Protests Against cuts to Child Benefit

[DaveR]

"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."

Making allegations of bullying is just nonsense, I'm afraid. Arguing that higher rate taxpayers should retain child benefits is an argument in favour of redistribution from poorer people to richer people. That may be an uncomfortable truth, but it is true.

No-one is accusing anyone of personally being selfish, or unworthy, or disputing that being a higher rate taxpayer necessarily means you are rich, or even very comfortable. But this thread is about opposing this policy, and I haven't yet heard an argument against it that is not based ultimately on the self-interest of the affected group.

[INMCD]

Now I know why I never comment on this forum! DaveR - no-one's paying me to stay at home. I work and contribute to the family finances but when we lose the child benefit it'll make a big different to us. Most working parents spend a large proportion of their salaries on childcare and the child benefit definitely helps with that.

[ClareC]

INMCD Wrote:

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

> Now I know why I never comment on this forum!

> DaveR - no-one's paying me to stay at home. I work

> and contribute to the family finances but when we

> lose the child benefit it'll make a big different

> to us. Most working parents spend a large

> proportion of their salaries on childcare and the

> child benefit definitely helps with that.

The cost of Childcare is extremely high in this country, this actively stops a large number of people being able to work at all. Taking child benefit away makes it even harder (financially) to work. If it means less people being able afford to work that has a very negative effect.

Edited to add, if earning 42k genuinely puts you in the top 10 % of earners nationally, it's sad that someone on that bracket couldn't physically afford Childcare x 2 plus living expenses in ED. surely the government should be encouraging parents to work not making it financially impossible! Something needs to change.

[DaveR]

"Now I know why I never comment on this forum! DaveR - no-one's paying me to stay at home. I work and contribute to the family finances but when we lose the child benefit it'll make a big different to us. Most working parents spend a large proportion of their salaries on childcare and the child benefit definitely helps with that."

INMCD, this is not personal, it's political. There are unavoidable logical consequences of arguing against withdrawing child benefits from higher earners, and if you pursue the argument you have to face the consequences. You said that you will have to work an extra day to make up for the loss of the benefits, thus at the moment the benefits pay for you to spend that day not working. The benefits are paid out of general taxation, including, for example, taxes paid by childless people working full time on the minimum wage. They are subsidising that day you stay at home. You are arguing that they should continue to do so. I disagree. That's all.

[Mrs TP]

As a matter of interest what is the correct level of social poverty before one is allowed to complain?

We shouldn't be bringing everyone down to the lowest common level but bringing everyone up to a decent and most importantly secure level - if I could be sure such ill thought out cuts to child benefit would achieve this then great but it's not going to happen. This time next year more ordinary people will be worse off but definitely not Mr Cameron and his buddies.

[LondonMix]

Clare C-- I agree the high cost of living in London (including housing and child care) will eventually force most families on 50k incomes out of the city unless something changes. More housing is needed and more affordable childcare options. Even though subsidised child care would mean higher taxes (particularly for those who are already high-rate tax payers) for me it would be worth it as I would prefer to spread the cost out over my entire working life rather than have it all concentrated during the early years of parenting. When my partner and I first did the sums it was eye-watering (still is)

[DaveR]

"Edited to add, if earning 42k genuinely puts you in the top 10 % of earners nationally, it's sad that someone on that bracket couldn't physically afford Childcare x 2 plus living expenses in ED. surely the government should be encouraging parents to work not making it financially impossible! Something needs to change."

I don't want to be picky but the key words in the statement above are "in ED". East Dulwich is an expensive place to live. Sure, there are lots of more expensive places, but there are cheaper places too, where ?42k will go a lot further.

On the childcare front though I entirely agree. There is a really compelling argument that public subsidies for high quality childcare pay for themselves through social and economic benefits.

Edited to add: if anybody thinks that ED is not an expensive neighbourhood, go onto Rightmove and do a search for 3 bed houses in SE London, max price ?250,000.

[zeban]

ClareC Wrote:

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

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

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

> come from?

>

Wow, you really live on another planet don't you! Do you actually realise how little some people earn? I'm not saying a family on 42k in London are rich but by god you are not poor. You may struggle to keep a car and go on family holidays abroad but you do not struggle to feed and clothe your children, or pay your rent- as mortgages, which I'm sure most of you have- are lower than private rents in London, and those earner a low or even average salary could never get a mortgage. I have no sympathy for people who just don't realise what's it's like to live with so little.

[LondonMix]

Mrs TP- you are right, everyone?s quality of life is going to go down. Since long before the financial crisis, the UK has been spending more than its taking in. This is not sustainable and the financial crisis of course has made it even less so. Balancing the books means spending less on services and / or increasing taxes. Either way, the old quality of life is gone and what we have to agree on is how to spread the pain in the most equitable way possible that actually works.

