Protests Against cuts to Child Benefit

[Mrs TP]

Does anyone know of anyone / organisation doing anything like this or how you would go about starting it?

I just don't want to sit back and take this.

I don't want to start a discussion re who should and shouldn't be getting it and how lucky people are to be over the income threshold. It's not about bringing everyone down to the lowest common point, it's about preserving this universal benefit, which is not paid indefinitely but for 16yrs per child and which through all income barriers is actually used to benefit the child.

[INMCD]

I totally agree. I'll have to go back to work an extra day from January to make up the shortfall. We've got 3 children (our choice I know) and that money makes so much difference to our household. I get the feeling it's just going to happen and there's nothing we can do about it. It feels very unfair. Sorry I don't know how to start a petition but I'll definitely sign it!

[Mrs TP]

I have 3 too. I don't see this as justifying our own decisions so far but as standing up for ourselves now. The tories would love us all to fall out over this but it is about sticking together and fighting it.

[millsa]

I'd also sign it

[DaveR]

"I don't want to start a discussion re who should and shouldn't be getting it and how lucky people are to be over the income threshold."

"The tories would love us all to fall out over this but it is about sticking together and fighting it."

So, an appeal to dogmatism and selfishness? "We all want to keep our money regardless of how much money we've already got, and we're not interested in whether it's a good idea or not". Public money = taxpayers money = my money. Would I rather carry on recycling child benefit out of my tax bill and back into my pocket or see the money spent on things that might be better for the country as a whole? I'll give up the cash, thanks.

[TE44]

Anti Cuts Protest is a website that will tell you if anything is happening in your area or give advice on how to organise a petition etc.

[TE44]

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/campaigns/item/anti-cuts-protests

[LondonMix]

This impacts only the top 10% of earners so I doubt the government will feel it can reverse this decision entirely while pressing ahead on cuts that have a broader impact. I would be in favour of making it more fair though by taking into account household income. Its unfair that two parents making 42k each (84k total) keep child benefit while a single parent (or family with a stay at home parent) making 50-60k loses it.

[DaveR]

I agree that the method of implementation is, to say the least, imperfect. As I understand it, the problem is that there is no central record of household income, as opposed to individual income - that's why applications for means-tested benefits require the applicant to disclose whether they live with someone else who provides financial support. It's also the case that household income is not stable - people split up, get back together, move in with new partners - and therefore not that suitable for an assessment criteria.

In terms of absolute fairness the question is straightforward - should all taxpayers fund a payment to anyone who has kids, even if they are a higher rate taxpayer? There may be valid disagreement on this, but unthinking opposition based on ridiculous cliches about 'Tory cuts' is not persuasive.

[Mrs TP]

"Would I rather carry on recycling child benefit out of my tax bill and back into my pocket or see the money spent on things that might be better for the country as a whole? I'll give up the cash, thanks."

If only it were so simple and we could be sure the money will be used wisely to benefit the whole country. How smug and self-satisfied could we all be then?

What if, and even more cliche-tastic, the money saved will be used to give the bankers and super-rich additional tax breaks?

I am so worried - how will we ever continue to afford Rupert's fencing lessons?

[Jessie]

Well, we plebs eh, Tory cuts must be a part of our imagination. Good for you, mrs tp. DaveR, you come across as quite dogmatic yourself in your posts.

[zeban]

You're seriously arguing about something that effects the top 10% of earners!!!! I'm with DaveR all the way. Perhaps you could argue and build a case against some of the changes that will and are making the poor even poorer, many more people homesless, etc because there are a lot of them. Oh no sorry silly me you only care about yourselves! It's absolutely absurd and should never ever have happened in the first place. It's the only cut I agree with! It's funny how those who are wealthy seem to have the biggest sense of entitlement!

[LondonMix]

I know DaveR. In other countries, the tax system recognises that people at times organise themselves into family units and allows couples to file joint returns. I think HMRC should allow this option for those whose household income is below the combined individual incomes at which child benefit is lost.

Zeban, I think most of the population would understand why this has been cut which is why reversing this would be political suicide for any government. I say that as someone who'll be losing out...

DaveR Wrote:

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

> I agree that the method of implementation is, to

> say the least, imperfect. As I understand it, the

> problem is that there is no central record of

> household income, as opposed to individual income

> - that's why applications for means-tested

> benefits require the applicant to disclose whether

> they live with someone else who provides financial

> support. It's also the case that household income

> is not stable - people split up, get back

> together, move in with new partners - and

> therefore not that suitable for an assessment

> criteria.

