Child Benefit axed for higher income families

clairehi

Its certainly hard to justify paying CB as a universal benefit.

However bear in mind the tax credits system was set up to try and ensure that "benefits" were fairly paid out to families based on their actual income and childcare costs.

That worked out well didnt it!

onlyroz

gonzo127 wrote: »

this is my thoughts as well, someone on 44k a year is getting a take home wage after tax and NI of over £2500 a month so someone who is totally relient on the ~£100 a month benefit then they do really need to look at their finances

I wouldn't say that I was reliant on the £134 a month I get in child benefit but it certainly helps a great deal - because after I've paid my student loan contribution (around £150 a month), mortgage (currently £600 a month but this will go up once the base rate starts to rise), nursery fees (£1000 a month reduced a bit because of the childcare vouchers), pension contributions (not sure exactly how much but prob a few hundred ££ a month), there isn't *that* much left over. And I'm on one of those "good" salaries...

nottslass_2

A gross income of 45k will leave you with a take home salary of under 33k - somebody with 2 kids in childcare can pay well over 10k a year in nursery fees thus leaving alot less than 23k which can hardly be described as a high salary,so loosing £134 pm in child benefit would make quite a difference to some families.

*Louise*

I agree with the principle of restricting paying CB to high earners but I think the threshold has been brought down too low. As someone pointed out, what about people living in places like London - 44k won't really go all that far.

Threebabes

My husband earns over 44k with overtime. I dont work because by the time we pay childcare it would be for nothing. My husband has worked long and hard improving himself by doing a degree, phd, numerous courses to make a better life for our family by getting a better paid job. It will be a big miss for us, we live in a modest 3 bed semi house, got a 3 yr old car, dont have many holidays and very very rarely holiday abroad (once in 10 yr). I agree with what has been said about 2 earners can each bring in up to 44k, it obviously needs looking at. :-/

Make-it-3

What happened to the Conservatives saying back at the emergency budget they weren't going to touch Child Benefit because restricting it in anyway would cost more to implement than it would save?

This new proposal flies in the face of that. It is unfair that a couple between them could earn up to £88K and still get CB but if there was only one partner working on £45K it would be taken away. The article also seems to imply that the benefit would still be paid, but clawed back through the higher earner's tax return. Will this mean every parent earning over £45K will be forced onto self-assessment? The tax office will love all that extra paperwork!!!!

What about couples who have split up? What about people who's earnings may hoover just below or upon the threshold and change year to year? It's just ill thought through.

tooldle

I know it sounds somewhat harsh that single earner families are penalised. however I guess it is fair to say that in a double income family, there is more likely to be a large childcare bill, whilst in a single earner family this is not likely to be the case.

Bitsy_Beans

tooldle wrote: »

I know it sounds somewhat harsh that single earner families are penalised. however I guess it is fair to say that in a double income family, there is more likely to be a large childcare bill, whilst in a single earner family this is not likely to be the case.

I don't see how you can make that assumption? Surely any working parent is likely to have childcare costs otherwise what is a single earner doing with her children whilst at work?

Whilst I fully support the need to sort out the welfare bill as it's unsustainable this just seems to penalise the wrong people. Benefits relating to children should be stopped after the 2nd or 3rd child - this will ensure only those that can support extra children will have them rather than relying on them as some sort of cash cow.

Rainey_LB

I am just relieved that I will still be getting it, neither of us are higher rate tax payers and our combined income is under 44K, not that that is relevant it seems.

My OH works full-time, I work almost full-time in 2 part-time jobs which fit around the children/school time etc.

Child benefit is used for the children, on birthdays, school trips, uniform, shoes, dinner money etc. phew!!

I agree with some points further back though that it should not be paid to foreign workers, but I think as a universal benefit under European Law it would be unlawful to stop paying it????

Also agree that in some parts of the southeast 44k is not a huge salary, with average houseprices in huge areas of London over £200K for a 2/3 bed, currently under the 3 x salary rule 44k is not enough to get on the housing ladder. However like our family, the second parent could work too. I guess the government are trying to give some incentive for both parents working.

jellyhead

tooldle wrote: »

I know it sounds somewhat harsh that single earner families are penalised. however I guess it is fair to say that in a double income family, there is more likely to be a large childcare bill, whilst in a single earner family this is not likely to be the case.

Do you mean a couple with one earner and one stay at home parent? Because a single parents will have childcare costs if they work, just the same as a working couple.