Child Benefit axed for higher income families

SusanC_2

A fairer system would be just to scrap it completely. Then we'd all be paying less tax so less "need" for the money.

sharnad

think it would be better if you only got benefits on the first two children

doctorseuss

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

Ok I'll bite. I live in London. My fixed outgoings incl. rent, nursery, travel, utilities etc come to about £3200 pcm. We have no debts whatsoever & no credit cards, no pay-TV.

Let's say you're two people, one earns above average, lets say 45K and the other earns say 30K. I make that about 4K take home (very approximately). So you have less than £200 a week to feed, clothe & entertain your family. I don't know where you live, but in London this is about the minimum you can get away on. What happens when something goes wrong and you need fork out a few hundred quid? Answer: you do indeed struggle, even on 45K a year.

Chinkle

In my view the only fair way to shift child benefit away from being a universal one is to incorporate it into the child tax credit system.

The problem I have with the whole benefits/tax system is that its one rule for benefits - ie you are assessed as a couple/family but for tax its all about the individual.

weezl74

re: he suggestion to cap benefits at 2 children (made by a few earlier posters), this would only work if that would yield the same saving as the axing of CB above 40% tax. Does anyone know if that would actually yield the billion pound savings?

SusanC_2

doctorseuss wrote: »

Ok I'll bite. I live in London. My fixed outgoings incl. rent, nursery, travel, utilities etc come to about £3200 pcm. We have no debts whatsoever & no credit cards, no pay-TV.

Let's say you're two people, one earns above average, lets say 45K and the other earns say 30K. I make that about 4K take home (very approximately). So you have less than £200 a week to feed, clothe & entertain your family. I don't know where you live, but in London this is about the minimum you can get away on. What happens when something goes wrong and you need fork out a few hundred quid? Answer: you do indeed struggle, even on 45K a year.

So £10k/year for everything other than rent, nursery, travel and utilities?

doctorseuss

SusanC wrote: »

So £10k/year for everything other than rent, nursery, travel and utilities?

Yes, circa £200 a week for a family of three, in London (west London, anyway, maybe I should just move). I'm in awe of your ability to multiply by 52

swiss69

Something needed to be done. I dont think its fair that a family with one earner earning £45k loses it whilst a couple earning £80k between them keep it but in principal I agree with the idea of stopping payments like this to people who clearly dont need it. In my job I see many people who have incomes of over £100k but still receive it. They dont need it but they are not going to turn it down are they. Most of them invest it straight away and hey presto 18 years later they have a nice University fund and their children leave with no student debt.

Next on the hit list will be Fuel allowance. This is another ridiculous payment for many people who receive it. My mum is a good example. She get a state pension and has her own pension. Easily enough to live off every month. She gets it in December and spends it on xmas presents! She clearly therefore doesnt need it!

Tax credits are not going to escape this either. Believe me this is just the start. I have read documents from many experts in my field of work with the steps that are needed and you can rest assurred that the next five years are going to be tough.

At least benefits are being capped at £26,000 per family. I could not believe it when I read that this will affect 50,000 people.

I know someone who claims benefits and doesnt work but holidays in Egypt or Dominican Republic every year...That cant be right

gonzo127

Imp wrote: »

Someone who just ends up in the higher tax bracket will be taking home under £33k, so not very different to your household income.

Well my household take home wage is actually about 24k when you take into account tax, NI, student loan and pension, but hey ho

doctorseuss wrote: »

Ok I'll bite. I live in London. My fixed outgoings incl. rent, nursery, travel, utilities etc come to about £3200 pcm. We have no debts whatsoever & no credit cards, no pay-TV.

Let's say you're two people, one earns above average, lets say 45K and the other earns say 30K. I make that about 4K take home (very approximately). So you have less than £200 a week to feed, clothe & entertain your family. I don't know where you live, but in London this is about the minimum you can get away on. What happens when something goes wrong and you need fork out a few hundred quid? Answer: you do indeed struggle, even on 45K a year.

Well 45k would bring home over 2500 and someone on 30k over 1700 so probably closer to 4200-4500 a month and for 200 a week my god I would love that, I feed clothe and entertain a family of 5 on around £100 a week and still manage to put aside a small amount of money into a emergency fund for those times when you need a couple of hundred
Really you just cut your cloth to suit your means

but i do agree with people that it does seem unfair in the current form were a family can bring be on close to 88k and still get it but a family who brings home 45k would lose it

doctorseuss

gonzo127 wrote: »

I feed clothe and entertain a family of 5 on around £100 a week and still manage to put aside a small amount of money into a emergency fund for those times when you need a couple of hundred
Really you just cut your cloth to suit your means

Whereabouts in the country are you, out of interest?