I see two key themes in this thread:
OP – earns a decent wage and points out oddity in how child benefit is worked out, perceives this as unfair. Misses how this would be interpreted by the High Horse Brigade. OP tops up income with benefits. STW says OP is bad. STW says anyone earning £50k a year and getting benefits is bad.
Yunki – yunki and partner choose to work as little as is feasible to keep family afloat financially (not suggesting for a moment that there’s anything wrong with this, merely pointing out that it’s out of choice). Yunki tops up income with benefits. STW says Yunki’s situation is OK because he’s not rich.
Hmmmm, could it be that the “right” to benefits isn’t as black and white as everyone wants it to be?
I don’t agree that anyone with significant means should be entitled to benefits (I can’t define significant because it’s entirely dependent on lots of factors – ie you’re probably going to be comfortable with a £30k household income for two adults and two kids in gateshead, but not in London).