Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Child Benefit reform "virtually unenforceable"

43 replies

LadyBlaBlah · 29/10/2010 15:39

It is the Daily Mail, but as they are pointing out, it is even more of a shambles than originally thought

I don't know how they are going to get round this one.

here

Interesting questions raised by Alan Johnson and critics:

Would a single mother have to spend a certain number of nights with a new partner before his tax status meant she lost her right to child benefit?

'Would she have to keep a record of the number of nights she stayed with him? Would the answer vary if the nights were spent in her property or his?'< he went on.>

There were many other potential anomalies, he suggested, asking whether the cut would affect:

* A mother of two whose older child becomes a higher-rate taxpayer while living at home;
* A single mother who moves back in with her parents - one of whom earns above the threshold or with a sister whose husband pays higher rate tax;
* A daughter whose higher-rate paying mother moved in with her and her husband.

In the latter case, would the grandmother be fined if the daughter continued to claim?

OP posts:
HeadFairy · 29/10/2010 15:48

I think the whole thing is one big clusterfuck and it'll die a death in a couple of years.

SylviaPankhurst · 29/10/2010 17:58

They have made more announcements today about this though saying they (the government) will not find it hard to push through.

LadyBlaBlah · 29/10/2010 18:41

They might push it through but I think people will be openly laughing at the incompetence

OP posts:
brownhairedgnome · 02/11/2010 22:39

I think we need to make sure that this topic does not leave the headlines or the government will make sure that it gets through despite the ridiculous nature of the proposals.

There are so many things wrong with these cuts - but according to my local conservative MP this Child Benefit proposal is one of the most popular within her party!!! So - are they right, too rich or just totally out of touch with popular feeling and women's (mainly) opinion? What about the loss of home responsibility credits too which are linked to child benefit? Totally wrong to be penalised twice for choosing the worthwhile job of looking after your own children.

It would be great to have a minister in on a live web chat to put our strength of feeling across otherwise they might just think the 'winging mum's brigade' might just disappear and before we know it the wonderful universal Child Benefit is lost forever and we won't be laughing!!!!

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 07:00

I've seen plenty of angry threads on MN asking why wealthy pensioners get Winter Fuel Allowance... and that was even before the CB changes. I've also seen plenty of resentful comment (obviously not MN) from childless people that they feel arm-twisted to pay for people who have opted to have children in terms of tax credits, CB, housing and things like covering for parents in the workplace. The concept of universal benefits enjoyed by relatively high earners as well as low-income families I don't think has been as anything like as popular as some would imagine. If there's an 'out of touch' accusation, I think it sits there to be honest.

Quite a few categories of people receive home responsibility credits already ... no reason why that can't be extended to SAHPs in wealthier families.

ISNT · 03/11/2010 08:39

Child benefit, like the NHS, has been a hugely popular universal benefit. People saw it as a sign that we lived in a nation that cared about its population/children.

The proposed changes are ludicrous. Anyone can see that.

jesole · 03/11/2010 08:59

Is it popular though, I think more people support its withdrawal from HRT than oppose it.

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 09:45

The Moral Maze radio prog asked an interesting question when they covered the morality of the universal benefit concept. Paraphrased... 'if you were in a third world country with an amount of money to give away and could either give every child, rich or poor, £100 each or £200 to the poorest children what would be the morally right thing to do?'

The details of how we change the system need work but I think plenty of people don't find the principle 'ludicrous'.

jackstarbright · 03/11/2010 11:34

Having read through most of the threads on this, the reasons that child benefit is needed for a HRT payer household appear to be:

It allows one (middle-class) parent to remain at home with dc's.

Gives women financial independence from their (high tax rate) partners.

Enables women to work.

Is needed to compensate parents (no matter how wealthy) for the cost of having children.

It's removal is unfair on one worker households (especially single parents) when compared to two working parents just below the HTR threshold.

  • I'm not sure how widely these concerns spread
beyond the world of Mumsnet and those who are ideologically wedded to the concept of universal benefits.

Certainly many people will be surprised that some of our 'wealthier' families appear so reliant on a state benefit.

ISNT · 03/11/2010 12:00

jesole I have not seen many people on here who agree that it is fair to have a family who are on £80,000 eligible for child ben, while a family with a family income of £45K will lose it.

That is palpably unfair, it is ludicrous.

Why did they not just do it on family income? At least there is a mechanism in place for that to be worked out.

ISNT · 03/11/2010 12:02

chil1234 are you against all universal benefits on principle? Your argument would be an argument against access to most public services for people with a certain amount of wealth. Not all benefits are received as cash.

byrel · 03/11/2010 12:04

Poll on support for child benefit cut
news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/YouGov-Poll-Suggest-Public-Backs-Child-Benefit-Reforms-Figures-Are-Boost-For-Conservatives/Article/201010115752925

Seems there is a lot of support for the cuts to CB.

nellieisstilltired · 03/11/2010 12:21

well actually (for once) I agree with chilli on this.

If my dh were earning enough to be a hrt then we would have enough for me to be a sahm without cb. Before I get pounced on - it is a realistic possibility in the future.
We have an average mortgage and living expenses.

