[Closed] Child benefit cuts

Isn't it from 2013 and I hope they don't assume something like 40k joint income is high earners.

I am just inside the high rate, by a wafer thin mint, wife is no where near. I guess we loose it.

Isn't it from 2013 and I hope they don't assume something like 40k joint income is high earners.

"Child benefit is to be axed for higher rate taxpayers", looks like another lopsided approach.....

If that's correct then 2 earning 30k each will keep it but one earning 45k loses it. Weren't they spouting something yesterday about the distortion of benefits being outrageous? (?sp)

Having children is a lifestyle choice - why should those who earn decent money get benefits because they've chosen to have offspring?

I'm really not very au fait with tax bands and higher and lower rates.. but I am aware that a truly low income family is on less than 10k joint earnings..

I always though that the benefits system was to help those that are most in need...?

Does a single earner on 45k a year really need benefits.? Or two folks on 30k each.?

Does a single earner on 45k a year really need benefits.? Or two folks on 30k each.?

**** yes, Its my slush fund for shiny bits 😉

aP - Member
Having children is a lifestyle choice - why should those who earn decent money get benefits because they've chosen to have offspring?

So they can raise the future generation that will fund your pension/healthcare when you're older maybe??

Does a single earner on 45k a year really need benefits.? Or two folks on 30k each.?

Tory chancellor in redistritutative tax measure shocker.....

It's about time they scrapped it entirely...

Poor you, on just under 44K a year. Isn't that nearly double the average national wage, and 50% more than the average family income in the UK.

I mean you're kids a going to starve right?

Mumsnet will probably implode today.

BBC - "He confirmed the cut would hit homes with a single or two high earners. But families with two parents on modest incomes - which might add up to over £44,000 - will keep the benefit."

aP - Member
Having children is a lifestyle choice - why should those who earn decent money get benefits because they've chosen to have offspring?

Fail. Who is going to look after you when you're old? Who will do your job once you retire?

Having children is a lifestyle choice

Having an espresso machine is a lifestyle choice, having children is pretty much fundamental to the survival of the human race

When I was earning a little over the limit, I certainly wouldn't have missed it.

I've got two children, and if you're going to hide behind the 'doing your bit for the human race' thing, you're a fool.

It is a lifestyle choice. Driven by biology I'll grant you, but its still a choice.

Having an espresso machine is a lifestyle choice, having children is pretty much fundamental to the survival of the human race

But keeping nike on their feet and driving them to school in the back of a bmw is a lifestyle choice. earning 45k is bloody well off and benefits for those earning that much is just buying votes, I am astounded that the tories are cutting middle class payouts, but its the only sensible thing they have come up with so far.

based on current benefit rates, first child entitles everyone to £1055.60, any other child is worth £696.80 per year.
Why high rate taxpayers need this government subsidy is beyond me!

I do think they should have made it a gross household income threshold, like tax credits. Anyone applying for tax credits has to supply household income figures so its information already collected. Not sure on the limit though, as it will always seem unfair to those just above it

regardless of high/low tax & lifestyle arguments I cant help they are tragetting the wrong people
They should remove it completely for the 3rd + child
Its the people that have never worked a day in their life and pop out another kid just so they can get more benifits they should go after
There is a family round our way with 9 kids, they rake in about £55k in benifits and have 2 huge council houses between them

Did seem a hasty and ill thought out announcement though
2x£43k or 1x£45k - who gets, who doesnt?

Having an espresso machine is a lifestyle choice, having children is pretty much fundamental to the survival of the human race

I've got two children, and if you're going to hide behind the 'doing your bit for the human race' thing, you're a fool.

It is a lifestyle choice. Driven by biology I'll grant you, but its still a choice.

Did seem a hasty and ill thought out announcement though
2x£43k or 1x£45k - who gets, who doesnt?

I would almost guarantee this will not fly. Equivalent to a pay drop of greater than £3k to a higher rate taxpayer with 2 children. Now the family with both parents at work are doubly advantaged over a family with one parent at home, tax break and child benefit.

There is a family round our way with 9 kids, they rake in about £55k in benifits and have 2 huge council houses between them

I don't imagine they have much of a life, do you?

