MSE News: 'Re-think' over child benefit changes

Kushan wrote: »

I don't think I necessarily disagree with what the Government is trying to do, however I do disagree with the way they're doing it.

I agree that higher earners should get less benefit, I mean that just makes sense, but the point of a single parent is valid - they're getting penalised when really they shouldn't.

Why it was not set at a higher rate based on total family income right from the start I do not understand.

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Why it was not set at a higher rate based on total family income right from the start I do not understand.

Because all the savings made would be swallowed up by the bureaucracy required to implement the system.

I've just spent a little while reading about child benefit. I don't have kids myself, never felt the need to be honest. What I personally have difficulty with though is why everyone who has children, are (for the most part) automatically entitled to receive child benefit.

Okay, so we have a Welfare State part of which decreed long ago that the poorest of families would receive financial help so as not to place children in unnecessary poverty and of course even I without any children do not want to see the poorest of families suffer. Points I've gleaned about child benefit though:

1. It is non taxable
2. Anyone (for the most part) with a child can receive it
3. The money can be spent on absolutely anything
4. The receiver of the benefit does not have to have paid any working taxes whatsoever to receive it.

I've personally known families who appear never to use child benefit for the actual benefit of their children, but instead use it to fund personal adult habits. The system sadly, is growing out of all proportion. Child benefit is just a handout that everyone with children has become accustomed to receiving and like any benefit people have been getting for so long, taking it away or reducing it will naturally hurt people.

We continue to have a booming population estimated to reach 70 million in the UK by 2027. How exactly is the country going to continue to pay for this? I actually do feel deeply sorry for the poorest children out there who are genuinely suffering whilst some of the most well off people in society quietly stick out their hand every month and take something which they probably don't actually need. I also recognise there are some very well off families with children who don't claim it even though they are entitled. Let's see if the Government can really sort this mess out, sadly though, I don't think they can.

Caddyman wrote: »

I've personally known families who appear never to use child benefit for the actual benefit of their children, but instead use it to fund personal adult habits.

But, presumably, these people use other money (e.g. their wages) to spend on the children. It's all swings and roundabouts.

WestonDave wrote: »

The obvious solution is presumably to allow a parent to claim it if not paying 40% tax, but not if they are. So in a couple with one high earner and one low/non earner, the low earner claims it. That effectively sets the family threshold at £80k as is being hinted at. Its also pretty easy to administer because the claimants NI number can be linked to their tax records and if its being wrongly claimed it can be recovered via a tax coding alteration or tax assessment (for the self employed).

With independant taxation this is probably the only runner in town as anything else involves all sorts of issues regarding linking taxpayers - who do you link them to - their current partner or the childs natural father? What happens if they keep their finances private from each other? As above its a total minefield - politician in "opens mouth before engaging brain" shocker!

Yes it would be a lot simpler, but there are two problems.

Firstly it won't save anywhere near as much as the govt want to save, since families with one HRT payer are much more common than families with two. Secondly it would be seen as discriminating against single parent families.