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)

Child Benefit is a proxy for a tax allowance for children. The question if you don't have that is what is being done about taxation in general.

One of the things that irritates me about people like the Tax Payers Alliance is their anti-family stance.

Just looked at that alliance website- inviting it isn't! I've come across a few people lately with the 'why should we pay for your famillies' argument- well, firstly because WE also includes the majority of apents; for some bizarre reason I've nopticed an increasing number of people who seem to fail tor ealise that other people pay ytaxes too- and also becuase our children will be paying your pensions one day.

David Attenborough's solution is not to pay after the second child in order to control population- interesting but the only have the children you can afford argument only works if you can guarantee no bad luck and jobs for life, you're happy to increase the ptressure on people to terminate accidental conceptions, and you ahve an alternative plan for pension paying. Otherwise- ??

Well, high earners are paying huge taxes. Why would they not have a child benefit? If anything, they are getting very little back considering the amount of money they may be asked to pay.

Oh, get over it! EVERYONE who works pays tax. And in actuality, the proportion of the earnings that goes towards taxes is a greater burden for those who are not earning as much.

All this 'Waaa! We pay tax!' is ridiculous.

EVERY country taxes wage-earners.

It's the price you pay for having a peaceful society that allows you to work relatively untroubled and all that goes with that.

I don't agree. BTW, I receive IS, but I still think it is not fair.

... and the fact that they don't get it doesn't mean that we are going to see a tangible difference on how this money would be used in the benefit of society.

Bumperlicious 'People who have huge mortgages have correspondingly bigger houses.'

This is just NOT true. A friend of mine has a 4 bedroom detached house in a lovely area very close to us, their mortgage is around £550 a month. We have a 2.5 bedroom terraced house very close by, and our mortgage is £1250 a month!!

the difference? Purchase dates 10 years apart.

Our mortgage will drop next year when our fixed rate ends, and then we might be able to start paying into our pension

Like I said earlier - £50k can be a fortune to some, or barely enough to live on, depending on all sorts of variables.

And I'm very sorry... but my DH does over 60 hours a week to earn enough to pay this mortgage/bills etc. I'm not saying people on a lower salary don't work hard, but ifyou earn £50k a year, you should be able to afford a fucking holiday!

Actually I was mortified at hearing a woman from an older people organisation complaining as there were more people than children and therefore the main support should not go to support education but to the elderly.

As sympathetic as I am to the cause of the elderly, my only thought was... Fool! and whose taxes are going to pay for your care when you can no longer cope on your own?

No, it's the only thing I get from anywhere and it's a godsend.
Just cos we're both working dosn't mean we're not struggling.

I think I should get a tax break to have children because, as a high earner, the chances are that my children will be the same and will therefore pay more taxes to pay for the pensions of the elderly.

Wealthy childless people should be taxed more because they are contributing less to society.

everyone full stop pays tax- VAT, fuel duty etc; there's more than one way to taqx a head!

'Well, high earners are paying huge taxes. Why would they not have a child benefit? If anything, they are getting very little back considering the amount of money they may be asked to pay'

They are getting something very, very important (experience leads me to this belief after a really shit patch this year)- social security; the knowledge that if it all goes tits up, their pension scheme collapses or they become diabled- they won't starve.Worth an awfullot, that is.

I say means test it but up the limit £50k is not high enough. Your not telling me Posh & Becks rely on their CB each month!!!

As for:

'50k take home = £2900
average mortgage: £900 per month
7%ish for pension: £200
various insurances: £100
average council tax/water/gas/electric/TV/broadband: £320 per month
Foor per month: £500
Going out as a family once a week for a meal: £160
Car hire purchase or loan perhaps?/petrol: £150
Savings (£150 fairly modest?): £150
Once a year holiday, say £1500?: £125 per month

We are now down to £295 per month remaining to spend on fripperies such as clothes, going out, erm boilers exploding, that sort of thing.

WTF!!!!!!! Family meal £160, holiday £1500, savings £150 - helllooooooooo!!!!!

SomeGuy Well said.

Sandy22 Perhaps mp shouldn't have used the word 'fripperies' but if you notice, clothes, shoes, MOT, car servicing, etc etc etc aren't mentioned in the general list.

I do agree that £1500 is a lot of money for a holiday (£400 for us, and that was only because of a bonus!)
We don' go out. We have to save to fix things in the house that are going wrong. we are NOT well off.

It's pretty disgusting that you can have a combined income of £50k and still be hard up. You might not believe me, but it's true.
It makes me quite ill actually. DP works SO hard to cover everything, his job is so demanding, and we can't afford to do much at all.

What would really help if childcare was properly subsidised. If I could get my childcare paid for, I could go back to work more days a week, therefore pay more tax, therefore cancelling out the subsidy!

