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.

It will be quite funny if the net result of this is more divorces, won't it? The blue rinses will be gibbering with rage.

Whereas I think it's a bloody good thing when women wake up and realise how badly they are treated and decide they deserve more respect than some of them get from their husbands. How awful to feel as though the work you are doing at home, raising children, enabling the family to function, is worth nothing. How awful. It is astonishing that these attitudes are still so prevalent in 2010, astonishing and depressing.

Actually I think that, in one fell swoop, DC has alienated a vast swathe of the population:

The people who think that CB should be paid on principle, as a universal benefit, nothing to do with income.

But also the Daily Mail readers people who rant against benefit scroungers who now find themselves in the position of losing a benefit.

Job well done really. As someone old enough to remember the Tories last time round, I am not in the faintest bit surprised. Hopefully it will ensure a much larger loss for them at the next general election.

(However, the 'sharp elbowed middle classes' will find a way round it, with 'creative' accounting no doubt, DC shouldn't underestimate them.....).

Don't be so sure. The people who thought that CB should be paid to everyone, rich or poor, as a principle would not have been natural Tory voters in the first place. Well-off Tory voters who are losing CB won't like it to start with but will struggle to argue against the principle of the better-off paying for themselves - because that's a fairly standard conservative position.

And for that swathe of the population on moderate to low earnings, paying basic rate tax, they are unaffected by the CB change and may also find the idea of the cap on benefits quite appealing into the bargain. I think if anyone was alienated by the last Government, it was that group

Well-off Tory voters in the DC/GO bracket probably have simply no idea about CB, hardly even realise it exists.

I am talking about the Tory voters at the bottom of the higher rate tax, ie those on £45,0000 odd a year. They could well be the 'new' Tory voters and they will Not Be Happy, as they certainly do not class themselves as well off.

Obviously the lower rate tax payers (traditionally non Tory voters) are not affected anyway.

I would be one of those Tory voters that earns enough to pay 40% tax and whilst as a single parent I'm not exactly dancing a jig at having both CTC and CB withdrawn in fairly quick succession, I never thought it was particularly fair that I got benefits in the first place. It's not the prevailing view on Mumsnet at the moment but many others - not just the silver-spoon brigade - feel the same way.

I've overheard at least one conversation where a very well off woman who still owns property in London intends to list that as her address and the father of her children will list the family home, they aren't married so what will they do about that I wonder ? She's not filling out a benefit form that asks about her marital status or living arrangements after all.

It's the inevitable downside of removing a Universal Benefit, isn't it? Once there's a definition for qualification, people will go to great lengths to meet the definition. Loopholes will be found and will have to be closed off. If she needs £20/week that badly maybe she's worse off than she looks :)

She didn't look like she needed it but I suppose you never can tell

"I am talking about the Tory voters at the bottom of the higher rate tax, ie those on £45,0000 odd a year. They could well be the 'new' Tory voters and they will Not Be Happy, as they certainly do not class themselves as well off."

They are a really small proportion of the population though. You're not going to win an election with just them. You need to speak to the people on the average wage as, well, there are 85% of people who are not HRT who I don't notice getting that upset about the whole thing.

The 45K - 50K earners (who seem to be the ones upset on here) are even a small proportion of the 15% will need to have a think about the newly left-leaning Labour and really work out if they would be better off, because I bet Labour wouldn't be giving CB back to them. I notice Ed Miliband has been very quiet about the whole affair, don't think he's that bothered really. You might well end up with not getting your CB back plus a heft in income tax as well.

Sorry to contradict you slightly Lucky1979 but I'd say Ed M is paying close attention to the reaction from the £45k-£55k earners.

This group represent the 'bulk' of the £45k -£100k earners (though still only approx 2 million tax payers). If they are sensitive to tax rises - then it's going to be difficult for Labour to raise the tax it'll need to build public services back.

The ability to afford a tax rise will vary - but if parents with dependant dcs would struggle - what about parents with kids at uni or 30 somethings manically saving to buy their first home?

If MN is anything to judge by, actually a lot of those in that bracket would be quite happy to see an increase in the 40% rate. But the abolition of CB for this group represents the equivalent of a truly enormous tax rise if you're on £44k or so and has of course been implemented in a hugely unfair way with the dual income household "anomaly".

Zeph -

" a lot of those in that bracket would be quite happy to see an increase in the 40% rate"

You might be right (who knows?) But the approx £1.5bn that will raise won't go far. An incoming Labour government would need to find a lot more.

Maybe, but that's a separate point isn't it?

Zeph - I thought you were responding to my post (replying to Lucky). Sorry.

(btw - I used an increase of 5% in my rough calculation).