Yet another, work hard, stress yourself out to do better than others and you get a kick in the nads for your trouble. Hell, why doesnt everyone just give up work completely, and let the motivated suckers pay the bill. All I hear about are dodgers who earn all their money tax free cash in hand, have two council flats as they dont declare themsleves together, one of which they sub let and have now just bought at a massive discount. Ive been child free for 40 years, and have just had my first 4 weeks ago. Have always been employed or tried to make own businesses work, paid an absolute mint in tax, now am self employed and pay an obscene amount in tax every month, and due to health problems, we had to have IVF, which we had to pay for. Dental treatment I have to pay for, as no dentists around will take on NHS patients. Ante natal classes, none available in the evenings for people who actually work for a living, so had to pay a private midwife to take us through the process.

Your right I dont really need the money, but its the principle of the thing that galls me, just another reason to under achieve. Like the great unwashed of this country need any more excuses to do that!

Rant over, coffee.......

Come on now people! Not so long ago there were howls of protest that Gordon Brown was "spending money we don't have" on unnecessary benefits.

Now you have George Osborne exercising the fiscal responsibility you all demanded and what do we hear - howls of protest. Presumably, the idea was they'd stop spending money on everybody else, rather than you.

Bear in mind that George will feel your pain - they've banned champagne at this year's Conservative party conference.

Your right I dont really need the money,

This.

[I once met a black man] Dave will suffer too, he has kids

Him & Gideon are sharing your suffering

Fail. Who is going to look after you when you're old? Who will do your job once you retire?

Have you ever been to a nursing home? your carer will be a filipino. You find very few brits willing to work for the money in a care home, and next time you winge about how expenisve the fees are, think what they would be if the staff actually earnt a living wage.

As for when you retire, probably be outsourced to China or India, so no need to worry.

[i]I'm really not very au fait with tax bands and higher and lower rates.. but I am aware that a truly low income family is on less than 10k joint earnings..[/i]

Well since that's barely minimum wage for one..., it certainly is truly low.

@ scottyjohn - are you suggesting the reason I earn less than 45k a year is down to laziness?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, if you are on an average, or slightly above average salary, expect to bear the brunt of tax rises - ALWAYS!

This is because people like you form the overwhelming majority of people who pay into the revenue's coffers.

People with high incomes don't feel any significant pain, but policy usually favours them and they can afford accountants to help mitigate their liabilities. As wealthy people are usually high acheivers, they are well equiped to swerve paying and as they are a minority, the revenue generally leave them alone. E.G. Loosing child benefit when you earn £100k is an irrelevance!

This issue is all about how much you have left each month for discretionary spend. A poor person has pretty much none, a middle earner has a little and a top earner has masses. As percentage, the loss of a benfit for a middle earner has a big impact. Neither of the other two groups sees any difference. The low earner sees no change and the high earner sees no change worth considering.

It's those at the bottom of the scale who won't ever have to stump up. They will qualify for everything. There's no incentive for these people to save money or even to keep working. Take a family on a low income in a small dwelling. If they are working, they won't have much spare cash, they won't be able to pay much in tax, but they have kids to educate, need medical care etc just like any other family do. Then imagine the breadwinner loosing his job. They'll get their rent/mortgage interest paid, council tax paid and umpteen benefits bringing their income up to the same (or more) than when the household was economically productive.

A third of your taxes goes on this!

Tax is never fair and middle earners will always have to pay more than their fair share. What I vote for is a party that avoids piling on debt for wasteful non-commercial causes and therefore higher taxes - simple!

work hard, stress yourself out to do better than others

Why would you make that choice!? Work hard to provide for your future and family maybe...

At least your choice seems to have given you a brilliant outlook on life though... I'm guessing that you take your coffee very strong with no milk and some salt..

Im not making suggestions about anyone in particular, but from my side of the fence, there are elements in society who take the p*ss.
I am aware that I have been very lucky in a lot of ways, and that without that luck I may have been earning far less than I am currently. Although my business runs on 3 months contracts, so I could easily be in trouble in a few months.

This is because people like you form the overwhelming majority of people who pay into the revenue's coffers.

I think you will find that far more people earn less than 45k than above that amount, and pay far more in tax and ni contributions as a group.

