[Closed] Child benefit cuts

Mumsnet begins to whinge at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 p.m. BST, October 4th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug....."

Judgment Day when the baby strollers took over

I've just done the sums on this

If we didn't use our CB and we put it away for them, each child would get at the age of 18 [b]£16,500 each! plus interest.[/b]

Hardly a fair benefit really

If we didn't use our CB and we put it away for them, each child would get at the age of 18 £16,500 each! plus interest

Would go some way to help them pay off the student loan

It's not just the child benefit payment that people with kids get - they also benefit from free education so when are we going to see that changed? Free education should only be for those kids from lower income tax families right?

Tijuana Taxi - Member

If we didn't use our CB and we put it away for them, each child would get at the age of 18 £16,500 each! plus interest

Would go some way to help them pay off the student loan

Which is exactly what we are doing with my son's child benefit - should nicely cover his uni fees or at least it would have done.

Don't really disagree with the change in theory even though it will mean us not getting it any more though the implementation doesn't sound quite right.

Mandatory free education, you can't opt out

The next logical step to this would surely be to apply a similar ruling to the state pension, albeit at a lower threshold.
Say, income above the age related personal allowance equals no state pension.

for us its the best part of losing about 10% of our cash after tax.

Zedsdead - Member
So let me get this right.

Rather than a combined household income the new system will look at both parents salary?

My wife looked after our 3 kids until they were all at school so has only recently gone back to work.
So, does this mean we both apply?

I dunny get it?

Posted 1 hour ago #
tiger_roach - Member
If one of you pays higher rate tax then neither of you get it.

Neither of us earn close to 44k a year.

So do we both apply?...

Nothing changes for you then - indeed have some more kids...!

3 is enough thanks.

the implementation doesn't sound quite right

About the only alternative I can see is to scrap CB altogether and put the money into child tax credits instead. The problem being that CTCs is a pretty unweildy system with problems of its own, and I'm far from convinced it would result in as much money saving if done that way and also removed from families with a joint income over £45k, given the cost of admin.

Rather than being seen as unfair to single earner higher tax payers, maybe it should just be seen as a bonus to middle income joint earners who effectively get a handout from the cash saved from the admin involved in taking CB away from them if they'd chosen to do that. (Guess what group I'm in - though we're well towards the bottom of that group - I think with all my tax avoidance measures our joint taxable pay is actually below the higher rate threashold).

I'm really not much of a Gideon fan, but this proposal seems fair enough - having children i wasn't compulsory last time i checked and contraception is fairly straightforward 🙂

They should use the same concept with the elderly heating allowance as well - means test it

Lots of weird arguments here. No, it's probably not fair to some, but life isn't fair - you should have learnt that when at primary school.

Benefits exist to support those people who, for whatever reason can't fully support themselves, not to pay out a slush fund to the middle classes.

For those who will lose their CB, let me ask you a simple question:

Will the loss of this money cause your family to go hungry, unclothed or live in an unheated house?

If the answer to "no" then you don't need the money. That's it really.

NHS should be free to only those that can't pay too. Or not.

i was just looking at the BBC web site and saw this and it struck me -
[img] [/img]
that's a face I'd never tire of punching.

i think its a good place to start with the cuts

however the idea that a family with 1 earner getting 45k will loose the benefit but 2 earner family earning 80k combined wont loose it is absolutely ridiculous, who did vote for these muppets?

however the idea that a family with 1 earner getting 45k will loose the benefit but 2 earner family earning 80k combined is absolutely ridiculous, who did vote for these muppets?

This is where the execution of the idea is severely lacking. Should be household income at the very least.

who did vote for these muppets

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

Right, so [b]aP[/b] paying his taxes and NI [u]now[/u] doesn't pay for his [i]own[/i] pension and future health care? If he's chosen not to have kids, then he is actually less responsible for the burden on the State as those who do.

As WCA so beautifully put it the other night;

'that glass of wine won't be around long enough to go off anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it going off'

Quite.

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

Will the loss of this money cause your family to go hungry, unclothed or live in an unheated house?

If the answer to "no" then you don't need the money. That's it really.

Yep. Pretty much spot on I'd say.

I'd impose a tax on the Middle Classes moaning about how unfair life is. Would sort the nation's economy out overnight.

you're right boriselbrus, my kids won't go hungry/unclothed etc but it is a pain the ass. - and it does seem unfair that a household earning 80k can have CB but a single earner(45k) loses theirs.

I'm guessing you don't fall into the worst effected group of people either.

it does seem unfair that a household earning 80k can have CB but a single earner(45k) loses theirs.

a tory party introducing something that hits single parents? hands up everyone who's surprised at that.

I'm not moaning, I'm not middle class. I'm just curious...

Same as StuF here.

BigButSlimmerBloke
its not single parents though is it?
its potential families where one earns £45k, and the other earns less (which could be as low as minimum wage for a part time job)

Right, so aP paying his taxes and NI now doesn't pay for his own pension and future health care?

er.... no, I don't think they put his money to one side for when he needs it

They're pretty much spending what they have coming in as it comes in, so aP's pension & health care will depend [to a large extent] on future tax & NI receipts

Yet again, it appears that government fail to support hardworking families that live by traditional family values (one parent working, the other at home providing good childcare).

They'd prefer to have both parents working and the kids at friends / childminders etc and they wonder why the youth have even less respect for authority / law than previous generations

a tory party introducing something that hits single parents? hands up everyone who's surprised at that.

