Child Benefit axed for higher income families

john_white

gonzo127 wrote: »

to be honest from my point of veiw anyone who is struggling on 44k a year must have over streached themselves quite badly, my household income including all benifits we are entitled to is under 30k and we survive on that with a family of 5, mortgage, other debts etc

So you have overstreched then as you have debts and require benefits to survive.

Someone earning 45k will 'earn' the same as you but without benefits, meaning they cost the system less then you do, and pay more in to it.

Quite frankly anyone who recieves a benefit of any description who then has the gaul to say others shouldn't get any benefit has become so engrossed in the system they have lost all sight of what is reasonable.

Spendless

ukjoel wrote: »

Wife works but is on maternity year with number 3. Prior to that she has worked since leaving uni (apart when on stat maternity leave)

I have worked for 12 years since leaving uni but got laid off in recession and had to take whatever was available. My job pays very little and we still have 2 at nursery 3 days a week so mrs can spend some one on one time with baby and so their schedule stays the same when she goes back to work PT next year.

In my post I said I work and I do.

None of our benefits are for housing as we own our house outright. Paid off mortgage a few weeks ago when I sold my second home. (and the crazy bit is none of this affects my benefits as its seen as capital gains not income - I couldnt believe that bit either)

Agree with you it seems a bit crazy but thats what we get and have had it doublechecked so not complaining.

Used to earn 50k a year and financially we are bringing in a total househld income now thats similar to what we had then.

This isnt a troll post but I would be worse off by taking a job offering me 3 times my current salary.

When I earn I lose 40% of what I work for in taxes. When I dont earn the govt tops up my money with tax free cash. There isnt any incentive for me to earn until kids start school and the nursery bills (and associated subsidies stop) Thats a grand a month that either I pay or they pay before you calculate working tax benefits and other stuff.

Yes, I know and that's what makes me laugh, all these people saying 'if they're on that much they don't need it'. Try looking at these people's net pay instead, you'll find it's not too dis-similar to those on a lot lower income with top-up benefits.

My husband is in the place you've come from and don't wish to go back to. He is actually border-line with his wages, but I reckon we will have to add on his company car as 'income'. We don't have any of his wages that aren't taxed due to him having a negative tax code. He does the hours you talk of and doesn't see the kids, and his work hours cause plenty of stress within the family, not only his tiredness, but me being on my own with the kids a lot and the knock on effect of my life,including how it restricts me finding work as I can only do 'set hours where childcare is available'

He has talked about going down the route you have, but what stops us is our children are older (7.5, 10.5) and Secondary school is in sight and our fear is he wouldn't be able to get back up to where he now is.

I do not blame you in the slightest for doing what you have done, it is the system that allows this.

ukjoel

I have the same fear. I have only been out of a year and first question I get hit with at any interview is why leave or why come back.

Long term I know that the higher salary and zero benefits will be the better option but in the short term anything that avoids having to work 18 hour days and never seeing the kids should be grabbed.

There seem to be a lot of posts here which dont seem to fully grasp the numbers (along with many that clearly do) so maybe the excecise below will help clarify.

Couple A - 3 kids - wife on maternity leave - hubbie on 15k a year.
Net income is 12k from hubbie, 5k maternity from wife, 10k working and child tax credits plus 2.5k child benefit. Total income almost 30k after tax.

Couple B - 3 kids Hubbie earns 45k a year and company car, wife also on maternity. His net income after tax will be about 30k. She will bring in 5k maternity. From 2011 no child benefits and currently no taxt credits either.

Example very simplistic but what I am trying to show is although couple B earn 300% more than couple A, they really only have less than 30% more to spend. Please dont take the fact the the blokes earn most as being sexist but wife needed to be on maternity leave (and blokes cant do that yet)

rando

shop-to-drop wrote: »

Seriously starting to think about divorce now. We could remarry when the youngest is dependent. What's that web page that tells you what benefits you can claim? I go start checking out the details.

Try http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx
I too would be better off splitting up with other half. We are not married but have 2 children. I work full time and just go over the 44k threshold (by £200).Other half works part time at nursury (12 hours week). We would lose our child benefit as it stands now which is worth 1.5k'ish. Its a ridiculous situation - we would be financially better off if we lived apart. Its a serious consideration now.

sassyblue

rando wrote: »

Try http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx
I too would be better off splitting up with other half. We are not married but have 2 children. I work full time and just go over the 44k threshold (by £200).Other half works part time at nursury (12 hours week). We would lose our child benefit as it stands now which is worth 1.5k'ish. Its a ridiculous situation - we would be financially better off if we lived apart. Its a serious consideration now.

I don't see how you'd be better off apart, you'd lose £1,5k but spend more than £125 per month living apart in rent/mortgage, gas, electricity, water, tv licence, house insurance on the second home?? Please don't tell me you're thinking of burdening the taxpayer in benefits for that.

You're better off asking your employer to deduct £200 off your wages.

Bubby

It seems to me that people feel that if you are on a low income or benefits and you overstretch yourself then you get heaps of sympathy but if you are in the higher tax bracket and you have done the same (albeit not sponging off the state at the same time) then it is "tough luck" and you should just accept it without feeling angry!

Child benefit should remain universal, why should 1 child be more deserving than another?

Jomo

go_cat wrote: »

I completely agree with you on a high salary you should not get it, just do not agree if a couple on £22k each should be losing it as well that is not a high salary

They won't lose it!!

rando

sassyblue wrote: »

I don't see how you'd be better off apart, you'd lose £1,5k but spend more than £125 per month living apart in rent/mortgage, gas, electricity, water, tv licence, house insurance on the second home?? Please don't tell me you're thinking of burdening the taxpayer in benefits for that.

You're better off asking your employer to deduct £200 off your wages.

Why not everyone else seems to be getting it all paid for. Sick to death of working hard and paying my way when others are blatently getting it for nothing or at least make the system fair as in combined household income determines if you get child benefit or not. Why should we be penalised for one of us having a decent wage and the other one staying at home to look after the kids rather than fobbing them out to after school clubs etc.
Rather than get £200 deducted I could pay more into my pension pot but then again the way pensions are going you may aswell hide your money under the bed!!
All I want is it to be fair to ALL.

rando

'I completely agree with you on a high salary you should not get it, just do not agree if a couple on £22k each should be losing it as well that is not a high salary '

Jomo wrote: »

They won't lose it!!

But they should lose it if combined income is 44K - that would be fair to all housholds then. Why penalise a house with one decent wage ?

rando

Bubby wrote: »

It seems to me that people feel that if you are on a low income or benefits and you overstretch yourself then you get heaps of sympathy but if you are in the higher tax bracket and you have done the same (albeit not sponging off the state at the same time) then it is "tough luck" and you should just accept it without feeling angry!

Child benefit should remain universal, why should 1 child be more deserving than another?

Couldn't agree more. Well said Bubby. Shame the tw*ts in government are not listening.