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.

This is a fair comment I feel about the Government trying to force us all to work and pay child minders. I have no objection to people doing that if they want but I want to bring my own kids up, thats why I had them. I do not appreciate being forced into taking a job to make ends meet instead of looking after my kids and then, when I come home, I also have no energy left to give them any time. I would rather be poor. I am already exhausted looking after my family. There has got to be reason somewhere though, I don't actually earn a wage and do everything for free so cost no one in the government anything,my Husband got a good job to pay for us all but he gives half in tax almost and the rest on bills and mortgage. We ask for nothing and wish we could have more of his wage to support our family but instead we pay for the supposed poorer people who are better off than me, every where I go. I try not to get bitter but it is getting difficult

chil 1234, no my children will not be in school in 2013 and even if they were, to be honest, i have been down this road with my older children. No job allows for all the different school holidays, illness and occassional days and some people have family/friend back up but i do not. My children are wide age ranging and the older ones can sometimes be more problematic than the young. I do not agree with latch key kids, its just not an option for me but I really wish this system was more fair, where if you earn a decent wage you are penalised so much that eventually all your resources are used up and you end up like us wondering why we ever bothered to get married

"I do not appreciate being forced into taking a job to make ends meet instead of looking after my kids and then, when I come home, I also have no energy left to give them any time"

But that's what many people have to do to maintain a standard of living. If you can't make ends meet on one salary, then either your household income has to increase or your costs have to come down. You've opted to have a large family & stay at home to look after them and, whilst laudable, both are an expensive luxury these days.

In an ideal world that may be a fair comment but my family came together with my Husbands family when we got married. To be honest it was probably the worst thing financially we ever did but the point is it shouldn't be. We can just about get by at the moment, we lead a very poor life but don't usually moan about it. We get no help and are quite happy to support our large family, the problems start however when too many issues that i can't go into on here come into effect. Like for instance my Husband having to pay a solicitor for the next 7 years for defending my case in court against my violent ex partner. Too many other things come into play. We should not be told anyway how many kids we can have. I am not one of these people everyone likes to go on about that has kids to get benefits etc and could support them. We sail close to the wind though and cuts mean its impossible. Not everyone is the same and we do not ask for anything but if we didn't house my family and they had to go elsewhere it would cost the state a lot of money. We foot the bill instead and it comes at a cost. You can't just disown your kids because they reach 18 in my opinion and try to support what you can with them so they don't ask for benefits and then it comes at a cost to us.

"But that's what many people have to do.."

Chil - good point. Can't believe the 'lefties' are letting the mc SAHM's get away with this.

Also - I'm wondering what Labour really make of this 'outcry' against what is, an average £200 a month reduction in income from supposedly affluent families. The top 15% are not turning out to be a soft target. Does this knock a future higher rate tax increase off the table for Labour?

"I have no objection to people doing that if they want but I want to bring my own kids up, thats why I had them. I do not appreciate being forced into taking a job to make ends meet instead of looking after my kids and then, when I come home, I also have no energy left to give them any time"

Cry me a river. Thousands and thousands of working women feel the same but they have NO CHOICE as their partner doesn't earn 45K+ so they have to go to work. Why are your kids more important than theirs?

It is a luxury these days, you are right there but unfortunately I can't send them back now that times have changed and mortgages have doubled. Its nothing to do with being laudible it is actually real life that is already here and trying to cope with changing society brought on by people that have no intention of getting off their backsides in the first place. I have worked all my life until recently from 13 years old-no one can accuse me of ever slacking and I have also struggled on my own through childcare issues etc. It would probably help if i could get my violent ex partner to contribute to his children instead of the burden being put on my Husband but then that will open up a whole can of worms that need to be left where they are. Maybe this sort of thing is what people who have never suffered any domestic abuse would prefer though. What I have put is only the tip of the iceberg i'm afraid for a lot of women not just me, who have suffered previous abusive relationships.

I think this is a proper poke in the eye for single working parents but also yet another chip away at our and future generations. Please note that so far the baby boomers are still sitting pretty with their non means tested winter fuel allowances and free tv licences, many in fuck off houses that they made vast profits on.

It seems like anyone under the age of about 50 is destined to be financially shafted forever more.

this just sounds like a ridiculous bitter comment from someone who has had no hardship in their life. I have already been where you described with jobs and children so I don't understand the cry me a river comment. Just nasty and very misinformed. You also obviously have not read the comments properly that were being responded to in the first place. You are actually trying to make me into some scrounging beggar who sits watching daytime tv with no intention of working. You are so far removed from the truth.

