child benefit cut

[dipity]

Just wondering if there is an e-petition that has mumsnet backing to ask the government to reverse the cut to child benefit for higher tax earners?

And no we're not on stacks of money! Missing out as dh just in the bracket. I work part-time to work around childcare so the changes will hit us really hard.

sorry if this should be on a different thread/chat....

CB is slightly more than a hand-out and was brought in in 1945 to encourage all of us brood-mares to pop out more children as part of the rebuilding Britain after the war effort. 'Family Allowance' didn't originally apply to the first child... but you got 5s each for #2, #3, #4 etc. If you wanted to be really eugenically cynical, you could observe that by taking CB away from the wealthy we're now actively trying to bump up stockpiles of lower-income kids.

As CB is the only thing I get from the Govt, I shall be sad to lose it. Covers footwear costs for the huge size 11 feet ds has suddenly sprouted.

Cogito -your historical overview might show that it has always been paid to the mother, thus it is redistribution from men to women. LFN will no doubt point out, it's social engineering, unlike the current economic/social system which is entirely natural and inevitable.

I'm very miffed about poor students losing their EMA, but only comments seem to be of the I'm alright Jack mentality and being paid to stay on at school.

As with the child benefit anomaly of the two wages - how is it right that students with no parent in work but up to £16K income can qualify for a college bursary but those with two parents in part time work equalling less than that qualify for nothing???

Makes you wonder how and why these things are devised? All cost a lot to administer. I've had a pay cut per hour, a cut back in hours and together with this loss of EMA I dare not think how we're going to manage. Thanks a lot Cameron - hope you're taking the same level of cutbacks to your family

I find this issue a bit of a head scratcher.
As far as I can see the govenment hasn't set it up in a way that will work fairly across the board, which clearly is going to cause upset. I can see how families that will be affected by losing their CB would be upset by the unfainess of it.
That said, coming from a household that gets by on £17000 a year, only recieving CB and TC, I tend to wonder what the fuss is about. (I realise that sounds awful, and apolagise to anyone who will be affected by the cuts)
I always work on the principal of living within your means and adjusting your lifestyle if your finances call for it.

It's the logistics that don't make sense rather than the philosophical argument behind it. yes, child benefit has traditionally been universal benefit paid to the mother. But tax credits are being paid according to individual income which is why a dual income family can claim if both are under the threshold of £44,00 but not if one is working outside the home and another is over the threshold.

Can't see how CB could be any different when it's implemented....

CB has an advantage that was hidden. Women like my DM and my DMIL both received pensions - as the receipt of CB also acted like their NI stamp. So if you are a SAHM or SAHD whos partner earn over the HTR threshold you should still claim it, partner just has to pay it back via tax! But my Mum had no clue and when my DF claimed his pension they found out Mum got her own and was owed thousands..... We took out CB just for this reason in my DH's name as he is more likely to finish work (quite big salary difference between us).

I can honestly say we don't need it on our joint income so it goes straight into a saving acct.

For us I am not sad it is going as a universal benefit but I do think paying it to families with 2 earners combined income of more than 44K means it is stupid way to change the manner in which it is granted. Either 44K household income is the limit or it's not. Benefits should be paid based on household income.

If DH ever packs in work he will claim it for pension reasons and I will pay it back in tax.

Yep, its not the principal I object to despite being one of the people it will affect. It's the sheer unfairness of it coupled with the gaping holes in logic.

How can you argue it will cost too much to implement means testing when Tax Credits and a whole host of other benefits already do it. Just merge CB into one of those benefits!

How can you claim a cut is fair when a household earning double another is entitled whilst another is not?

I am dreading losing the cb in 2013. It is the only income I have. Dh earns just over the threshhold but we are definately not in any way rich! or even comfortable. I fear that he may have to ask his employers to effectively lie about what he earns or else I just keep quiet and dont declare that I get it. I simply cannot afford to lose that money.

Niceguy2 - indeed. There seems to be no firm evidence provided about the supposed 'costliness' of adding all CB claimants to the CTC system and the furthre costs that wold arise out of questioning and checking that there is a HRT payer in the household of a CB claimant.

CB will have to be claimed by those who wish to be assured to their NI credits for the purposes of pensions. And then it is clawed back the following year........

It seems to create a hybrid concept - not household means testing, nor individuals taxed separately but individuals taxed as per the actions of another in the household.

