Child benefit cuts

But the couple earning £80k won’t be earning that while the woman is on maternity leave + whatever time they want to take (up to a year I believe).
Like I say, I think we can manage without the benefit but I understand the methodology as the couples income will be halved (assuming equally paid jobs).

I agree that the case is different for single parents.

For any single earner family in £45..50K territory, it’s seriously worth looking at the work/life balance after this, for those of us who don’t see their family enough already. I’d seriously consider negotiating (say) 90% work, to get below the ~44k level and keeping the allowance. Overall loss would be probably 3..4k gross. So for probably ~ £35 a week net, I could get double the holiday, more family time, and probably help out my wife’s small craft business enough to make up the difference anyway.

Perhaps it’s a nice opportunity after all..

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?

If one of you pays higher rate tax then neither of you get it.

This goes against a manifesto promise.

Say one of you is in the 40% – £44k bracket and the other works full time but only earns £10k, you loose the benefit. Yet couple next door earn £79k between the 2 of them keep to keep the benefit.

Thats fair isnt it !!

What’s that Voltaire quote “the perfect is the enemy of the good”

Now I’m not a particular fan of the Conservatives, however what they are saying here seems to me to pretty sensible. If you accept that this universal benefit has to end as they do (I realise that there are those who do not agree with this) then this seems to be a pretty easy way to impliment it. It isn’t completely fair, however no-one has stated that it is and in an interview this morning on Radio 4 George Osbourne acknowledged as much. What it is however is a very simple and cheap way of implimenting this change. Making it 100% fair would almost certainly involve a very comlicated system and with complexity comes cost thereby reducing the benefit to the taxpayer.

This goes against a manifesto promise.

The argument goes that the manifesto pledge was not to introduce means testing. This isn’t means testing, it’s effectively ‘higher rate taxpayer’ testing!

Whats even more ridiculous

Say you have 3 kids and earn £200 under the threshold. get a pay rise of £250 and you go over the theshold and lose £2000 pa in benefits? so your spending powewer is 1750 less for a £250 pay rise?

this is why they have universal benefits and tapers for means tested benefits.

Doesn’t affect me as I earn less than 44K and my daughter is nearly twenty anyway

To my mind it seems fair enough, now lets stop all the rich pensioners clogging up the buses riding about for free and getting 400 quid to supposedly heat their houses whilst they winter abroad

clogging up the buses

Never see buses clogged up – they are usually next to empty. And this is in Harrogate, an OAPs wet dream.

2) Only 1 pint after work on a Friday.

As opposed to 8?

You try going to pub to have 3 or 4 pints and not get round in when you are a team manager 😆

“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…..”

I’m guessing from this that you’ve no kids and don’t live in the SE?

One kid. Lived in London until recently (although before kids).

It is clearly quite possible to live in London with a kid and not have anything like 44k income. I know people who do it. It is also possible to decide that you want a lifestyle that requires a massive income, and to spend pretty much any amount of money you happen to have on your lifestyle. It isn’t obvious to me that the government should subsidise people with more expensive lifestyle choices, or who choose to live in fancy areas?

What it is however is a very simple and cheap way of implimenting this change. Making it 100% fair would almost certainly involve a very comlicated system and with complexity comes cost thereby reducing the benefit to the taxpayer.

Exactly – you can hate the tories (what sane person doesn’t?), but if they want to save money by cutting child benefit bills, this is probably a practical way to do it. The big problem with most alternative ways people are suggesting, is the great big administrative cost, which would probably wipe out much of the savings, and create complicated screw ups, like in the current tax credit system, or ways to dodge it. Here, there is one simple rule, which you have to be aware of.

Also, surely most people on that level of pay are negotiating their pay rises, rather than just being given particular fixed rises, so I’m sure people will keep it in mind when negotiating pay rises that go past the threshold.

Joe

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 £16,500 each! plus interest.

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

From the POV of fairness, maybe not. As a way to save money (which is really the whole point) it’s by far the best way to implement it. The thing is, if it didn’t already exist, introducing a benefit for people with children would result in lots of wailing if they did extend it to higher rate taxpayers.

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 –

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

start with spongebrain, continue with bampothotelworker69, on past lala11 from lala-land and you’ll get the picture as to the kind of turkeys that voted for christmas.
..oh and a few libdems, who are probably less than completely proud of their “tactical voting” abilities just now

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

Right, so aP paying his taxes and NI now doesn’t pay for his own 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)