Child Benefit ........2013

[Keef]

Its another kick in the teeth for the middle classes.

Poor middle classes.

[peckhamboy]

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.

Conveniently forgetting that "the state" is funded out of our taxes. I know, let's all pay more tax so that we can all pay ourselves ?20 a week to feel valued for producing children. What a load of rubbish. How about - let's cut back the ridiculously complicated tax and benefits system that nobody properly understands, and have a simple, straightforward system that protects the vulnerable and eventually results in lower taxes for everybody? Obviously, that's still a pipe-dream but this is the first step.

It seems to me that (almost) everybody appreciates that the government has to reduce the amount it borrows, and scale back spending to match actual income. That bit's not rocket science (although it was beyond Gordon Brown). But everybody wants the cuts to hit other people. If everybody tried just looking around and asking themselves "what does the government give me that I could live without", what would you come up with? Schools? Road maintenance? Healthcare? Or the ?20 a week freebie you get just for having a kid? A little bit of perspective would not go amiss sometimes.

[duchessofdulwich]

yes keef unfortunatly we are not all super wealthy. would love a takeaway and a bottle of wine!

[charlottep]

Take away my child benefit if you must, but then give me access to a community school that is consistently good and give me a tax break against my HUGE childcare bill. The logic behind this is flawed, I expect this crap from the tories, but the liberals have sold themselves out.

[Keef]

yes keef unfortunatly we are not all super wealthy. would love a takeaway and a bottle of wine!

Define "super wealthy".

I agree with everyone who says the way this is being done is a bit off, and that the logic is very much flawed, but I just don't believe that many parents in East Dulwich are going to really suffer as a result*.

Sorry. I know it's not nice, and any income will be missed, but someone is always going to lose out when cuts are being made. but I hate all the talk of "another kick in the teeth for the middle classes".

* Of course I don't know everyone's circumstances, and am generalising rather.

[nikki73]

To James Barber: how can you say with any honesty that it's 15% richest families in the country if you only take into account one salary. What about all those families with higher joint incomes? Make the cuts you want/need to but please don't insult our intelligence. The decision is UNFAIR UNFAIR UNFAIR. It will in my opinion affect more women than men either directly or indirectly and it is, in my view, plain wrong unless some kind of means testing is introduced.

[peckhamboy]

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that it affects more women than men? The vast majority of people affected will be couples where the husband is working on a salary of ?45k+. Yes, it will affect any single mums on that salary as well, but I'm not convinced that would represent a significant number across the country as a whole.

[snss75]

Good article on the issue: http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/child-benefit-reform-needs-rethink.

[duchessofdulwich]

very good article

[nikki73]

Peckhamboy, because of my lack of hard evidence i did say it was only my opinion. But here's my reasoning: child benefit is I assume more often paid to the mother than the father and goes into her household budget, usually used to buy nappies or clothes for the kids. Also like you say there will be some single mothers who earn over 45k and, hey, there might even be one or two women out there who are the main breadwinner and happen to be higher rate tax payers.

[peckhamboy]

Actually, not a great article. The main thrust of it, that you can be worse off with a pay rise than without it, will always be true in any means-tested system unless there is a graduated reduction in benefit as pay increases. Which, of course, would itself act as an anti-work incentive. After all, where is the attraction of working harder for more pay when you end up with exactly the same amount? So somewhat flawed but then, it is a free paper. You get what you pay for.

[randomv]

ACtually I'd dispute whether the withdrawl of Child Benefit is hitting the top 15% of earners, more like the top 15% of tax payers if you ask me, which is a very different thing.

[Keef]

The article was pretty good I thought, but Peckhamboy makes a very good point, which brings us back to the basic truth of things.

Soneone is always going to have to suffer a bit, whichever way it's done.

I still think however, that there are better ways than the one being poposed.

[snss75]

I'm actually one of the higher rate tax payer, main breadwinner, non-single mothers who would be affected by this proposal. While I'm not at all fussed about losing the ?80 a month I don't agree with the proposal for the reasons that have been previously stated here. I still think the city am article is good, particularly the point about family accounting... I fail to see the reasoning behind basing this on single income.

