Child Benefit

[flip_flop]

How the hell can a family with a single earner earning £60,001 lose all of their child benefit, yet a family with two earners each earning £49,999 will keep all of theirs?

This is a massive anomaly which the Govt has tried to explain away by stating it would be too complicated to administer.

What is too complicated about using the household income to determine who does and does not get child benefit.

In addition to losing my family's child benefit, I read in the paper yesterday that Ed Balls wants to take away my tax relief for my pension contributions in order to pay for the long term unemployed!

Does anybody else feel we get screwed at every turn?

[ichkeria]

I'm at a loss to see how these proposals address the issue of people 'not responsible for the upkeep' of their children? Surely it is totally indiscriminate in that regard. If you aren't responsible btw I'm bound to say you are a bit like the footballer 'not interfering with play'. What are you doing on the pitch(!)

[TTG]

Does not solve the problem of encouraging people to fund their own childrens upbringing instead of relying on the state and other peoples taxes.

[TTG]

Sorry ich, stole a little of your thunder there.

[furrypusscat]

My mother bought up myself and my older sister without any help then. That is only 66 years ago not prehistoric times.

[Mamyalynne]

Family Allowance [as it was then known] was started in 1946, for obvious reasons due to postwar deprivations, albeit at that time not for the first born.

The newly proposed measures are in my opinion ill thought out with regard to the anomaly in the dual earnings rule, could I do better - probably not.

[Mattk]

I'm no Tory but I applaud this decision. We brought our kids up on an income of less than half the figures given and found the benefit invaluable.

I'm sorry but at 50k+ per year you simply do not need this benefit.

[humbersloop]

it's a shambolic policy, aimed at a soft target.

More generally, the welfare reforms - of which this is only one part - look set to impact increasingly adversely on working families rather than the workshy benefit scroungers we're encouraged to believe in. Illustrative figures in the second letter on this page

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2013/jan/05/cameron-new-year-message-what-best-for-children

[ichkeria]

Don't really see how it addresses the issue of wealthy people receiving child benefit either to be honest. If you don't 'opt out' then you'll still receive it but will pay more tax to compensate. If you are honest that is

[flip_flop]

I've got to say, I've always found the whole idea of child benefit a bit odd on the basis that having children is a personal choice and therefore the parents should be paying for them, not the taxpayer....so I'm not that bothered that I will have to opt-out.

Having said that, I was perfectly happy to accept the benefit given the amount of tax I've paid throughout my working life - it was my way of thinking I was getting a bit back: if fat lazy workshy wastrels are allowed to get free money, then I was happy to get a bit of my tax back.

VHG said some couples refuse to tell each other how much they earn. If this is true, then I'm truly flabbergasted - if a couple don't divulge this most basic of information to each other, then they shouldn't really be together. In any event I'd be surprised if the data protection thing is true - Mrs Flop was done for speeding a few years ago and she was required to provide a household income figure. But even if it is true, this is a pretty easy fix.

It should be based on household income - the system coming in is just simply not fair. As somebody earlier in this thread said, the person earning £60,001 is not receiving any child benefit, but is paying for the child benefit of a couple earning £49,999 each. This is just bonkers.

[New Judge]

“Disclosing a household income could lead to major problems amongst couples, and could even be challenged in court.

What you earn and what income tax you pay is a private personal matter and sometimes a husband or wife may not tell their partner what they earn. “

That may well be so, VHG. That being the case the government ought to reconsider the way it assesses eligibility for Pension Credit, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit. All of these are assessed taking household income into account.. Applicants for those benefits must give their joint income and none of the problems you describe seem to have caused a problem, so where’s the difference?

Leaving aside the issue of withdrawing Child Benefit from higher earners, the way it is being done is completely unjust.

For furrypusscat’s infor, no, Child Benefit wasn't given at all years ago. But income tax relief (usually payable to the father) for those with children was. Child Benefit (payable to the mother) replaced that allowance.

[ummmm]

Payable to the main carer, which isn't always the mother.

[weecalf]

Is a country not to important to let any mp anywhere near the running of it?

[DaisyNonna]

I always thought that marriage was supposed to be a partnership. If one of the two does not want the other to know of his/her earnings they should not be married. If they will not allow disclosure, then the benefit should be with-held.

[craft1948]

I got screwed over in last years budget when I lost out on the higher tax relief threshold for pensioners, if I'd been 4 months older I'd have been okay.
Regarding child benefit in this age of contraceptive choice I believe if you can't afford them, don't have them.

[weecalf]

We cant afford mps but we have got over 600 of them

[jewellerjim]

I agree no one should have children who expect the state to pay for them. No one earning anywhere near those figures should need this money but it cannot be a rule for one and a rule for the others. If it is paid for one child it should be paid for all, or NOT AT ALL.