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.

social policy marginalising women

HerB - Actually I'm not convinced that 'bribing' people to stay in failing relationships, with benefits or tax breaks works.

I'm just pointing out that the Tory party appear to believe it.

In response to the unpleasant comments regarding the lady in her second marriage with a large blended family that has the husband working and who is now tipped over the 44k... I find it tragic that she has been condemmed for having to have had to go to court re her abusive ex husband, i know only too well how much it costs to go through family courts, so understand the long term drain on your families finances through that. I can also understand why you do not want to work due to the difficulties your older children have no doubt as hangovers from family court and abuse etc. It makes me wonder if you were out at work and your children who have been hurt decided to go around acting antisocially, or got pregnant as a teen, or were steeling, vandalising etc, and costing the community and government far more than a bit of child benefit how they would feel then about you gonig to work. I don't buy this rubbish that they have to go to work, they go to work as they want to keep up with the jones often, not always and attack stay at home mum's like yourself for doing what you know is best for your children to feel secure after trauma in their lives and to keep them on the straight and narrrow and not want them to be a statistic, I applaud you, and would not begrudge someone who's family had been through trauma less than a hundred pounds a week if it meant that the health service, social benefits, police etc were kept less busy and you had happy healthy children!

mummiehunnie-thanks very much for that comment and you are of exactly the same mindset as I am and seem to know exactly where I am coming from. I have got a lovely grounded and hard working family who would rather die than ask for benefits and we have been through a real lot of trauma and come out the other side-still struggling financially but I held the family together through it all. We are still picking up the pieces and will be for years to come. We also live in fear of it happening again and costing even more. The man in question is ex police and private investigator, tracks us down no matter where and hides his own identity because he has learnt how with the jobs he had. He gives men and police a bad name but it still leaves us financially unstable. My family had to hide behind furniture every time they heard noise outside in case the windows went through on them. To actually want to keep child benefit, which was not meant to be a benefit for the badly off people but for helping families is not wrong of me. I have worked hard all my life and paid taxes for poorer people and I resent the fact that no one helps us at all despite hitting hard times ourselves and through no fault of our own but because of the way taxes and benefits work. Just because I don't work now, is not due to laziness but circumstances hmm

jackstarbright I took your comment to mean that the tories think the only way men can be expected to financially support their own children, is to force them to live in the same house as them.

Which is of course, possible. I don't think that comes from their low opinion of men, I think it comes from a sense that men are entitled not to support their kids if they don't live with them.

I think you may be right about them having such a low opinion of people in general, that they believe they would stay in unhappy relationships for the sake of a few extra quid. If they re-introduce recognition of marriage in the tax system, I guess we'll find out if they're right...

I am in the same position as BellsaRinging.

I am a working lone parent and earn just over the higher rate tax threshold. I will therefore lose my child benefit.

This policy is discriminatory against lone parents. It should be based on family income in the same way as tax credits.

The latest proposal to ensure stay at home mums don't lose out by giving a tax break though the reintroduction of married couples allowance makes is deeply flawed and again disadvantages lone parents.

i TOTALLY agree with you OP.

I have been in the situation where I had to rely on that tiny bit of children's allowance even though my 'partner' arsehole was earning 90k.

The idea that if I was still with him (with the children) he'd be getting a tax break too, arghgh. I home that Womens Aid and womens' rights organisations are up in arms about this because women and children will suffer.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a peak in the divorce rate in about 6 months. Mothers will smell the coffee, the coffee that they were in denial about when they had a tiny bit of CA to rely on... that their partners are mean with money.

Having thought about who will be affected by this for several days now, I think the torys have been exceedingly cunning.

A band of families with incomes over £50,000 but potentially below £88,000 will not be affected by any cuts (potentially) provided they are dual income families, under the top tax bracket - which IME many dual households are.

They are not ( I believe ) entitled to any of the WFTC or CTC and also will not lose their child benefit - it's ingenius in it's simplicity. A BIG swathe of middle England protected, potentially, from suffering any of the cuts.

It would be interesting to find out how namy families are out there like that - they could calculate the 1.5 million pissed of CB losing families, so they must be able to calculate this.

Families who will suffer the most from the CB cut are the LP HRT payers, and they won't have the choice for the child caring partner to return to work.

SAHPs may suffer more in the long run because of the potential loss of their pension credits...

Oops - I meant 'how MANY families,' not 'namy'

Actually VS that's a very good point.

I wondeer... I guess it depends on how many of the £44K+ families with 1 SAHP have joint bank accounts.

HB, this is what makes me think that the camerons just haven't got a CLUE. They obviously have nOBODY in their circle of friends who has ever gone through anything like this (a seperation, or seperation from a financially abusive man).

