Child Benefit axed for higher income families

Buffy4572

I still can't get over the shock that some people earn 44k!!! Blimey! Last year my hubby earned just over 12k and we're just blooming grateful he still has a job. The CB I get each month pays a large chunk of the mortgage so I'm very glad we get it.

Loz01

If people are just paying it into a savings account then it is time to cut it for some families! It is free money after all just for having kids... if you work full time and dont have them then you dont get anything back either.

Also it should be capped at 2 so people dont end up raking in hundreds a month for their 5/6/7/8 kids.

doctorseuss

LindseyandMatthew wrote: »

I totally disagree that a couple earning 80k between them should still be entitled when a family with one wage earner of 44k loses out. It really should go on household income.

To the person who 'only' has £200 a week to feed, clothe and entertain......we have to do that on £62.50 for a family of 4 so sorry but no sympathy there at all

I'm being somewhat misquoted by several people. I gave you my fixed outgoings and then invented two fictional salaries to illustrate how little would be left even with one earning 45K. For those fixating on £200 please adjust one salary accordingly or move outgoings by a reasonable amount. The point is 45K won't get you far in W.London as part of a HH with two working parents unless the other income is pretty high. I am not saying these people should get CB, I am saying it's ridiculous to say you wouldn't struggle. I wonder what some peoples definition of struggle is, tbh. Living on credit is not getting by without struggling.

artybear

doctorseuss wrote: »

I'm being somewhat misquoted by several people. I gave you my fixed outgoings and then invented two fictional salaries to illustrate how little would be left even with one earning 45K. For those fixating on £200 please adjust one salary accordingly or move outgoings by a reasonable amount. The point is 45K won't get you far in W.London as part of a HH with two working parents unless the other income is pretty high. I am not saying these people should get CB, I am saying it's ridiculous to say you wouldn't struggle. I wonder what some peoples definition of struggle is, tbh. Living on credit is not getting by without struggling.

I think struggle would be defined as not being able to pay rent/buy essential clothes or have food on the table. They are the necessities in life.

shop-to-drop

artybear wrote: »

I think struggle would be defined as not being able to pay rent/buy essential clothes or have food on the table. They are the necessities in life.

That's why a high rate tax payer would struggle they have to pay for all those things themselves no help. They have to support there partner and their (say) three children. They also have to support in terms of taxes 5 other families. Many of whom don't need to struggle because they have their rent clothes food on the table paid by these taxes.

I think it is an absolute disgrace that all those who are not high rate tax payers think it unreasonable that those that are paying so much in shouldn't expect a little back while they are supporting there own dependents.

My husband on 47K is still paying in over £1K a month even taking off the child benefit we currently get for our three kids.

Many high rate tax payers have lived on much less money or on benefits themselves so we know what we are talking about. How many of you on your high horse saying it's a disgrace that families struggle on £44K have ever been in that situation themselves to know what it is like?

ukjoel

Can someone clarify the point made in a couple of earlier posts about using legitimate tax avoidance techniques such as childcare vouchers, and increased pension contributions to bring yourself under this threshold if you were marginally over.

I thought this was based on pre tax income and therefore if your original salary was over the threshold there was no wriggle room.

Has this been clarified yet either way?

Ta

doctorseuss

ukjoel wrote: »

Can someone clarify the point made in a couple of earlier posts about using legitimate tax avoidance techniques such as childcare vouchers, and increased pension contributions to bring yourself under this threshold if you were marginally over.

I thought this was based on pre tax income and therefore if your original salary was over the threshold there was no wriggle room.

Has this been clarified yet either way?

Ta

Childcare vouchers are a gross salary sacrifice scheme so your pre-tax income is lowered by up to £243.

doctorseuss

artybear wrote: »

I think struggle would be defined as not being able to pay rent/buy essential clothes or have food on the table. They are the necessities in life.

They certainly are necessities. Not being able to satisfy them wouldn't be struggling, it would be a financial state of emergency.

IMHO, people who can't afford to take their kid to a playgroup once in a while, buy them the odd toy/book, visit family at the other end of the country now and again or ever go out are not exactly 'comfortably well off' which seems to be the implication behind many of these posts. Some people are in London because they have to be because of work, have the attendant costs thrust upon them and are classed as 'higher earners' only because London is an outlying data point and the threshold is based on an average.

shop-to-drop

What about the tax credit forms do you state pre salary sacrifice income or post. I stated pre was I a fool?

SusanC_2

doctorseuss wrote: »

Sorry, it's been a long day but your post looked to me to be along the lines of -

"I spend £30 a day" - "What, you spend £109500 a decade?!"

Maybe the sudden removal of my well earned CB (:rotfl:) has clouded my judgement.

Apology accepted. Thank you.