OK - rant over.

we are on a good wage but six kids cost
our mortgage far exceeds the average and that's our choice
i like the cb its my money for the kids stuff

Not read all the thread so I give an honest a answer. I would like to see it meas tested, I dot really understand why you would claim money you dont need. But if it would cost more I guess it does not make sense to means test. I do think perhaps people need to think do I need to take this money and if they don't need it leave it in the system. We do this with our tax credits and CB, we dont have a huge salary by any means but the money does is not needed for essentials.

Sandy 22 your are so right. My dp works really long hours for his 50k. As for savings. Each month we seem to hv to eat into our savings. As for holidays the accomodation cost about £300.00.

Most of our money seems to go out on mortgage(still on huge 5.99 fixed) car loan and pensions. Or and those endownments which won't even cover the mortgage now.

I would love to work but what would be the point when it would all go out to pay for childcare. Unfortunately my dp and yours earns to much to get the lovely tax credit child care subsidy.

Sandy is NOT right.

There are plenty of people that earn £50k as a result of their education/drive/ambition etc etc. Why the hell should they be penalised?

I'm sick to death of being in that bracket that means you aren't entitled to any benefits, but don't earn enough to be well off. Fucking sick of it. I'll happily bet that half the population fit into this category.

We earn just over £50k. We don't get any help, we pay for everything and our childcare (£41 a day, thank you!) no tax credits. dee0468 then you are in the £50k realm, so you know what I'm talking about?!

I could work more hours, but the tax/NI/childcare/diesel would cancel it out.

Seriously, all of you on less than £50k a year, you have no idea. Fucking sick of people thinking we're well off, well...
we're not.
Once i've earnt enough to be able to pay into my pension, then I will consider myself well off. Until then, £50k means squat.

I'm SO happy for all of you who are renting. You didn't just lose £20K on the value of your house, you can move when you want, you have nothing holding you. Personally, I have a massive anxiety disorder that just didn't allow me to breed without the security of 'our own house'.

God, some of you just have NO idea.... seriously...

dee0468 - then you actually disagree.

I am in the £50K+ bracket and would not see it as being penalised. I would see it as money being targetted where it is most needed. But I accept it may be easier to keep it a universal benefit. If you do earn that much money and need it by all means claim it.

I am renting but have recently lost in excess of 20K on the house I did own. But when I did own my own home I did just move when I wanted and just took the consequences. I would imagine that if you are renting because you cannot afford to buy a home you cannot just move, because moving is expensive. We just moved from one rented property to another and had to find £3500 in deposits and fees without having access to the previous deposit we had paid on a rental property. Removal vans etc also cost.

Electric Elephant - if you read my post properly you will see I say over £50k. I personally am thinking more like £100k.

I am on less that £50k and yes I do have some idea - I'm not thick even though you seem to suggest that you can only earn £50k or more if you have education/drive/ambition - I have all of these thanks!

I have to say, I would not mind if I did not get it. It goes straight into a bank account for my children and I have never spent a penny of it. Our combined income is however in excess of £100k, so perhaps that is where the threshold should be drawn.

I would much rather lose child benefit that have government cost cutting imposed on me in other ways - eg cuts in teachers or resources available to schools.

So the govt are considering cutting benefit for those on £50k plus - those who are actually working & paying lots of tax but on the other hand might take in lots of immigrants from the calais site & give them hand outs??? Doesn't make sense imho.

The threshold needs to be much higher. £50k as others have said doesn't necessarily go far depending on outgoings, especially if you work in London and have to live within commuting distance.

Make it £100k.

And while they're at it allow couples to share their tax allowances, and bring back MIRAS (anyone remember that?).

'You didn't just lose £20K on the value of your house, you can move when you want, you have nothing holding you'

since when as life ever that simple?

We can't move when we want- annual reviews, last time we needed to move we had to buy our way out; there's the risk of bieng made gomeless with a few minths notice in which case we'd alsolose schools (including a gold dust place in an snu) as rented acomodation is virtually non existent in the village in our price bracket; because DH has only PT work atm post-recession, we'd be shipped into temp accom until a place on an estate could be found for us.

We have owned, and we have rented, there are benefits to both but the one thing we lack- that we'd both deary love back if we ever got on our feet financially after this last crash- is security. We're fortunate now to have the best landlady ever (pity those who do not; been there. is like Hell with bells on- water dripping through into the electric box with a not inetrested landlord anyone?)- but the knowledge that one day we'll be elderly, probably stillcarers for ds3 at best (ds1 as well at worst) and trying to make the rent from state pension is scary.

Of course we have plans and hopes- DH is on his way to his Uni induction right now, after a morning working at his PT business, so he can get his income back in a field that hasn't collapsed; my MA induction is tonight. But we have enough life under our beslts to know there are no guarantees.