I existed for a while on that tiny bit of CA, I stretched it so far. I think if it had ended up in my x's pocket, I would have just cried, lost the will to live, and left him sooner than I did! NO BAD thing THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

agree VS - I am sorry but the whole Eton thing starts to come into play here

How can someone POSSIBLY empathise with the masses when you come from that DEGREE of privilege???

He is clearly not superman...

VS infact if what you say IS true then Cameron will be a catalyst for family break up - exactly the opposite to his desired 'Married with 2.4'

GRRRRRRRR

VS

I agree with you.

My DH is very (now) generous with his salary, but I know not all partners are as helpful and we still have the 'MY money' comments and 'you're doing nothing' comments during rows as I'm a v. lucky SAHM (designated loser in the CB stakes)

I know some friends who have relied on CB during mat leave to get them thru as their OHs aren't as generous.

Divorce rate could also peak depending on circumstances - we'll have to shave our budget again (like the rest of the country - I know) when this comes in and I'll look for evening work when it comes in.

BUT if DH has a pay cut then we could lose the house, so would be better off (potentially) signing the house to him, getting a divorce and then me keeping the house on and renting it from him, plus I'd then get the CB back. So divorce rate could be affected by these cuts in a number of ways.

Joint bank accounts only work if their SALARY gets paid into it.

DH keeps his salary in his bank account and puts the house keeping in the joint account

It is absolutely shocking how many men with SAHMs see the money they earn as "their" money.

They really have no idea of how much it would cost them to get the cleaning, laundering and childminding services of a SAHM, plus the freedom of not having the mental work of organising their household and their children for themselves do they?

And this cut in child benefit re-iterates the idea that child rearing is worthless to society. It will only re-inforce the sense of entitlement of these awful men.

If I were still with my X, this would be the straw that broke the camel's back. I couldn't go on, I couldn't fool myself any longer.

As bb99 says, there are a shocking amount of men out there who don't have joint bank accounts.

Oops sorry, don't mean to imply that anyone's DH is awful.

But how horrible to think of your DH as generous. That sounds as if he's being charitable. It's your right to have money, you are enabling him to work.

Sorry to do this, I know it's bad online etiquette, but look at this which I took from another forum.... a hardworking taxpaying woman who would end up SCREWED

" didnt think been married would be so stressful. All we seem to discuss is money. I get paid and I transfer all my wages over to him (which is for our savings)and then I get an allowance. All our wedding money is in his account. If I try to discuss this so I can keep my independence, there is yet another fight. I pay half the mortgage (even though he will not put my name of the mortgage) correct me if i am wrong but this is not the way it should be. I feel like i am better off to shut up and say nothing and go along with it. I want this to change and fast. I refuse to spend the rest of my married life feeling smoothered. I need advice on how to approach this."

David Cameron has never met men like this lady's husband but they are out there and they will go MAD without their tiny bit of CA

"But how horrible to think of your DH as generous. That sounds as if he's being charitable. It's your right to have money, you are enabling him to work"

I agree HerB

As a state educated, 40 something - I didn't realise this attitude is still so widespread in 2010 Britain. I'm not surprised that Cameron didn't know - it's well hidden.

However (in contradiction of my earlier post) if CB is all that's holding these relationships together - maybe a a few extra divorces, in two years, will be a good thing?

ValiumSingleton - there are some dreadful men and women out there. I don't believe that they are the majority though, and the government can't make decisions for the entire country based on a few people who are with mad, controlling twats. Bet she transfers the CB across to him as well anyway.

She should be offered help to leave, not money to preserve her dreadful status quo.

the government can't make decisions for the entire country based on a few people who are with mad, controlling twats.

Sorry but that is exactly what they did when CB was introduced in the first place to give the woman some money that her hubby couldn't blow in the pub on a Friday night leaving her with nothing to feed the kids with.
Are you seriously telling me that over the past 60 years all those men have vanished ? I know at least one intelligent woman who had a child with a man like that.

"Are you seriously telling me that over the past 60 years all those men have vanished ?"

Of course not. But divorce is now a lot easier than it was in the 1950's, there is no social stigma to being unmarried and woman are no longer left destitute if they choose to live independently. Someone earlier predicted 'a peak in the divorce rates'....well maybe if people are only staying with a financially controlling spouse because they have CB to fall back on, CB was actually contributing to an abusive situation, not alleviating it?

But isn't there a bit of class hypocrisy here?

As a society we vilify working class dads who just expect the state to be financially responsible for their children.

So why should we be allowing affluent middleclass dads to get away with it?

So why should we be allowing affluent middleclass dads to get away with it?

My ex earns £200k a year and is getting away with it, but then he has no class.
It seems to me that whilst divorce might be easier, assuming you ever married in the first place and have the education to realise how the British courts work with regards to child support, actually getting it out of the absent parent is harder than ever.
My advice to my daughters is no baby without a wedding ring and think twice about any man who is self employed since they seem to be the hardest to pin down.