I for one believe that the pace of cuts should slow down to avoid creating a vicious downward spiral regarding economic growth. BUT, costs must be cut even if they are spread into the future. Given that current spending levels were creating a deficit even during the boom times, economic recovery alone will not solve the country?s fiscal problems.

Mrs TP Wrote:

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

> As a matter of interest what is the correct level

> of social poverty before one is allowed to

> complain?

>

> We shouldn't be bringing everyone down to the

> lowest common level but bringing everyone up to a

> decent and most importantly secure level - if I

> could be sure such ill thought out cuts to child

> benefit would achieve this then great but it's not

> going to happen. This time next year more

> ordinary people will be worse off but definitely

> not Mr Cameron and his buddies.

[TE44]

Mrs TP, I don't know if you were given a chance to appeal the decision to stop your child benefit, but i think a complaint would have been as far as you got. Whether people who are being refused food parcels after having sanctions on there benefits, or people with disabilities, some dying after being told they are fit for work, I think you'll find regardless of the level of poverty, many people feel there complaints are unheard.

[ClareC]

zeban Wrote:

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

> ClareC Wrote:

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

> -----

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

> top

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

> "fact"

> > come from?

> >

>

>

> Wow, you really live on another planet don't you!

> Do you actually realise how little some people

> earn? I'm not saying a family on 42k in London are

> rich but by god you are not poor. You may struggle

> to keep a car and go on family holidays abroad but

> you do not struggle to feed and clothe your

> children, or pay your rent- as mortgages, which

> I'm sure most of you have- are lower than private

> rents in London. I have no sympathy for people who

> just don't realise what's it's like to live with

> so little.

And how did you reach that conclusion??

Perhaps you would be so kind to explain how an (admitted) lack of knowledge regarding national salary statistics on my part somehow correlates to no understanding how little some people earn? ? I don't see the link myself.?

Perhaps I am simply more than aware of the cost of living.?

If earning 42k puts someone into that top 10% bracket, in financial terms the top 10% of supposed high earners (ie a minority of the population as a whole) could not possibly buy a?

family house not only in London but a large part of the country too.?

I guess I am so detached from reality I just hadn't spotted those 10 x salary 100% mortgages out there ;)?

[LondonMix]

That's not true. I have friends who each earn less than that and as a couple can afford a home of 250k on a combined household income of circa 75k (which is still above avg. mind). They are moving to Mottingham in Greenwich as there you can buy a 3 bed house for that price. The schools aren't bad either and its fairly green. Their future mortgage will be less than their current rent in SW London. If you are an avg worker in London you need to typically buy a house with a partner who works and live further out in an area most people on high incomes have probably never heard of :)

Edited to add: No one ever thinks they are well-off or can fathom how other people live I?ve come to realise. One of my old bosses once told me over dinner that to live ?modestly? in London (ie small home, 1 basic holiday a year etc) you need to earn as a minimum 250k a year. Given that at most only a couple hundred thousand people in the whole country earn incomes at or above that figure and London is a city of 7million people I wonder how the sheer absurdity of that comment never dawned on him. The problem is that when you only socialize with people of your own socio-economic background you can start to lose perspective on how few of you there really are.

[ClareC]

But as a couple the second salary needs to be pretty significant to afford 2x Childcare enabling work.....

Edited to add, I'm not disputing that 42k is a good salary, just questioning whether it is just 10% that earn this or more.

[zeban]

>

> Edited to add: No one ever thinks they are

> well-off or can fathom how other people live I?ve

> come to realise. One of my old bosses once told

> me over dinner that to live ?modestly? in London

> (ie small home, 1 basic holiday a year etc) you

> need to earn as a minimum 250k a year. Given that

> at most only a couple hundred thousand people in

> the whole country earn incomes at or above that

> figure and London is a city of 7million people I

> wonder how the sheer absurdity of that comment

> never dawned on him. The problem is that when you

> only socialize with people of your own

> socio-economic background you can start to lose

> perspective on how few of you there really are.

That is so unbelievably true, especially the last part.

[LondonMix]

Clare C- to be totally honest with you they are panicking about it, which is why I know all the details. A childminder around there costs about 700 per child so they can both continue to work with a household income between the two of them of 75k ( she brings home circa 1.5k a month and him 3k post tax) but with a huge change in life style.

