Child Benefit ........2013

[duchessofdulwich]

Just seen the news this morning wondering what other peoples feelings on this were?

[Belle]

It seems unfair, unless I've misunderstood it, that because means-testing properly would be a massive hassle, they've instead plumped for a method which will mean e.g. a couple with a combined income of ?70k will still get benefit, but a couple with one earner of ?45k or a single parent who earns that will not receive it. I might have misread it though as trying to skim through whilst keeping an eye on my toddler!

[kristymac1]

No Belle, I think you've read it quite right! Seems more than a tad unfair....... There are an awful lot of people who will be directly affected by this - and I don't mean those who can afford to put CB allowance into savings for their kids, racking up a nice little nest egg for later down the line - I mean people who genuinely rely on that money each month to contibute to the cost of raising their children.

I'm more than a little concerned that we have a Chancellor in Osborne that can't/won't do the maths to incorporate proper means testing...

[randomv]

We're at a level where we will lose the child benefit, yet can't really afford to lose ?80/month. One income of ?45k is a good one, and above average..but not that much to live on in London..

Wierd that under the party of family and aspiration, we should be in a situation where it's better for both parents to work in lower paid jobs than to have one higher earner and one primary childcarer? Aren't these the same people who scoff at *some* sections of benefits claimants for whom it's more lucrative to live apart, not as a family etc.

Of course the really rich either won't notice or will have good accountants who'll find a way around it..

[pebbles]

I'm really shocked. My husband is a high income worker and I stay at home with the children. When i first read I thought yup, right decision - we don't "need" the money and the most important thing is to bring this debt down - however then i read it properly and just can't really believe it. How can they not means test - how can a couple with a total income of 75k still receive it whereas someone who's husband/wife earns 40k and the other stays at home to look after kids not receive it.

To be honest I'm not sure what the correct solution would be - ie where's the cutoff?

[kristymac1]

Child benefit has always operated as a benefit for all and I think it should stay that way - clearly it is beyond the Government to undergo a proper means-test (which should include cost of living and not just based on income) - it is the 'lower, middle-band' of families (whether single or two parents in one residence) who will suffer, and in areas where the cost of living is high (and not necessairly the quality) this is a bad thing - lots of people on ok salaries rely on the child benefit. You can of course opt out of receiving it - I would like to think that if I was earning a super-sized salary I would opt out (easy to say of course as that scenario is most unlikely, but I genuinely believe I would)

There are many real abuses of the benefit system which should be addressed first, saving the tax payer millions. This is just too easy for them.

[Fuschia]

Glad I didn't vote for them. Even in families where both earner are higher rate tax payers, if you have several children the CB is still an important part of family income. Esp when you bear in mind the high cost of childcare

[duchessofdulwich]

i thought they were trying to encourage people back to work.

i cant help but get the feeling this will put people off putting in more hours so they dont go over the tax bracket. it would have been better to say after the child is 16 you wont recieve anymore money.

[ClareC]

Seems rather hypocritical for a Gov that allegedly believes in family values! To go back to work, most people end up using the majority of their income for childcare, this out of pocket and very necessary expense is not even tax deductible! To remove CB doesn't exactly help what is already a financially expensive period!

I would happily lose my daughters CB if my childcare costs were made tax deductable! The fact it's not even being rolled out fairly is shocking!

[duchessofdulwich]

what dosent make sense is that if you had a couple with a JOINT income of ?70,000 they will get CB. If a single mum or dad had an income of ?45,000 they wouldnt recieve CB???

[peckhamboy]

The problem is that doing a full means-testing (by HMRC rather than the government) is costly and time-consuming, and would probably negate all the cost savings of reducing CB. As someone who stands to lose out, I still support the decision and understand the rationale for the apparently lop-sided implementation. Even though, if my income were split equally between the two of us, we would still be able to claim it.

To be honest, I'm completely against the idea of universal benefits. The welfare system should be a safety net for the poorest and most disadvantaged, not a way of life or an income supplement. That said, I'm obviously a hypocrite since I claim it at present rather than sticking to my principles.

[njc97]

It is not the "lower middle band" of families that will lose out, it's the richest 15% of familes (Daily Mail figure so likely exaggerates as well). People with a single income of at least ?44,000 may think they "need" this to live on, but in reality they don't.

[kristymac1]

njc97 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is not the "lower middle band" of families that

> will lose out, it's the richest 15% of familes

> (Daily Mail figure so likely exaggerates as well).

> People with a single income of at least ?44,000

> may think they "need" this to live on, but in

> reality they don't.

Which is why basing it on income alone is plain ridiculous - 44K in various parts of this country is a whole lot more than 44K in London - what about a family of five in an ok part of London, childcare costs for the kids, mortgage/rent - 44K doesn't go very far and I think there may be many out there that do rely on CB. And I wouldn't base any of my opinions on stats from the Daily Mail......

[Fuschia]

Society needs the children to be born to work their socks off for years to come to pay for pensions and the huge debt!!

[ClareC]

44k for a family in London to live on is far from having an affluent lifestyle! Based upon that income, rent plus childcare doesn't leave much left over.

[Fuschia]

George Osborne last year "We will preserve child benefit"

[BB100]

peckhamboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem is that doing a full means-testing (by

> HMRC rather than the government) is costly and

> time-consuming, and would probably negate all the

> cost savings of reducing CB.

