Child Benefit axed for higher income families

fantafan

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

You'll probably find somebody with £10 left for a family of 6 has no sympathy with you too. Everybody's circumstances are different and why should somebody paying more in to the benefits system not receive the same entitlement back?

The maths is all wrong on this proposal. What next eh? This is only the start.

Princess_Coupon

swiss69 wrote: »

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.

at the current rate of £20.30 a week (not taking into account any interest) over 18 years is £19,000 !! no wonder some can afford uni

snugglepet20

Yet another silly idea, do you have to have your brain removed to work in government? In order to save axe the child benefit and put child tax credit up to benefit those that need it according to circumstance, the system is already up and running, no need to employ another 500 admin workers to sort it out. Think about it you earn 46k and have 1 child, not really losing much, 6 children and it's quite a lot of money.

ukjoel

Whole topic has made me smile.

I earn 16k a year in a low stress 30 hour a week role close to home so i can spend time with my wife and 3 kids.

Today I got offered a job in my old high stress high hours career for 46k.

Although on paper it seems like an extra 30k the reality is that 10k will go on taxes which leaves me with 20k.

We will lose the 10k we pick up from working tax credit and child tax credit so I am now 10k better off.

This basically takes away another £2500 a year from me (which I will need to earn 4k on before tax to match)

So to kill myself for 6k and hardly see my family as I am doing 60 hour weeks and driving myself into the ground.

Cheers George Osbourne - you just made my decision a whole lot easier. You also cost yourself £12500 in tax credits for me and you have lost the 15k a year tax I would have been giving you in addition to the company car tax and the vat on all those nice shiny things I bought.

I would rather be poor and happy. Lifes too short. I dont a flash holiday, seeing my kids smiling cos Dads home is more than enough.

aylithuk

As someone that wants children however currently doesn't have any I'd like to say

whatever happen to 'affording children'

I am very hardliner about this. Surely *most* people plan children so they must have the 'talk' about costs?

I don't have any children right now because I simply cannot afford them the lifestyle they would need.

If you are earning 44k a year and cannot bring up a child or 2 without benefits then there is something wrong!

my 2 cents

gravitytolls

SusanC wrote: »

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

Hands up who really believes we'd pay less tax if ANYTHING were scrapped?

gravitytolls

aylithuk wrote: »

As someone that wants children however currently doesn't have any I'd like to say

whatever happen to 'affording children'

I am very hardliner about this. Surely *most* people plan children so they must have the 'talk' about costs?

I don't have any children right now because I simply cannot afford them the lifestyle they would need.

If you are earning 44k a year and cannot bring up a child or 2 without benefits then there is something wrong!

my 2 cents

Folk have always had children, whether they could afford them or not! It'#s great when babies are planned, actually, babies are great when they're ot planed too, but that's another topic.

Anyhoo, I DON'T BELIEVE, despite the press 'championing' the underclass, that the majority of folk have babies because they get benefits, I don't, I absolutely, 100% do not.

However, I suspect that most low to average income families live to their means to provide a roof over the families head in a decent area, with access to decent schools etc.

Tax credits kick started a stagnating economy, however healthy it appeared to be. It enabled people to move house, to get on the housing ladder, buy cars, holidays etc. Unfortunately the knock on effect of this and a worldwide boom, was to inflate hhouse prices massively, fuel has risen and risen and risen, council tax the same ad so on.

The reduction of such benefits may receive a huge hurrah, but the fact is many will struggle and some will go under, no matter how hardline you are.

Rachel021967

Unfortunately I accept that we will no longer get child benefit. I came from a poor home and I remember my mum not been able to afford a prescription whilst some friends were putting it in a savings account. I thought then that it should be means tested and the poor should get more. However, I do think it should be a total household income of £44,000 and capped at 2 children with those of an income under £15000 getting more.
I do resent the idea that a household earning a lot more than us still getting the benefit. I choose not to work. I accept that I'm not paid but I do work hard and I should be just as valued as a working mother and this proposed capping does not do that.

shop-to-drop

Maybe less people have children for financial gain than is often thought but very many don't have them or have less than they would like for financial reasons far more often than is generally realised. All of these being working people of course. The very people that as a society we would hope would have the children.

gonzo127

skintchick wrote: »

Also, most people don't judge what amount qualifies as 'a lot of money' by comparing it to 'how much that gonzo127 off MSE earns', so it's irrelevant that 44k is around 50 per cent more than your earnings.

Ok how would you qualify a lot of money, maybe use the national average wage, which is 26k, which therefore means that someone on 44k in on roughly 60% higher wage than the national average, would that not show that it is a lot of money?

skintchick wrote: »

if we lost any of his income then even £100 WOULD make a difference and we WOULD struggle, because things are very tight right now.

If you lost any of the income and dropped below 44k you would then be entitled to it again therefore trying to make that difference to help stop you from struggling

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.

Totally agree the current proposed system is unfair to a lot of people and it should go on household income to at least level the playing field - maybe make it a household income of over 52k (2x national average wage) but then you have the problems with the extra admin costs

I still stick by my beliefs that someone who is on 44k a year should not be reliant on the £100 a month benefit and if they are they do need to really look at their finances, just look at the debt free wannabe forum for inspiration on what can actually be achieved, and just remember you have got over 2 years to reorganise your finances before this comes into effect