids eat well are dressed well and we have a weeks holiday in the UK each year. I sometimes think it is important to remember that what we want is not the same as what we need.

It's not an attack on women, why should people receive a benefit they don't need? I'd go further than that, if people want more than two children , they should have not have child benefit at all! People should get off their lazy arses and look after their own children! Suffice to say I'm not a feminist!

This is my only money and I use it for shoes,clothes and birthdays/christmas for the kids. We are already poorer than anyone I know on tax credits and it just gets worse. Not only are we massively penalised in taxes but now my kids will have nothing as my Husband has no spare money after paying bills out of his wage. Even if he did, it is the only independent thing I can do for my kids without feeling like i am asking for money. We have no holidays, don't drink/smoke, go out or buy new clothes. We get no help with anything but do have a large family-this does not however bring us in any discount or allowance. We still support all our children, even the older ones who cant get independent because of high costs or further education. We are penalised for everything. My Husband even has to pay my solicitor for dealing with my ex partners violence. Its all wrong. I would even consider divorce now as I am sick of struggling to make ends meet. My kids have 3rd hand clothes from relatives and i shop on ebay. I dont know what makes the government think we may be well off??

Lovrose. I do sympathise with your plight, but as you say you have a "large family" Why have a large family if you can't support them as you would wish?

@lovrose... by 2013 will all your children be in school? Could you get a job, perhaps?