Sorry all, but we get Child Benefit for our 2 kids, [b]the bottom line is we don't need it and therfore shouldn't get it.[/b]

Would be happy to see this go to more deserving places

Well I'm directly in the firing line as we'll be having kids in the next year or two and earning higher than average.
I think it's quite a fair idea. We can probably get along without it, if we struggle then we'll just deal with it. We all knew that things would be tough.
So in a nutshell, no I don't regret voting tory and I think that the libdems would have had a say in this which is precisely the reason that I like the coalition.

scottyjohn - Member

. paid an absolute mint in tax, now am self employed and pay an obscene amount in tax every month,

and due to health problems, we had to have IVF, which we had to pay for.

Why should I pay for your IVF - having children is not a universal right so why should the taxpayer pay for this.

Dental treatment I have to pay for, as no dentists around will take on NHS patients.

You cannot whinge you pay too much tax and whinge you don't get enough services - services cost and the money comes from tax

Yeah TJ, that was kind of my point in the first post, I pay a lot and get nothing in return. And dont even start on the IVF thing mate.

Having kids is a privilege. Many people never even get to choose whether to have kids or not as they have health issues or social issues that preclude any option.

There are too many humans on the planet using up resources. Eventually we will destroy ourselves due to hitting 'plague' number levels of people. Having more kids is hardly an achievement in itself. Its a greed position.

Some people work really really hard all their lives and never manage to earn large amounts of money - care workers, nurses, lots of people with low paid jobs in a society that really needs their contributions but fails to honestly value them.

The greedy selfish 'I am entitled to kids/extra money when I am already well off' people on here should get over themselves. You sound well beyond terms like 'selfish' and 'self absorbed'. Take a look at yourselves.

we had to have IVF, which we had to pay for

Not that one again? - no you didn't have to have it

Dental treatment I have to pay for, as no dentists around will take on NHS patients.

I think you will find that far more people earn less than 45k than above that amount, and pay far more in tax and ni contributions as a group.

NO! You haven't been listening! Child benefit is going to be cut for joint incomes exceeding £45K. Most housholds have two people working and the average UK income is £26k. I would hazard a guess that most housholds in the the South have incomes exceeding £45k and a great deal else where. £45k is a pretty poor houshold income for the SE region, bordering on inadequate.

Mr Cameroon wanted to give married couple as tax break. The kind of people who have one primary wage and the other parent looking after kids is what he had in mind I am sure. So why is he doing the complete opposite?

would hazard a guess that most housholds in the the South have incomes exceeding £45k and a great deal else where

that is a joke right..?

Child benefit is going to be cut for joint incomes exceeding £45K.

Individual incomes exceeding 45K yes, but if the joint income is > £45K but each parent is below the 40% bracket then they still receive the benefit.

The bbc report said only households where one or both pays the higher tax rate. So two people earning 26k each would still get the benefit.

Between the two of use, we earn less than the higher-rate tax threshold. We'd get by without Child Benefit.

If it means that those genuinely in need would be better off, I'd be happy for the threshold to be lowered further. I know couples who put the Child Benefit into ISAs for their kids each month and are planning on sending them to private school once they hit secondary school age; sorry, but they don't [i]need[/i] the Child Benefit.

Of course, the super wealthy will continue to use loopholes to [s]evade[/s] avoid paying taxes and [i]that[/i]'s where the real changes should be made.

scottyjohn - Member

Yeah TJ, that was kind of my point in the first post, I pay a lot and get nothing in return. And dont even start on the IVF thing mate.

Crap. You don't pay a lot by european standards and you get a lot in return

I say again. Your whinge claimed you paid too much tax and don't get enough services

Services cost tax. want more services pay more tax

yunki - Member

would hazard a guess that most housholds in the the South have incomes exceeding £45k and a great deal else where

that is a joke right..?

Just an indication of far out of touch Spongebob is

"£45k is a pretty poor houshold income for the SE region, bordering on inadequate."
Are you saying that this sum would be adequate in other areas of the country then?

Scottyjohn - why did you not receive IVF on the state? Children from prior relationships or postcode?

Currently women who are receiving child benefit but not working keep their pension contributions current. If they lose this will they have to top up their contributions as well?