The Opposition are being fairly quiet at the moment. Principally because I don't think they can oppose this change without being seen to support the wealthy over the poor. Polly Toynbee is doing her best from the Guardian trenches but her assertion that the UK is full of martinet husbands, spending their wage packet down the pub or at the bookies whilst the children go hungry has a slightly last-century quality to it.

"baby boomers are still sitting pretty"

Sour grapes is an unworthy reaction. If someone has parents or in-laws in that 'wealthy baby boomer' category then I think a mature response would be to get the family round the table and discuss how they could best help each other. Mumsnet parents wouldn't let their chldren go hungry or sit in the cold. The older generation wouldn't either.

jackstarbright, personally I would be quite happy with a higher rate tax rise. Just not one of 5% which is only payable by those with children.

In answer to "complimentary" this is what I am trying to get across, we have always supported our children, worked hard and not claimed, we pay higher taxes to pay for the people who don't but this benefit is for the kids and in already struggling households, should not be squeezed

Yes - I guess the 'women's issue' angle is their only option.

Although Yvette Cooper was still in the 'all cuts are unnecessary and dangerous - coz economic growth will save us' zone yesterday.

Chil that's an exceedingly mature response to my sour grapes post. Fwiw I'm not talking about individual cases although I'm sure many wealthy baby boomers are indeed helping out their children and grandchildren.

The point I wanted to make was that if we are a in together as Mr. Osbourne has stated then perhaps the oldies could make a contribution as well as working parents?

Just a thought.

Zeph - so you think a 5% increase payable by all those earning £44k plus would work?

Would work in what sense? Presumably it would raise rather more than £1 billion.

Zeph - I mean the tax payers would except it, agree it was fair and pay it.

Well it wouldn't need to be 5%. Would they accept it? I should think that those who currently pay 40% would. No doubt the really high earners who arrange their affairs so as to avoid paying income tax altogether will continue to do so. I don't suppose a couple of % will make much difference to that situation. But it would be a damn sight fairer than targetting it at those with young children who can therefore least afford it.

(Obviously the people who wouldn't accept it are the Tories themselves as supposedly they do not believe in tax rises.)

From the comments on here - some 'higher rate' tax payers are relying on their child benefit to 'make ends meet'. I'm not sure if even a 2% rise would go down well.

I'm assuming a future Labour government would need to ask for a lot more - if they are to grow the public sector again and reduce the deficit.

My lack of sympathy is in regards to this:

"I do not appreciate being forced into taking a job to make ends meet"

You seem to think that you should be funded to stay at home with your kids, while I'm telling you that thousands and thousands of women would love to have the luxury that you have had of a decent income of over 45K, but couldn't stay at home even with child benefit because their take home is worse than your family's is to start with. Actually it's not just women, millions of people in the UK are forced to find a job to make ends meet, it's the way of the economy. The only reason you give is that you want to stay at home to raise your children, but you don't get that that is a luxury that shouldnt be state funded when there are thousands of women who are worse of that you to start with being denied that choice.

I'd love the government to pay me some extra cash at the moment to stay at home with my DD, but I don't think it's my right to stay at home with her.

Please don't assume that because people don't agree with you they have charmed lives either and couldn't possibly understand. It's patronising and inaccurate.

Lovrose. Looking through your comments, I do think you have a point I don't think 44k a year is relatively wealthy. It would depend on your circumstances. It would certainly not be a lot for a family to live on in central London. I think the problem here lies with families relying on a benefit that can be taken away. If Gordon Brown had kept his house in order, we would not be in this situation in the first place, (The Labour party and the Bankers together). The present governemnt has to make savings, and it sems everyone will be hurt in some way or another. I just hope the government does not touch help or respite for disabled children, as I have worked in this area and know it is much needed for these families. I really think the government should have looked more closely at those who have been on state benefits for years, and try any means to find them paid employment.
Cutting benefit is complex, just hope that Cameron has done his homework.

lucky1979 - i do work and still don't think 45K is very much

Cameron doing his homework? I doubt that very much

This is not about wealth as such. It is about fairness and is certainly about attacks on women, especially lone parents who tend to be mothers

What messages have been sent out in the last few days?

1. If you are on your own and earn £44k you can't have CB, but if you are with someone else and between you, you earn £ 80k, then you can have it.

1. If you are married with children you can have some tax relief.

These are ideological positions and nothing to do with the public finances.

What are the messages to the fathers who contribute F All to lone mothers? NOTHING

Not a sausage

To be clear, I am not a lone parent, however I know people who are. And most of them struggle to get by simply because their ex's refuse to pay enough/anything, and their work options become limited when you have sole responsibility for all childcare - money, logistics, times.

We need more women in parliament. Theresa May hasn't a clue and is simply a token female which never works (tokenism has a number - less than 15% of the group)