>

> In terms of absolute fairness the question is

> straightforward - should all taxpayers fund a

> payment to anyone who has kids, even if they are a

> higher rate taxpayer? There may be valid

> disagreement on this, but unthinking opposition

> based on ridiculous cliches about 'Tory cuts' is

> not persuasive.

[Chippy Minton]

Mrs TP - the next big protest is http://afuturethatworks.org - 20 October in London. Not specific to Child Benefit, but spending cuts and austerity policies in general.

[????]

zeban Wrote:

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

> You're seriously arguing about something that

> effects the top 10% of earners!!!! I'm with DaveR

> all the way. Perhaps you could argue and build a

> case against some of the changes that will and are

> making the poor even poorer, many more people

> homesless, etc because there are a lot of them. Oh

> no sorry silly me you only care about yourselves!

> It's absolutely absurd and should never ever have

> happened in the first place. It's the only cut I

> agree with! It's funny how those who are wealthy

> seem to have the biggest sense of entitlement!

the only one? So wealthy pensioners should be allowed winter fuel allowance? I wouldn't also describe many families in London earning well above the national average as especially wealthy. But times is hard and I reluctantly accept that unpopular cuts are needed including this one, which does affect me too.

[ClareC]

Does earning 42k a year really put you in the top 10% earners in the country? Where did this "fact" come from?

A family living on 42k in London will be far from wealthy whereas in other parts of the country 42k would go much further.

I don't think this has been thought through very well, surely cost of living should be a factor too.

[LondonMix]

This "fact" comes from the BBC amongst other sources...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8151355.stm

50K is when you start to partially lose child benefit. You lose all of it at 60k. 45k makes you a top 10% earner. 42k was just an example of why I think not looking at household income is unfair. Either way I would lose it but I think this element of the new rule penalises single parents and families that have a stay at home parent.

I agree London is more expensive than the rest of the country but London never has its own tax code. If we created it for child benefit, you'd need to do it for income tax, stamp duty etc...

ClareC Wrote:

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

> Does earning 42k a year really put you in the top

> 10% earners in the country? Where did this "fact"

> come from?

>

> A family living on 42k in London will be far from

> wealthy whereas in other parts of the country 42k

> would go much further.

>

> I don't think this has been thought through very

> well, surely cost of living should be a factor

> too.

[amydown]

But the article itself points out that the statistics are only based on "conventional" salarie, excluding self-employed people and non-PAYE bonuses, etc. So, this "fact" doesn't sound very representative.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> This "fact" comes from the BBC amongst other

> sources...

>

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8151355.stm

>

>

> 50K is when you start to partially lose child

> benefit. You lose all of it at 60k. 45k makes

> you a top 10% earner. 42k was just an example of

> why I think not looking at household income is

> unfair. Either way I would lose it but I think

> this element of the new rule penalises single

> parents and families that have a stay out home

> parent.

>

>

>

> ClareC Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Does earning 42k a year really put you in the

> top

> > 10% earners in the country? Where did this

> "fact"

> > come from?

> >

> > A family living on 42k in London will be far

> from

> > wealthy whereas in other parts of the country

> 42k

> > would go much further.

> >

> > I don't think this has been thought through

> very

> > well, surely cost of living should be a factor

> > too.

[fufton]

As a high rate tax payer and (shock horror) a banker it seems I fall into the category of those who should be willing to accept the cut. Unfortunately it's not that cut and dry. I may be a high rate tax payer but it only takes a small amount of income to tip you over that threshold, and as a single parent paying for child care in order to work, child benefit goes a long way to helping out.

Whilst I don't disagree that there are households who can manage without, sweeping generalisations about high earners and bankers are very tiresome, all circumstances are different.

[LondonMix]

Amydown, the figures are representative. Only 300,000 people according the HMRC earn over 150k in the entire country and that includes all income including what is earned outside of PAYE system. The super-rich the article allude to who may fall outside PAYE are a drop in the ocean statistically within the 30 million + UK workforce. Its also a misconception that bonuses aren't taxed via PAYE. They are unless you are awarded shares etc which again is a tiny fraction of the population.

To make it simple, only 3.7m people earn enough to pay the 40% tax rate (42k earnings) in this country which already is already 12% or so of the workforce. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9161858/Budget-2012-Five-million-workers-in-higher-tax-band-after-threshold-falls.html.

