Child Benefit axed for higher income families

john_white

Skylarker wrote: »

Grrr!!!
I can see the flames coming now but I just HAVE to add my tuppence worth.
I don't have children, I simply don't feel that broody urge is the simple reason why.
In my humble opinion any benefits should be there to ensure that the very poorest in society can feed and house themselves. Children are a choice. Accidents can be prevented in most circumstances by a bit of planning and common sense. Why should my taxes pay for your lifestyle choice, your children. I don't mind my taxes paying for education, education is vital, as is healthcare, public transport etc, etc but I don't think they should pay for anyone elses kids christmas presents or new trainers for example.
Not only do I not think child benefit should be universal I'm not convinced they've set the cap low enough, £44,000 seems like an awful lot of money to be getting benefits at all.

I will now cower and wait for the rotten tomatoes sure to be heading my way but thanks for listening...

I picked your post (of the many) simply because it uses the phrase lifestyle choice.

I totally agree I don't want my taxes paying for someones lifestyle choice, but hang on, I know some people who have motorbikes - that's a lifestyle choice but my taxes pay for them to be policed and the hospitals for accidents etc. I also know some smokers, another lifestyle choice which my taxes pay for the treatment of the effects of smoking. Then there's drinking, boating, mountain climbing basically anything that leads to someone requiring a public service is payed for by my taxes - all of which are lifestyle choices which are funded by the taxpayer. If bikes (for aexample) were banned x billion could be saved and that would pay for child benefit.

I'm all for reform but the trouble here is if you give an answer that in some way discrinates then you're in for a heap of trouble. Using the phrase lifestyle choice causes just that sort of trouble.

Skylarker

I see what you're saying John_white and I agree both that there may have been a better way of phrasing it and also that yes taxes do go to pay for the consequences of other lifestyle choices.

I still stand by my opinion however that in most cases child benefit should not be necessary because people should not choose to conceive a child unless they can support that child fully without claiming benefits, and that I do believe from what I have both heard, read and observed that there have been many families recieving child benefit who do not need it.

Of course I should probably now duck out of the conversation on account (as you can see) that I am no longer a UK tax payer, and am not and have never been in receipt of any benefits at all and would now not be eligible for any UK benefits. I probably won't though because this is a very interesting issue....

Bubby

I think that there is too much responsibility put on people who earn a decent salary, as I have said before several people on benefits with council houses are able to do far more holiday wise and day trip wise than we could afford to do. Yes we have a decent salary but we also had huge bills a few years ago that we are still paying off. We have our own pensions, we have our own medical cover and we don't burden the state except for child benefit so yes I think I have a right to feel annoyed, that said I CAN see that the government HAS to make cuts but alot in our benefits system has to change. Unfortunately if you are on a low income (and I don't mean those people on a ridiculous low income) then your lifestyle should not be "made up" to someone on a higher income, that is life. We encourage our children to do well at school and study so that they CAN earn a good income not rely on the state to make up their failings.

ukjoel

I think all the posts here (including my own) take a very short term here and now approach to it all.

This isnt a critical statement (before I get beaten) but an observation.

I appreciate that many hard working tax payers object to their money being given away left, right, and centre, to people who choose to have lots of kids. Those people should on no account ever read the booklet the council sends out which will tell them that almost half their council tax is spent on schools.

The serious point I would like to make is that when these people on benefits get older (and their kids turn 16) life becomes a lot harder.

I know a lot of low earners in their 50s and 60s who are in terrible hardship while their low earning 20 something colleagues with kids have significant disposable income due to tax top ups.

Once you only have a state pension to rely on it gets even tougher. Thats the point those who have worked and paid loads of taxes (and also pension payments) start to see the positive side as retirement is something they can look forward to rather than dread.

Long term - hard work ethos will win every time.

jellyhead

Spendless wrote: »

I would consider households where there are two 40% tax payers getting CB having it stopped to be fair. That would solve the problem of a household of £44k not getting if there is just a lone earner against and a household of £80k getting it cos there are 2 earners. It wouldn't penalise lone parent families and would solve the issue of HRP for the SAHM/low earner married/living with a higher earner.

It would also stop the bleating of 'it'll cost 2 much in admin to sort out if we make it on household income'. If you are going to put something into place to see if there is 1 40% tax payer, it can't take much more effort to check if there are two.

What about using the existing tax credits system though? It already knows the household income of all parents who claim tax credits, and that will include incomes over 50k. People with a large family still get some tax credit help on incomes higher than 50k I think.

So, there wouldn't be a huge admin cost. I'm being naive I know, it will be more complex than simply tinkering with the figures, but they already have most parents incomes at their fingertips I should think?

Not sure how HRP would be dealt with though.

Spendless

jellyhead wrote: »

What about using the existing tax credits system though? It already knows the household income of all parents who claim tax credits, and that will include incomes over 50k. People with a large family still get some tax credit help on incomes higher than 50k I think.

So, there wouldn't be a huge admin cost. I'm being naive I know, it will be more complex than simply tinkering with the figures, but they already have most parents incomes at their fingertips I should think?

Not sure how HRP would be dealt with though.

Because the current tax credit system counts benefits in kind as income and at present we don't know whether qualifying for CB will or won't. If it will (as I suspect) then yes run it thru the tax credit system.

Cazza1234

Whilst I appreciate that cuts have to be made, one area that I haven’t seen mentioned is the fact that Child Benefit is more than a payment to help subsidise the significant costs associated with bringing up a child. It is also classed as a contribution towards NI so that stay at home parents are not penalised when it comes to retirement and the state pension.

I feel this significantly undermines the importance of parenting in society – more than the financial benefit.