NO! You haven't been listening! Child benefit is going to be cut for joint incomes exceeding £45K. Most housholds have two people working and the average UK income is £26k. I would hazard a guess that most housholds in the the South have incomes exceeding £45k and a great deal else where. £45k is a pretty poor houshold income for the SE region, bordering on inadequate.

Just been listening to the tory spokesman on TV, it is not joint income it is on a single income, the argument is it is a far simpler way to administer the system.

As for your 45k, you are a million miles from the truth, the average wage is c£26k the median is much lower and the average household income i have a feeling is around the £30k mark. Looking on the ONS website i can't find gross income, only gross disposable which is around the £13k mark but which has had housing costs removed.

Dental treatment I have to pay for, as no dentists around will take on NHS patients.

Tory policy made this happen

how many years were labour in power?

anyhow, i signed up a with a dentist on the nhs earlier this year. have a look on nhs direct for practices taking on near you. there might be a wait, as from what i can tell, they tend to take on a chunk in one go, but you should find one somewhere.

Labour tried to improve NHS dental services and IIRC guaranteed that everyone could get NHS dental if wanted. They even directly employed dentists to do this

And there is the point yet again totally passing TJ by, unbelievable. I pay more and more taxes all the time, and get less and less in return, what bit of that seems difficult for you to understand?

MF, just always waited till the time was right and suddenly realised time was running out. Could have had it on the state but would need to have waited for upwards of 3 years. And Im not getting any younger 😀

Having children is a lifestyle choice - why should those who earn decent money get benefits because they've chosen to have offspring?

I would dispute the idea that having children is a lifestyle choice. Isn't it more about the innate human desire to reproduce? Having children is not exclusive to those who earn decent money either!

If you look at the facts, middle earners defer having children until much later on, until they feel they can afford to give that child a good start. They carefully weigh up the costs and make sure they can support their actions responsibly.

Conversely, people at the on low incomes/no incomes frequently don't even consider the impact having a child has on houshold income. Money concerns are not on the radar as they know they can get benefits and support if needed. Or perhaps they were too stupid to realise that they weren't going to be able to afford a child. Whatever the reasons, they start families much earlier and are more likely to have more children.

Then there are those who make a career out of pressing out babies and this "lifestyle choice" costs society a fortune! The majority of these kids dont get a good start as they live on the borderline of poverty. Their uneducated parents have no clue how to give their children a good start either. You won't stop this minority behaving so totally irresponsibly, but there should be firm moves to encourage good parenting!

+1 Spongebob

If you look at the facts, middle earners defer having children until much later on, until they feel they can afford to give that child a good start. They carefully weigh up the costs and make sure they can support their actions responsibly.

Often forgetting some of the potential consequences of having children later in life...

Then there are those who make a career out of pressing out babies

Are there? How many? Who?

MF, just always waited till the time was right and suddenly realised time was running out. Could have had it on the state but would need to have waited for upwards of 3 years. And Im not getting any younger

(Father to twins conceived with IVF, paid for by ourselves because our PCT wouldn't provide ANY IVF treatment whatsoever so sitting in a three year waiting list wasn't even an option). Hey-ho.

yes spongebob - note you said nothing about you being wrong when you lectured someone else for not listening re where the cut off was or on the avergae wage 🙄
It is true everyone well off has child for the right reason and ONLY when they can provide for them and everyone poor is stupid and has them because the state will provide for them.. Insightfull do you prefer Eugenics or sterilisation to stop this?

On the topic I think stopping Universal benefits for the wealthy is a reasonably sensible idea. I see little point in giving money to the most affluent members of our society when we are al lmeant to be in this together. I would also look at teh Winter fuel allowance. Even pensioners abroad for the winter get this.

Then there are those who make a career out of pressing out babies and this "lifestyle choice" costs society a fortune!

Tax evasion, done by the very wealthy and those who run their own business, cost society far far more.

scottyjohn - Member

And there is the point yet again totally passing TJ by, unbelievable. I pay more and more taxes all the time, and get less and less in return, what bit of that seems difficult for you to understand?

And the point you miss is you are taxed at a low rate compared to other countries and services cost money. If you want better more comprehensive service you need to pay for them. Want low taxes accept poor services. Want good services accept high taxes

I bet that you pay less tax than someone on PAYE.

spongebob -If you look at the facts,

good - can you give us some? Facts not daily wail suppositions.