Maybe you should try sometimes taking off your red tinted glasses, BBSB.

er.... no, I don't think they put his money to one side for when he needs it

No I know, but the fact is that he has paid into the system, and therefore is entitled to it when he needs it. If I pay into a pension scheme for when I'm old and frail, then I bloody well expect to have something to rely on when time comes that I need it. Same with healthcare; I don't want to have to need it, but I'm happy to pay for it just in case. If someone else needs treatment at a time I don't, then fine, spend the money. But make sure there's enough for when I do.

Labour voters in favour of benefits for the rich shocka!

You have children you have to make sacrifices.

If you are really stretched the government helps you out. I have not seen a single decent reason in this thread why people with income above the limit set should receive child benefit. Your income will be less of course but it's more than enough for a family to lie off of unsupported.

Labour voters in favour of benefits for the rich shocka!

I'm not. I say tax the bastards more heavily.

I'd tax Tory voters 3 times the amount everyone else gets taxed....

then I bloody well expect to have something to rely on when time comes that I need it.

You can expect all you want but it won't be there unless enough people are paying into it when you need it

uplink - Member

then I bloody well expect to have something to rely on when time comes that I need it.

You can expect all you want but it won't be there unless enough people are paying into it when you need it

That's right, because at the moment most pension funds are underfunded and if they were wound up there would not be enough money to pay out all of the current and future liabilities.

It is quite frightening just how broke this country is and how much we have borrowed against the future.

but the fact is that he has paid into the system, and therefore is entitled to it when he needs it.

As to getting your pension - by paying for other people's kids education now, that's exactly how you will get it paid for when the time comes. Not vastly conceptually different to a private pension investing on the stockmarket.

The point of child benefit was that it was a benefit for the children, set at a time when men were the main/sole earner and could be relied upon to drink the weekly wage.

Child benefit was therefore a way of ensuring that poverty was avoided; laudable at the time, but now that it's become just another source of income, we have to question the need for it and the effectiveness.

I don't need the child benefit, but I'd far rather that it was properly means tested, then INCREASED for those at the bottom of the pile. Statistics on child poverty in the UK (UNICEF study, Bradbury, 1999) demonstrate that we have approximately 20% of our children living below the official poverty line. OK, so you can argue that poverty is relative, but nevertheless 20% is a high number.

Overall, I'm somewhat uncomfortably agreeing with the ConDems that it should be taken from high earners, but as I say, I'd go a step further and give all that money gained to those who could best make use of it.

No I know, but the fact is that he has paid into the system, and therefore is entitled to it when he needs it.

But it doesn't work like that now does it? I mean plenty get more out of the system than they pay in and plenty get less out - that's what most of us want right?

I'm not. I say tax the bastards more heavily.

Yeah bloomin' rich people what have they ever done for us?

You have children you have to make sacrifices.

But it's reasonable to expect support if one parent were to choose to give up work to bring up those children. But Labour too were all over the idea that Mum works and pays a child minder as they get the income in all manner of ways.. never mind what is best for the child despite their protestations.

You can rail as much as you like about 'you can afford it' and it's true, but the fact is it's a pretty unfair and poorly thought out way of implementing something that needed doing.

There's no concept of "entitlement",

Yes there is! If you pay your Tax and NI, then you do so on the understanding that when you rely on a pension and healthcare, it is there for you. Yes, we all help fund other people's children and stuff, but the argument here is that benefits to those who don't need them drain resources away from those who do. Child Benefit reform is long overdue.

Knowing [b]aP[/b] personally, I know for a fact that he is more than happy to pay taxes to help benefit others who are less fortunate. People don't choose to be ill, or need special services to give them a decent standard of living or quality of life. People do however [i]choose[/i] to have children. That many people who really don't need Child Benefit can still get it, is unfair on others who've made different choices. The money could be much better spent on services for those that actually need them.

Child Benefit is apparently £20.30 for the eldest child, and £13.40 for each additional child, per week.

So a family with 3 kids gets £47.10 a week.

You're telling me a family with a decent income [i]needs[/i] such a relatively small amount?

Giving all families with children CB regardless of income is wasteful.

But it's not that poorer people are losing out it's just that non-kid having people are paying a bit to those with kids. Those with kids still have bigger costs than those without, the payments just negate that a bit. Better off people pay more tax than the poorer but the amount they should pay is opinion.

The point of child benefit was that it was a benefit for the children, set at a time when men were the main/sole earner and could be relied upon to drink the weekly wage.

Nothing to do with benefiting children at all as far as I understand it.

The way they paid it [straight to the mother] was though

it's just that non-kid having people are paying a bit to those with kids

almost like non smokers pay to fund the bill that smokers cause the NHS

according to osbourne the number of families with individual incomes over 43k but earning less than 85 combined is 900 000

so nearly a million families will not be loosing the benefit at a cost of 900000 x £1000 assuming 1 child = 1 billion a year

how can it not be cost effective to calculate that??

almost like non smokers pay to fund the bill that smokers cause the NHS

Erm, so the tax on tobacco that smokers pay doesn't go towards NHS upkeep then? Truth is, that the majority of smokers will actually pay shit loads of tax over their lifetime, but never receive treatment costing anywhere near the amount they'll have paid in. So, smokers help fund the NHs for non-smokers....

(Tax revenue from tobacco products is roughly double what it's [i]estimated[/i] to cost the NHS to treat those suffering from smoking-[i]related[/i] illness)

Not defending smoking btw. It's a disgusting unhealthy habit. It is however a choice I am free to make.