[Yak]

I agree that the way they've gone about this is far from perfect. The only point I'd add is that if the only thing that emerges out of the comprehensive spending review and the reform of the welfare system that affects you and your family is the CB reform, then consider yourselves very, very, very lucky indeed.

[BB100]

How are they going to find out who these children live with anyway? What about children who live part time with one parent and then the rest of the time with the other? What about those parents who live together and are not married so the tax man doesn't know about him? What if a woman lives with her high earning brother or father, he could be mistaken as the child's father and should a parent get child benefit if they live rent free with their high-earning parents?

[Keef]

if the only thing that emerges out of the comprehensive spending review and the reform of the welfare system that affects you and your family is the CB reform, then consider yourselves very, very, very lucky indeed.

Exactly right!

[njc97]

The article it pretty poor. As it points out the system already has flaws in it. And the govt has admitted that this one isn't perfect but that the expense of putting in a better system outweighs the benefits. Also this sort of cut off is exactly what happends with means-tested benefits - the only difference now is that it impact the richest 15% (so gets in the newspapers) rather than the poorest 15%.

And back to the people suggesting they can barely live without their allowance. The average salary in London is ?32,000 pa. If you're a 40% tax payer you're already on much more than average. If you can't work out how to get by, then take a closer look at some of your neighbours.

[Moos]

It's interesting that the argument (not just here but in the media) is being put both for and against working mothers and stay-at-home mothers.

Some believe that the cuts are unfair to stay-at-home mothers who have chosen to stop working, as their eligibility for benefit will be based on the father's income only, whereas working couples with a joint higher income may still benefit.

Others believe that working mothers are now disincentivised to work, as they may lose on child benefit on top of the cost of childcare.

My initial response was very much like most others' here - that some cuts must be made, and to make them means-tested is the fairest way, however that to penalise a family earning ?45k (one earner) but not a family earning ?79k (two earners) was grossly unfair. I have, however, remembered much of the debate in recent years about benefits being lost for parents who live together... could the same argument apply to them? I believe fundamentally that benefits should be tested on all parental income - but it doesn't take long to work out the incredible complications of fairly testing families' incomes, particularly if they don't live together.

[Mrs TP]

I am guessing but is the ?45K cut off equivalent to an ordinary MP's salary and this figure was picked so there wouldn't be a backlash against MPs protecting themselves if they set the ceiling higher at around ?60K? No doubt they can all make up their lost child benefit on their expenses.

Lucky them having a job. I got made redundo earlier this year and now we stand to loose approx another ?2k per year because of this.

Robbing tory xcum xastards - fill in the blanks yourself.

[Bellenden Belle]

But if child benefit was means tested for each family / household income exactly where would people's cut- off be?

45K appears reasonable to me, and is above the average even for London. My rough maths suggests that equals an income of aboout three grand. That doesnt leave much change after mortgage and bills, but it's possible. Many of our parents survived on less.

If two parents are working it could well be because they can't afford to live on a single salary - imagine two incomes of 30K and then take off childcare expenses. That's still less than that single earner of 45K.

Working single parents who earn just above the threshold but still have childcare expenses are surely the hardest hit?

Cuts are always painful, but this feels fairer than some. Yes, it's hitting the middle classes but perhaps a reality check of how little some families live on is needed.

[new mother]

I'm astonished that no one has mentioned the biggest middle class expense - children's school fees, paid out of post tax income. If you have two children and earn an ok as opposed to stratospheric salary, school fees leave very very little after other necessities come off. (and yes I consider an education a necessity and not something we can chose whether to provide for our children.) The extra 80 per ch per month, after tax, was really handy.

[Moos]

In my opinion, private school education really does have to be seen as a choice. 93% of the population attend state school, which is indeed a necessity.

[Belle]

I don't think the burden of private school fees is comparable to that of childcare if we're talking about expenses - the latter is a necessary cost for any working parent (excepting those with relatives who will do the caring for free), the former is absolutely a choice.

[crystal7]

Belle Wrote:

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

> I don't think the burden of private school fees is

> comparable to that of childcare if we're talking

> about expenses - the latter is a necessary cost

> for any working parent (excepting those with

> relatives who will do the caring for free), the

> former is absolutely a choice.

Couldn't agree more Belle!