I pay more and more taxes all the time, and get less and less in return, what bit of that seems difficult for you to understand?

The bit where you qualify or quantify either.

Edit!

Also as a parent your child will go on to enter education and require other services prior to them making a contribution in terms of tax. Many would argue that you should pay that contribution directly (I wouldnt) which you wont. In a democracy those elected will make those decisions on your behalf and ensure that your child receives the benefits appropriate to an advanced and wealthy country. You are very fortunate and I would argue you are really getting "more and more".

Anyone self-employed who is paying higher rate tax needs to have a word with their [s]tax avoidance consultant[/s] accountant.

😉

Tax evasion, done by the very wealthy and those who run their own business, cost society far far more.

As a direct measure, in £, possibly. But what is the indirect cost and social impact of high child birth rates amongst young, single non-working women?

But what is the indirect cost and social impact of high child birth rates amongst young, single non-working women?

Half a curly wurly... a bag of pickled onion monster munch and twos on a fagbutt rollie... £2.57 and some pocket fluff..

Anyone self-employed who is paying higher rate tax needs to have a word with their tax avoidance consultant accountant.

Or learn to supress their conscience. 😕

A universal benefit for all regardless of income is an anathema.

Child benefit should be used to support and not encourage.

Those of us who have chosen not to have kids, ever stay overnight in hospital, don't go in for IVF, draw down on resources of education for our offspring, should we get a rebate ?

should we get a rebate?

Maybe you could use the money to pimp your headstone?

[i]Currently women who are receiving child benefit but not working keep their pension contributions current. If they lose this will they have to top up their contributions as well? [/i]

Interesting point, but since they reduced the number of qualifying years you need for the state pension; so not so important.

I can though see another 'tax credit fiasco' turning up here, basically do we get CB based upon last years earnings, this years (possible) earnings or...

And if you earn more than expected, do you pay it all back, or some of it - and is it tax-year connected?

Child benefit should be used to support and not encourage

In your opinion.

In times of low birth rates it may be used to do just that. It may then be removed when the balance is rectified.

There'll be tears on the streets of Warsaw.

😉

You could get a rebate at end of life once they know your total draw on public spending over your lifetime.

Maybe you could use the money to pimp your headstone?

Half a curly wurly... a bag of pickled onion monster munch and twos on a fagbutt rollie... £2.57 and some pocket fluff..

OK - good to see that you have your research ready to support your case...

Lol. There are consultants working alongside me at my current contract who pay no tax at all. They are prt of some loophole company setup by a former director at Delloitte, whereby they get paid in Bellarussian roubels and the upshot is they pay no tax and its legit.

They offered me an intro to it, as the joining is by referal only, but I do have a conscience, and want to pay my fair share into the society in which I live. I just dont like havin the p*ss ripped out me 😀

Those of us who have chosen not to have kids, ever stay overnight in hospital, don't go in for IVF, draw down on resources of education for our offspring, should we get a rebate ?

You've [i]chosen[/i] to never stay overnight in hospital?

Maybe you need to think of your taxes as paying back for [i]your[/i] education?

Luckily for you, my kids will eventually pay tax, which will pay your state pension and for health care later in life.

I'm loving the middle class outrage over this 🙂

montylikesbeer - Member

A universal benefit for all regardless of income is an anathema.

There are reasons for universal benefits. The take up is much higher than means tested benefits, they don't contribute to poverty traps and administration is very simple

if they are paid out of taxation all that happens is taxpayers pay extra tax to pay for the benefits - so the net effect for them is the same.

The my kids will pay for your state pension is a bit of a weak argument imo. I expect there won't be a state pension or retirement age will be much higher by the time I reach 65

How can you avoid higher rate? I mean you can avoid some NI but if you take dividends you still have income so have to pay tax - so there's something else you can do?

Anyway, we'll now have a system a bit like stamp duty - someone who earns just over the higher rate level will lose the whole lot so will end up with a lower income than someone just under it - 'please don't give me a payrise' some might ask.

I don't think that any tax is fair as such, it's about what works. The closest I can think of a fair tax is some sort of variation on tax on expenditure so that basics are free of tax but luxuries get a lot whatever that amount might be.