Should child benefit be means tested?

[JustineMumsnet]

There's a new report from the Tax Payers' Alliance which recommends means testing for child benefit - possibly scrapping it for households with an income of more than £50 000. Channel Five Live would like to know what mums think of the idea?

(Am going on at 11)

Thing is, it would change over time. When ds1 was born 17 years ago we were on, I dunno, maybe £40k pa between us, but now q. a lot more than that. It would be quite complicated to administer & would have to be based on your P60s for the previous year I suppose

When I have finished my studies and am back to higher rate we will stop claiming it. I take the point about childcare so perhaps it should be universal until school age and then means tested when the highest costs of childcare have passed.
(just reiterating I am only talking about families where BOTH parents earn enough to pay higher rare tax)

I read the report and I think that abolishing even half of that stuff would be excellent.

But - you know that whoever is in power next year will just grab the easiest option - oh, yes. Child Benefit. Those softy middle income earners won't make any fuss. Let's nick that. Too hard to tackle public sector pay and pensions. And can't upset the oldies. Too many voters. No, it's got to be Child Benefit.

It surely wouldn't be that hard to administer as everyone who would be eligible would also be eligible for tax credits so would be quite simple as it would all go through same system.

NO, absoulutely NOT!

Of course one of the benefits of cuitting spending is lower taxes which means more money for everyone.

I think benefits should be effort tested and not means tested. So if you are trying to earn enough but can't make ends meat, you should be helped. But if you are staying at home because you think you have a right to hang out with your children whilst other people never see theirs because they are paying the taxes that support yours, well let's not give it to you.

Historically, one of the reasons CB isn't means tested is to ensure that some money gets to mothers to spend on their children. Which might not be the case otherwise.

tinierclanger....good point.

Yes I think it should, but the limit should be higher. Or why not just align it with WTC?

Ii may have misheard (I often do!) but I thought the guy from the TPA on the radio this morning said that stopping CB for those on somewhat higher salaries than £50K wouldn't catch enough people. So, £100K would be much fairer in the sense that that really is a big salary, but so few people earn that much that stopping CB for those earners would be a drop in the ocean. It really is laughable though when he kept talking about 'wealthy' people not noticing child benefit. As loads of others have said, I might feel very wealthy if I had a) no mortgage b) no council tax c)no children!

Another benefit in the firing line is attendance allowance, and it's pre- OAP status equivalent DLA; they want to make it awwarded by socialservices which will mean that the vast majority of claimants can no longer recive it as SS set a baseline minimum of reqwquring lifelong support for a severe difficulty- certainly neither of my children will get it, even though they currently get HR and MR care, both LR mobility and have statements (one in a SNU) (DS1 becuase I cannot prove he needs care for ever as many with his dx do not, and ds3 becuase he is on a waiting list that will no doubt be interminable as we have been assessd before as good enough parents)

I am expecting most benefits to be affected in some way tbh, and only wish I could find a way back to work myself.

And the authors of the report are all.... men.

Makes me quite sad, actually. Feels a bit like a kick in the teeth.

I am sure I am not the only one who uses their CB to fund 'extras' for their kids. In my case it's sports clubs. Sure, that's not 'on the bread-line' stuff. I mean we could still afford to eat and pay the mortgage and the bills without the CB. BUT it's the extras that make living a life, not just an existence.

gawd no. it's the only 'benefit' I get from this government!

I'm just making the point that people who work hard and make sacrifices to pay the taxes that support this country are the ones being penalised the most.

But, actually, I think you raise another good point. I think the family unit as a whole should be taxed, and not the individual irrespective of his/her spouse. Thus enabling the family to decide as a whole how to earn money and look after their children.

it will never happen

AtheneNoctua - many women don't have the earning power to be able to pay childcare if they worked, if you and dh are on low incomes WTC kicks in but if dh is earning a reasonable wage you also have to be a high earner to afford childcare. I'm also dubious as to whether anyone works hard in order to 'pay taxes and support the country' I think people work hard to get a better standard of living really.

Grinny re: VAT - I'm not on a high wage, but VAT is not on essentials (in theory) and I really not sure that many people have notice the difference when £100 spend has been reduced to £97.50 you would have to be spending an awful lot really notice it surely? It has been an admin nightmare for the retailers whom seem to have now put everything back to there pre VAT cut prices, I suspect to claw back the amount it cost to sort out the change in the first place??

I think that the cut off for CTC should be lower, if you earn over about £35K it is a lot of paper work for very little in return, we get about £500 a year I think. Currently the cut off is £60K to claim if that was cut to £35K then the savings in benefit paid and administration would surely be quite significant. I would happily sacrifice that to keep CB. (and infact as soon as I get the current mess that is costing me a fortune in phone calls to sort out sorted I will happily not claim in order to not have to deal with them ever again).

'I'm just making the point that people who work hard and make sacrifices to pay the taxes that support this country are the ones being penalised the most.

It appears a couple of you skimmed over the first part of my post where I said "So if you are trying to earn enough but can't make ends meat..."

So, more help for those who are trying but can't balance the books at month's end because say childcare costs got in the way. But, not so much for people who are able but choose not to work because they think they are entitled to stay home with their children while other who see less of their own children should support this entitlement culture.

If only my childcare was tax deductible. I think you guys are understimating the cost of childcare, which is in fact incurred for the sole purpose of me going to work.

wonderstuff, your earlier post suggested increasing VAT to 20%. True, there is no VAT on essential food items, but there is VAT on clothing, toiletries, gas and electricity (a reduced rate admittedly) and services. A 2.5% increase would hit people on a lower fixed income like pensioners and people on benefits. The reduction to 15% will end soon anyway and was always supposed to be temporary. I doubt if it did make any difference but the point was that people who weren't any poorer because of the recession, but just felt poorer because of the negative media coverage might go out and spend money and keep more employment in the retail trade and (what's left of) our manufacturing industry. I'm not sure what the answer is to cut government costs but cutting child benefit or increasing VAT don't seem like good options.

No-one's mentioned that claiming CB preserves your entitlement to a pension, counting those years that you stay at home raising children as fully paid years of 'work'. I could live without the money but I would be VERY hacked off if the govt. removed that. It's absolutely vital for helping keep women out of poverty in old age.

Definitely not means tested.
Is child benefit,and not many children in this country earn more than £50k,I wouldn't think?
Many higher paid men do not share all their wealth with their wives anyway(another subject,I know).
Certainly if a woman was on a lower part t ime salary then she should receive it,even if her husband earns above £50k.
Whatever happened to independant taxation?

I'd means test it. 50K is twice the national average wage. Its a lot of money, maybe only 10% earn that much. I hear about the mortgage but lots of people live in the SE and London on half that.
But a SAH's tax allowance should be transferable.

Does CB really lead to a state pension? Thank gawd for that. We have no pension provision cos I'm at home and dh can only work part time.