Child Benefit cut

[sifi]

The Government have announced that they are scrapping child benefit for those folk who pay the higher tax rates - 40%.

However, the brilliance of this Government have failed to compute the total household income. So two parents both earning 30k - total household income of 60k - will continue to get the benefit. A sole breadwinner earning 40k - total household income of 40k - will no longer get the benefit.

Also loving the fact that it now seems perfectly normal to announce fundamental policy decisions like this straight to the media, rather than discuss it in the house. Not even pretending to be a democracy, now?

[oafc0000]

I take it is the mothers pay they will be taking into account ?

[sifi]

I take it is the mothers pay they will be taking into account ?

Edited October 4, 2010 by sifimaster

[oafc0000]

Not according to thisarticle.

Edited October 4, 2010 by oafc0000

[gratedenini]

Even me, who unashamedly pins me colours to the mast, have thought for many years that Child Benefit should be the one to be axed... for rich people.

Therefore, whilst I feel the principle is right...the threshold of 40k is wrong.

Even allowing for the fact that people can claim Working Tax Credit and Family Tax Credit etc... 40k isn`t that much in terms of todays soceity (although I wouldn`t mind a bit of it!)and so having Child Benefit cut is a blatant chop at people on the lower end of the scale yet again.

What the f**k will it matter to someone who earns 100k if they dont see another 50 odd quid a month,or whatever it is going into their accounts?

It just seems so wrong to me.

den

[oafc0000]

I am not rich but I am better off than a lot of a country... but I will miss it... Its nearly £1000 a year tax free...

Ultimately it will effect the kiddy as we do use the money on her... Its been paying for her Waterbabies lessons... Not saying this will stop (it won't) but it means belts getting tighter...

We are lucky, we have two healthy incomes... But there are a A LOT of struggling people of single parents on £40-£50k incomes... I imagine its going to hurt them a lot...

[Pogues Mcgogues]

The problem with making things non universal. When it's means tested, it has to be done to the best of their ability to make it right. It never works 100% either and then requires some give or take. Strict cut off points don't realy work.

[oafc0000]

Just done the maths and I should still be able to claim it...

[Uncle Liam]

A policy which is long overdue. Oaf has it right, £1000 a year tax free. Just ridiculous. It might sound harsh, but you live on a comfortable income , you chose to have a child, you chose to send it to waterbabies, why should the state and taxpayer pay for it?

As for people earning six figures, my mum and uncle both live in houses where 200K+ is brought in, and they arent happy about it. What an embarrasment.

It the same with winter fuel allowance, the woman next door to my mum who is a rich pensioner openly admits she uses her allowance to go on holiday with.

[oafc0000]

A policy which is long overdue. Oaf has it right, £1000 a year tax free. Just ridiculous. It might sound harsh, but you live on a comfortable income , you chose to have a child, you chose to send it to waterbabies, why should the state and taxpayer pay for it?

As for people earning six figures, my mum and uncle both live in houses where 200K+ is brought in, and they arent happy about it. What an embarrasment.

It the same with winter fuel allowance, the woman next door to my mum who is a rich pensioner openly admits she uses her allowance to go on holiday with.

Edited October 4, 2010 by oafc0000

[sifi]

Just done the maths and I should still be able to claim it...

[oafc0000]

I thought it was fairly straight forward - if either of you earn more than 37K (which is the 40% tax bracket), then you don't get it?

[oafc0000]

A policy which is long overdue. Oaf has it right, £1000 a year tax free. Just ridiculous. It might sound harsh, but you live on a comfortable income , you chose to have a child, you chose to send it to waterbabies, why should the state and taxpayer pay for it?

Edited October 4, 2010 by oafc0000

[sifi]

Wife is dropping hours because of the baby... So we are not sure were that leaves her salary at the moment... The wife just told me in fact she will be well over the threshold... Oh well...

[Snufflebutt]

Hmm, on the face of it, a fairly simple and one thats fair. BUT I think child benefit should be given to all no matter what their income, as a way to recognise the burden of caring for children. If we cut the child benefit no matter what the income is, we might as well take away the state pension for everyone.

EDIT: It's hardly saving a great deal of money anyway - £1bn in the grand scheme of things isnt a lot, when the government is trying to save a lot more money by cancelling contracts to build aircraft carriers.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Snufflebutt

[oafc0000]

That's why Pogo says it's a bit rubbish - she could technically cut her working hours by half an hour, earn just under the tax threshold and be better off as such.

It's a poor peice of legislation designed to deflect some of the accusations that have been levelled at this Government about how they've been hitting the poor. Surely there are better options.

Although now they are saying it's 44,000 not 37,000. Is the higher tax rate going up between now and 2013 when this legislation is being introduced?

Edited October 4, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Now this is funny

My facebook is going nuts with people moaning about it A lot of my friends voted Tory and will get stung by this Reap what you sow ?

[t8yman]

we'll be OK, we dont even reach the threshold combined.

Its always going to be a minefield legislating for this kind of thing, at least they are doing something. its obscene that someone on 70k can get child benefit. social security should be just that - a safety net, not something to prop up Jacinda's stable fees.

[lost]

it does seem a strange measure as has been mentioned household income would of been better but I'm guessing this is a stop gap and this will eventually be axed in the move towards a universal benefit which was mentioned at the weekend hence its only being kept to protect the poorest until the full plan is implemented.

[oafc0000]

Someone makes a good point on Facebook... It isn't considering how many children people have...

Here is her comment:

And no account of how many kids you have. We are going to lose massively, especially as more than likely I will lose my job through cuts too, but as Paul earns right on the cusp of higher tax all CB will go. As Paul says we would be much better off if we split up.

[Shinny]

I'm all against cutting Child Benefit to any family. Yeah, people chose to have kids, but even high earners need some help every so often. These are hard times FOR EVERYBODY, not just people at the bottom. In my opinion child benefit should be tiered (just like any other) with the most going to the people who need it, the least going to the people who don't.

[Uncle Liam]

I actually support universal benefits... We all contribute to the pot and I don't see why we shouldn't all get something out of the pot at various points... The balance always has to be tipped towards the bottom of the scale though. The most in need should get the most.

In these dark times though, its not worth fighting against... I think the implementation though is wrong...

[Uncle Liam]

I'm all against cutting Child Benefit to any family. Yeah, people chose to have kids, but even high earners need some help every so often. These are hard times FOR EVERYBODY, not just people at the bottom. In my opinion child benefit should be tiered (just like any other) with the most going to the people who need it, the least going to the people who don't.

[oafc0000]

I contribute to the pot, and as i wont be having kids, I am not and wont be taking anything from the pot unless I get ill or lose my job. And at the age of 27, its going to be another forty years before I do take anything from the pot. As someone who earns just below the national average wage, I think its totally wrong for me (and others in the same situation) to prop up the incomes of (lower) middle class families earning nearly twice what I do.

[oafc0000]

Why does my 200k per annum mother and step dad need child benefit? Why does my 150K+ uncle need child benefit?