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)

Yep Riv, it'scalled HRP (home repsonsibilities protection) and carers does the same thing apaprently.

Which is handy given that my work pension was woprth 1.24 p/w when I left PMSL

cor, don't spend it all at once!
I had that 'state pension assement thingy' saying I'll get tuppence a week and need to put a billion pounds aday into it to catch up.
Didn't really understand it if CB/carers count as 'contributions'

It sort of holds itopen for you- they may ask you totop up, thats especially true uif you were a SAHP for certain dates in the past- not sure which though. maybe worth a call to CAB?

hardly worth it, its not like we can do anythng about it.
I don't plan to live too long!

tis all gobbledigook Riven

good grief.
But then looking further I find...'A lot of support is available to you and your child, provided by organisations and trained professionals. A network of services for young disabled children is provided by health authorities, education authorities and social services.'

hahahahahahahahahahahahha

Is that tears of laughter, despair or both I ownder?

probably should get back on topic...

No I don't think it should be means tested.

How would it work if say the cut off point was £50,000 and you had a married couple where one partner didn't work and stayed at home to look after their children whilst the other one worked and earned £50,000. Compare this is to a single parent who again doesn't work, but the othyer parent whether the father or mother of the child still earns £50,000.
The income of the parents is exactly the same but yet I could guarantee which couple would be penalised and financially worse off.

I dont think it should be means tested but 50k is ALOT of money, i live in the south east and im be more than happy to earn 50k. you cant assumed everyone who lives in the south east is loaded. I also think all benefits should be indenpendantly assessed instead of assuming all household money is shared.

If you are on income support then they deduct the child benifit from your income support - for however many children you have. Yet if you earn 100k you get cb, I think that is wrong either every child gets the benifit. But it shouldn't be taken from you when you become unemployed

Yes for over £50k earners outside cities

Yes for over 75k earners in cities

laurie - why do you think 75k for earners in cities.

I can tell you that 50k doesn't go far if you live in the home counties and have to pay very high mortgage and commuting costs. Particularly if it is 50k on one salary rather than 2 x 25k (if 2 x 25k you do not pay higher rate tax and can claim childcare costs etc)

Someone referred to MPs - MPs do not live on a salary of 65k they are able to claim many other costs such as travel, second homes etc. If second home allowances are abolished I'm sure their salaries will rocket. Many MPs also have other jobs.

I live in the home counties happywomble.

We could easily manage without it.

I really think they should abolish all these overcomplicated benefits etc and replace them with tax allowances for people with children. Would be much simpler to administer.

I honestly feel child benefit should be abolished for higher rate taxpayers.

laurie - you have not explained why you think 50k for one set of people and 75k for another

I'm assuming Laurie has noticed that 50K means different things in different areas of the country - it does. Cost of living is very different in different areas of the country.

Hasn't some think-tank recommended making all benefits geographically weighted?

It's a difficult issue, I guess, because it raises the whole question of group political action for wage-increases and everything else - by inference - not directly. If people in, say, Cornwall, get less benefit than, say, people in London, it has a knock-on effect on wages and then in collective bargaining.

I think that's why it's a controversial issue. But what isn't controversial is that cost of living is vastly more expensive in some areas of the country than others.

cherryblossoms - I agree with what you are saying but the cost of living is high in many places that aren't cities and there are some cities that aren't expensive to live in.

That is why I can't see why people in "cities" deserve to have family allowance up to 75k those elsewhere only up to 50k.

Absolutely not it's peanilising the middle earners again and taking away even more help that the poor will again be entitled too.

I'm not begruging helping the needy but c'mon us middle earners get absolutley no help whatsover. We aint all rich

The argument against means testing is that as well as the cost of administration, it creates a strong disincentive to work, eg family with income just below the threshold decides that one partner won't look for work because they would lose the child benefit. It is the best decision for that family, but the economy is worse off overall because that person is not paying income tax.
However, with the country's finances in the state they are, I think it would be fair to scrap child benefit for all those with an income over 75k. At this level you can do without it, its a luxury the country can't afford.

Oh and transport in London isn't cheap, unless I'm missing something.

I think 50k is too low a cutoff, maybe 100k.