If we really are all in this togetherHmm then the middle classes should take some of the hit too. I would rather this be cut than cuts to other services which we dont get as cash as I think that would be far more harmful to all of us.

I also suspect from what they have said that there will be compensation. I haven't seen many threads complaining about the proposed transfer of tax allowances between couples. This will hardly benefit those under the hrt threshold.

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 12:24

I think it's increasingly tough to justify universal cash benefits as a concept, yes. The Old Age Pension is an exceptional example because it's taxable and based on the recipient having made certain contributions. But, broadly speaking, cash handouts should not go to the rich...

Public services, as we're constantly being told, are disproportionately used by people at the lower end of the income scale. So if that means the wealthy are paying in most for the benefit of those who couldn't afford those services otherwise then that's consistent and it's also fair. Education to age 18 is probably the most 'universal' non-cash benefit there is.

bullethead · 03/11/2010 12:47

If we are all in this together then why aren't those with an incomes worth twice ours having their child benefit cut as well?
It is a blatant example of a) the Coalition showing its true colours in favour of those who are much better off and b) the marginalisation of stay-at-home parents.

ISNT · 03/11/2010 12:48

I disagree with the married couples allowance FWIW.

I also see a lot of people disagreeing with this cut because it is palpably unfair. The fact that richer families will receive it while poorer families will not - I don';t understand why people are defending that?

Personally I support universal benefits like the NHS, schools and libraries. The argument that if you have some money you should pay is not the direction that I would like this society to go. I suppose that is the basic difference between socialist principles and conservative principles though, and as such agreement is never going to be likely.

byrel · 03/11/2010 12:56

ISNT the argument that if you have money you should pay is the way the country is run. The more money you have then the more tax you pay and this is paramount to socialism.

brownhairedgnome · 03/11/2010 12:56

nellie - I haven't read anything about the proposed transfer of tax allowances between couples - other than - it is proposed to give those in the lower tax bracket a marriage tax allowance, capped at £150 per year. This is not a benefit for children but for marriage, is incomparable to CB and is therefore no 'compensation'.

Chil - I listened to the moral maze argument on radio 4 and as the witness said our situation is not comparable with a third world country. If a developed country like ours is not valuing all its children and families in a fair way
then its a step in the wrong direction deficit or no deficit.

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 12:58

"The fact that richer families will receive it while poorer families will not - I don';t understand why people are defending that?"

Few - myself included - are defending that particular anomaly. Many are defending the principle that it should not be given to the relatively wealthy.

@bullethead... Stay at home parents make that choice largely because they can afford to do so. It's a luxury many never have the option to take up. If any change to their finances means they can't afford to run their family on one income then they have to think about making different choices. That is not marginalisation or victimisation.

Chil1234 · 03/11/2010 13:07

@brownhairedgnome... the witness eventually did answer the question when pressed and went with the second option.. give the available money to those that needed it most. We are not a third world country but the principle is the same. To take another extreme example, would we say that depriving Colleen Rooney of an extra £20/week is not valuing children and families in a fair way? The cut-off point and method of calculation is all we're arguing about, not universal benefit per se

brownhairedgnome · 03/11/2010 13:18

If not universality - how is the cut off point to be decided? It is balatantly unfair that 2 working parent family on £80k will get benefit and single income on £44k will not. With no means testing as the conservative government are adament they will not do - the only other option is univerality - or raising the cut off point higher. There is certainly a big difference in level of income between Coleen Rooneys millions and £44k for a family.

bullethead · 03/11/2010 13:20

chil 1234
'this is not marginalisation or victimisation'
then please do tell, why are families with two incomes- worth twice mine- retaining their benefit? If you can't see any penalisation of stay at home parents (who also work extremely hard) in that, you must be very feeble minded.

It is not a luxury, it is a much-maligned choice which parents should not be made to feel ashamed of - ie taking responsibility for looking after their own children.

It is not a luxury to effectively halve your income when you make this decision. This IS an attack on a parent's right to look after their children because 'making different choices' means using a childminder or nursery.

byrel · 03/11/2010 13:26

I think being a SAHP and not doing any work at all is a luxury particulary once the children reach school age. The Government cannot afford to just give people benefits that allow them to stay at home and do no form of work if they are capable of work.

leandro · 03/11/2010 13:35

I don't see what is wrong with stopping benefits to some of the more wealthy people in the country. If that means that you can no longer be a SAHP and you have to do a little bit of work to make up the shortfall then so be it. Given the fiscal position of the country we can ill-afford to dish out benefits here there and everywhere.

brownhairedgnome · 03/11/2010 13:36

byrel- I think it is wrong if women cannot give credit to other women who make the decision to stay at home and do THE most important job of raising a family. Please do not take this job for granted by saying that women stay at home not doing any work.

I went back to paid work part time after my first child and it was perfectly feesable financially. After my second I worked out I would be taking home just £20 per day after paying for child care - I liked my job but not that much!!

David C - talks about the Big Society - in my village it is the parents at home who are most active in all the 'society' events - constantly fundraising for playgroup, school, building a new playground, running youth groups etc. It might not be paid but our society would be a hell of a lot 'poorer' without this.

Stopping paid work is a big decision for women and sacrifice for many.