Not sure how it will be administered? Does it rely on the honesty of parents - is it possible to link the tax affairs of one parent with the children?
I think it would have been better to tax the benefit at the rate of the highest tas payer in thee household. Nil if on benefit or very low income, most @ 20 % and rest @ 40 or 50 %.
My DH is self employed and we will not know exactly how much he has earned til end of tax year so I guess you make sure you don't go over the threshold?

'How can you argue it will cost too much to implement means testing when Tax Credits and a whole host of other benefits already do it. Just merge CB into one of those benefits!' Easy - not everyone who gets CB gets Tax credits. SAHMs get CB but may not get tax credits, and if it counts as the income of the SAHM, how can it be taxed at the rate of the Higher Rate partner? We have independent and individual taxation; the household isn't taxed, the individual is, and usually by different tax offices.

Those who are saying claim CB because of the HRP element should be aware that this has been withdrawn one the youngest child reaches 12; unless you are accompanying a Crown Servant on an overseas posting in which case the Govt will pay the Class 1 NICs for you.

What Scary said and a little bit of what LFN said.

I don;t like how it is to be applied, that seems wrong. I don;t have an issue with it being adjusted- my carer's allowance is taxed (so taken into account for tax credits etc), why not CB?- but whilst I will sign a petition we're enough work on keeping above water with the cuts to disability provision that actually getting involved in a campaign would be impossible and would cause me to lose focus on the people I protect first and foremost (aka the boys).

They've truly messed this up though.

Has nobody else noticed that 'meanstesting', 'targetting', 'protect the most vulnerable' etc are phrases only ever used to justify cuts? The Welfare State, of which the NHS is part, only succeeds because it is universal and not tainted by the stigma of 'provision of last resort'. The principle of less eligibility was thought to be discredited by the Victorians.

Of vcourse thats true Alice. Indeed it's my experience (a carer, studying PT and trying to set up a small business around that, with 2 disabled and one being assessed but obviously autistic children (and one other son, a DH amde redundant and now self employed and studying FT) that the cuts don't protect disabled people at all. They just only get noticed if there is a mass effect. Nobody much caught on to the £200pcm cut to TCs for people with a child getting MR DLA but it's dismissed as a 'niche cause'. Means testing is shown to cost £££££££££ in admin anyway, unless there is an existing set up such as the tax credit system. But there's so much misinformation about concerning welfare anyway that people are misled. Hb being for the unemployed for example (20% of people claiming are unemployed: the rest are low icnome, pensioners, carers, disabled). Or on BBC today DLA claimants not being tax payers when that's clearly rot: many disabled people work, and many of us carers for disabled people work- somehow I suspect HMRC want tehir tax demand paid whatever the boy's SN status! Sometimes it seems (understaement) that there is a deliberate muddying of the waters between DLA- paid to cover the costs of disability and very carefullya ssesed- and IB which used to be for unemploywed people who were sick or disbaled and whcih was possibly a little easier to claim. IB vanished years back and is ESA now and hard to claim what with ATOS but seeminly if you dare question ATOS they ahve a taste (was it carer Watch? something like that) for threatening leagl action. Nice one.

DS1 will work, probably self employed. DS3 will be very unlikely to but the DLA means his independence will probably be ahead of where it would otehrwise be becuase of all the stuff we can teach him, take him to, etc. Don;t know about ds4 but assuming as per ds1 ATM and we have not and no plans to claim DLA for him anyway.

The whole CB cut is a fiasco and inherently unfair because they've gone for the cheaper to administer option.

As anyone who has been involved knows, trying to tag on eligibility criteria just causes havoc - look at tax credits. Nightmare.

Universal benefits are cheaper to administer, CB being a case in point. Also it lessens the stigma of welfare - what's wrong with needing a helping hand at some point in your life? Most people on benefits don't want to sponge off the state for life - there's a reason spongers make headlines, because it doesnt happen across the board.

The welfare system should be made simplier and easier to understand and claim. Firstly it reduces the chance of fraud (for example someone claimed tax credits in my name and NI number yet if HMRC had checked my NI contributions they'd have seen that I earn too much). Secondly it reduces the admin costs - and our government loves a saving.

If council housing didn't have stigma attached to it (and there was enough), then those who cannot afford to buy would feel the need to stretch themselves to get a mental mortgage and end up in debt. Yet renting securely would be more sensible but is not freely available. Rent isn't throwing money away, it's paying for a home (different IMO to owning bricks and mortar).

LFN so how many of these 'bogus asylum seekings swanning around in multi million pound Belgravia mansions' do you think there are? And do you think that there are more of these kinds of benefit claimants than just ordinary British families struggling to survive in a very unequal society?

I almost (but not quite) find your far right view of the world amusing as it is so unintelligent.