[zeban]

And there's the rub-LIFESTYLE. That's all I can see this argument amounts to. That those who may lose the money don't want to have to change their lifestyle. You simply have to be prepared to change your lifestyle and if that means going back to work one day a week because you lose child benefits well, so what! You're doing ok, I'm sure you want to be doing better but hey, you're not destitute. And plenty of people can buy a house on a decent salary, it might just not be in East Dulwich! I don't think that's sad one little teeny tiny bit. There are plenty of cheaper places to live. What is sad is people becoming homeless because rents are getting so out of control in the whole of London and more and more people who actually really need such benefits like housing are being cut. I really don't understand how some people miss the bigger picture so much!!

Now if you started a campaign for more affordable childcare then I'd be marching with you! It's appalling how much childcare is in this country and would happily fight for this cause, as well as bringing in rent caps like the rest of Europe.

[dulwichgirl2]

Childcare should be deductible and child benefit should be means tested.

Now, more financially significantly, what should happen to the massive non producers and massive pensions entitlement of the group known as state employees?

[Chippy Minton]

"Childcare should be deductible and child benefit should be means tested."

Our tax system is based on individuals, so it would mean loads of red tape to cut through in order to means test. That would make it too expensive to do.

"Now, more financially significantly, what should happen to the massive non producers and massive pensions entitlement of the group known as state employees?"

Oh dear.

[Otta]

We will be going to the October 20th march, but not because of child benefit, but rather some of the serious cuts that are being made.

I would be very interested to hear what people feel they will have to sacrifice to make up for the loss of their CB. I feel pretty sure that none of you will say that your child won't be fed and clothed anymore.

CB is a wonderful thing, and it would be great if the country still had enough money for everyone to have it, but we need to be realistic. We also chose where to live. I am born & bred in East Dulwich, and now live (rent) in Sydenham with my family. We don't have loads of spare cash, but we chose to live where we live. If we want more money, we could go and live somewhere cheaper.

What is a worry is that CB is a benefit paid directly to the mother, and there are probably a lot of women out there who don't have much access to any other funds, who's husbands hold the purse strings. For these women, it could be a very serious loss.

[slipons]

I have researched this unfair policy extensively. In this scenario i cannot see how you will be forced to pay the Tax.

Father and Mother live together and have children, Father is earns >50K, Mother earns <50K. Mother claims the CB for all children in her name only and pays the money into an account also in her name only (of which father has no access to).

Father receives letter from HMRC asking if Mother is willing to give up CB, so father will not be liable to Tax. Father asks Mother is she receives CB and will stop claiming it. Mother tells Father her financial affairs are her business only and will not disclose if she does or does not receive it. The Mother continues to claim CB without telling the Father.

The father receives his Tax return and is asked to declare if the family receive CB and enter the amount on the form so the tax can be deducted. Father again asks Mother, she again tells him her financial affairs are her business and will not disclose as there is no law that forces her to. Father then calls HMRC to ask if the mother is in receipt of CB and how much so he can declare on the Tax return. The HMRC are unable to tell the Father if the Mother is in receipt of the benefit or how much she receives because of individual taxation and data protection laws. The father submits ?0 on the tax return and states he has made reasonable attempts to obtain the information, but was unable to establish how much Tax he is liable for.

As this is all unworkable, i fully expect to see another U-Turn on this!

[LondonMix]

Yes, if you assume most people are prepared to commit tax fraud. I imagine if that happens, HMRC will just make it an automatic change to higher rate tax payers tax codes. Everyone can then claim it but an automatic tax adjustment will hit those who earn over 50k if they have children. There are very easy ways to make it work...

[Mrs TP]

You can't tax one person based on another's income receipts.

We are in the position where I receive the benefit and only my hubbie is a tax payer.

If he is to be taxed on my income (the benefit) then shouldn't he be able to take advantage of my currently unused tax allowance? Joint income = joint tax allowance.

Perhaps I will get more support for joint tax allowance than stopping the withdrawal of child benefit - I've reworked my policy, just call me Nick Clegg!

[Saffron]

I would also support a more flexible approach to filing taxes. It's common in other coutries, notably the US*, that partners can file joint or separate taxes depending what deductions and liabilities are most appropriate to their situations.

*...though having filed taxes in the States in the past, I wouldn't necessarily hold them up as a shining example of how to run a tax system - nobody's perfect

[LondonMix]

Agree that household income should be the test

Edited following for wise comments of Wishfulthinking!

[slipons]

The only fair way to do this is to scrap CB completely and pay it the Child Tax Credit system. The Gov't have ruled this out because they feel it would bring more people into the tax credit system, the real reason is that it would affect many more people (using combined household) income and there would be much more noise. This way they get to divide and conquer. The outcome we are left with some households earning a combined salary of ?50K+ (single earner scenario), losing some or all of the benefit, with the dual earner scenario been able to earn up to ?99K and keep all of it. I for one will fight this unfair policy to the bitter end.