No it wouldn't - we already have a tax credit system that considers both incomes so it could be tacked onto that without too much cost and would be fairer. It shows this has not been thought through properly.

And what about those who don't earn because they live on huge capital? - could they continue to get it? And what about those self-employed who run many living expenses through their accounts so their income is relatively more?

Another issue is the loss of comprehensive data of all the children in this country used for stratgic planning and child protection, as the coalition scrapped the contactpoint database in August. And it will be more difficult to prove main parental/carer responsibility....there are some significant knock-on effects. One good thing could be the system discovers there are many children who now live abroad and should not be claimed for.

It's a bit like the idea of guaranteeing places to children on free school meals - if parents will move house to get into a school, what stops them giving up their job or splitting from their working partner and becoming a lone parent for six months? Are politicians thick or just stupid?

[Dudley]

I, for one, am absolutely disgusted that child benefit is being cut.

First, it punishes single mothers and those who have a stay at home parent. It is an outrage that a single mother who works (and has to pay huge child care fees) who earns over ?44,000 loses her child benefit, as does a family where one parent works and earns over ?44,000 but has another parent who stays at home.

Meanwhile a family where both parents work and earn just under ?44,000 each taking home ?88,000 keeps the child benefit. This is unacceptable.

The standard argument is - we should not give child benefit to millionaires. But why is the govt cutting it off at ?44,000- this is a long way from the millionaire line.

And as everyone who lives in London knows, even if you do earn over ?44,000 that does not

mean you have bundles of cash hiding under the floorboards.

It is very expensive to raise even a small family in London.

I consider myself middle class and I do not apologise for it. I am sick to death of middle class families being criticised as 'pushy' for simply wanting to send their child to a school where they don't get stabbed. This is another attack on middle class families and remember we are the ones who fund the welfare state. The very wealthy can afford to avoid any serious tax liabilities, and it is right that those on very low incomes should not pay tax. But that leaves the middle class to try and keep the ship afloat.

Anyway this is the latest in a long line of attacks on the middles class.

But leaving this aside, what all families should remember (single parent, stay at home Mom, or both working) is that child benefit is more than just hard cash. It is a message from the state to families that says; we value you; we value the job your are doing; and we recognise that you are producing the future tax payers, pension contributers of the future. Here is a little something to help you out.

This should apply to all families; lower income, middle income and all these so-called millionaires.

I did not object to child trust funds being abolished- they were new and not very sensible. But child benefit has been around since the 40's. Not even Thatcher dared touch it.

I am conservative by nature but I am very glad I did not vote for them. Nor will I be doing so in the future.

[chantelle]

I think it's a nice universal benefit when the government can afford it - but the reality is we can't afford it now so niceties must be cut.

My family doesn't need it and I'd rather someone who needs the social safety net gets more help.

I think they should tweak the dual income - single income discrepancy though.

[plimsoul]

well chantelle you can chose to not get it, opt out. i for one rely on it but i'm not at all surprised with the move by the current administration.

[James Barber]

Do you remember that Labour minister Liam Byrne who left a welcoming note on his desk "There?s no money left".

This year alone the government, on all our behalf, is borrowing ?158 billion. To have created this financial pickle is appalling. To remove child benefit is painful and the execution of this is raising lots of questions especially where we live being so expensive. My mother was a single mum who would have been around the cusp of the threshold and she found it hard to bring two kids with child benefit.

But to keep paying child benefit to the richest 15% of families in the country is hard to justify. The other choice would have been perhaps ending child benefit at 16 rather than 18 which would have discouraged kids from staying on at school.

From where Laim and co left us it seems one of the least bad options.

[EmmaCC]

James - I'm afraid that your comments don't placate my anger at what YOUR coalition government has done... as a liberal you should be appalled at the cuts that your own party is supporting just to get a slice of power.

You actually visited me whilst on your campaign trail - I told you that I was a labour voter but was disenchanted by the current government and I also said there was no way in hell that I would ever vote tory but that I would consider a vote for your party. I then asked you lots of questions on the lib dems policies for working families - including whether you would safeguard child benefit - you didn't know the answer to any of my questions which was off putting enough...you then assured me that you would send me a letter outlining how the lib dems would support families where both parents went out to work - you didn't bother! I for one am sooo pleased that I didn't vote for your party just so that you could join up with the tory party!

I'm sorry to be harsh but I think you've got a cheek coming on this forum trying to defend these kind of actions!

You can say that statistically the richest 15% of families don't need CB and put that way it sounds reasonable BUT earning 44K plus when you live in London with massive housing costs and with no help for childcare costs, I can assure you there is little left at the end of the month even on that salary...

I actually agree - cut child benefit for the millionaires - but for people earning over ?44K - what a joke!

[BB100]

But, dear James, it will only save one billion - a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the pain you admit it will inflict. And that has to be set against the extra reform, admin and compliance costs.

Few are argueing it shouldn't be done - it's how.

[duchessofdulwich]

they need to make incentives for people to get back to work. I know someone who has 4 children all supported by the tax payer, will it be worthwhile for their parents to go back to work? no.

Its another kick in the teeth for the middle classes.

I wonder how much implementing the new CB scheme is going to cost the tax payer?

[Keef]

I'm basically with pebbles. The way it's being rolled out sucks, and is unfair.

I do think however, that too many people are making out that it would be a huge loss for them, whilst frankly, I suspect one less take away curry, and a couple less bottles of wine, and you'll be sorted.