[DaveR]

"I'll have to go back to work an extra day from January to make up the shortfall."

I almost missed this, which, somewhat ironically, is the best argument in favour of withdrawing the benefit. Why on earth should everybody else pay you to stay at home?

[ClareC]

amydown Wrote:

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

> But the article itself points out that the

> statistics are only based on "conventional"

> salarie, excluding self-employed people and

> non-PAYE bonuses, etc. So, this "fact" doesn't

> sound very representative.

>

>

>

>

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This "fact" comes from the BBC amongst other

> > sources...

> >

> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8151355.stm

> >

> >

> > 50K is when you start to partially lose child

> > benefit. You lose all of it at 60k. 45k makes

> > you a top 10% earner. 42k was just an example

> of

> > why I think not looking at household income is

> > unfair. Either way I would lose it but I think

> > this element of the new rule penalises single

> > parents and families that have a stay out home

> > parent.

> >

> >

> >

> > ClareC Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Does earning 42k a year really put you in the

> > top

> > > 10% earners in the country? Where did this

> > "fact"

> > > come from?

> > >

> > > A family living on 42k in London will be far

> > from

> > > wealthy whereas in other parts of the country

> > 42k

> > > would go much further.

> > >

> > > I don't think this has been thought through

> > very

> > > well, surely cost of living should be a

> factor

> > > too.

I agree. And it's very out of date.

1% of a small proportion of the population sounds extremely unrepresentative.

Edited to add, I too am in the category of those that will lose out. I don't have an issue with child benefit being means tested, I do however have an issue with Childcare not being tax deductible but that's another thread in itself!

I also think anything that is means tested needs to be done fairly, ie taking into account the full picture. The method this is being done penalises single parents / earners and takes no consideration into regional variations for the cost of living.

[Mrs TP]

Gosh this thread has certainly brought out the good, the bad and the ugly and most disappointingly the vitriolic keyboard warriors.

Fufton I am sorry to have referred to bankers above and should have left it at the super-rich. It was an unwarranted cheap shot - which is about all I can afford these days :)

As others have said, it is not just about income but outgoings too. There will be those who feel they can take the hit and those that can't. Three years ago I would have gladly taken the hit but having since been made redundant we have come to rely on that money to make a significant difference to our modest but not breadline existence. Hadn't realised only those in the most direst of circumstances have the monopoly on not being selfish and being allowed to disagree with gov't policy.

If caring about my family's welfare makes me selfish then I am guilty as charged. However, I am not a single issue person as some would like to think and the nasty judgements in some of the comments here reek of cyber bullying.

Thanks to Chippy Minton for the link.

[ClareC]

Mrs TP Wrote:

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

> Gosh this thread has certainly brought out the

> good, the bad and the ugly and most

> disappointingly the vitriolic keyboard warriors.

>

> Fufton I am sorry to have referred to bankers

> above and should have left it at the super-rich.

> It was an unwarranted cheap shot - which is about

> all I can afford these days :)

>

> As others have said, it is not just about income

> but outgoings too. There will be those who feel

> they can take the hit and those that can't. Three

> years ago I would have gladly taken the hit but

> having since been made redundant we have come to

> rely on that money to make a significant

> difference to our modest but not breadline

> existence. Hadn't realised only those in the most

> direst of circumstances have the monopoly on not

> being selfish and being allowed to disagree with

> gov't policy.

>

> If caring about my family's welfare makes me

> selfish then I am guilty as charged. However, I

> am not a single issue person as some would like to

> think and the nasty judgements in some of the

> comments here reek of cyber bullying.

>

> Thanks to Chippy Minton for the link.

Well said!

[LondonMix]

I can understand that some might be shocked to learn how few people earn what they consider a rather modest income, but to continue to suggest that those earning 50k (and losing child benefit) aren't in the top 10% of earners by suggesting the stats must be wrong is bizarre. The Telegraph articles quotes tax statistics from this March and they aren't a sample, they are the entire UK population. With only 3.7m people earning 42k, I can't really see on what grounds you are questioning my earlier statement.

None of that is to say that such an income makes you wealthy, particularly in London. Though again, the average income in London is only circa 28k so 50k is still well above average...

Starting a petition to reform administration of child benefit so that it takes into account single parents and families with a stay at home parent is something it seems quite a few of us would support, so perhaps we should start a petition on that issue? On the website below, we can start an official in e-petition if people are serious about taking a stand.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/