MSE News: Higher rate tax payers to lose child benefit

picardygirl

jsg2 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with means testing child benefit - indeed we will be losing child benefit - and with mine and my partners salaries combined (about £75,000) that seems reasonable.

The problem is that the government has gone for a half cooked, totally unfair, system. One where a couple can earn over £80,000 between them and still get child benefit!

Yet a single mum on £45,000 - who is already probably spending a good chunk of that on childcare costs, is going to lose the child benefit - and probably struggle and have to give up work!

Either child benefit needs to be universal or properly means tested (couldn't it be linked together with child tax credits which already is means tested?) - this unfair half way house announcemnet needs rethinking urgently.

I would also like to see it tapered off - say between £50,000 and £70,000 of household income.

Totally agree with all the above .

bunny999

The only FAIR thing would be to abolish child benefit. It's crazy to encourage people to breed when the world is over populated and their are millions of unemployed.

go_cat

WestonDave wrote: »

The other announcement which came alongside this at the conference was that a family's total benefit take, would be capped so that they could not total more than an average working family gets by going out to work.

Good good good!!!

About time too i am fed up of me and my DH both working full time ( because we cannot afford not to ) and having one child yet some people on benefits take home more than we do - where is the fairness in that :eek::eek::eek::eek:

scott_lithgows

How come the kids are getting targeted again but the coffin dodgers keep their winter fuel allowances and free tv licence.

I,m with the Glasgow media group-20% one off tax on those with more than a £1million of assets =£800million
The rest of us can pay off the remaining debt ! (let,s really be in it together)

jkmum

A bit annoyed by this.My OH earns just below 40% at the mo. I have told him he has 3 years to earn quite a bit over so that the loss doesn't affect us.

I have to admit, we don't struggle, manage to save a bit and have no debts. There are things we would like to buy and do that we can't but that's generally because I made a choice not to work to look after my children. What I feel is unfair, like others, is that a couple earning less than £44k each, will still get it.

I firmly believe that you shouldn't have children if you expect someone else to contribute to them. I gave up work to look after my children, but I don't bang on about how I should somehow be compensated for that. It's just the unfairness that makes me :mad:

There just should be a fairer way to do it - what is so wrong and so complicated about looking at the household income? Or just having a larger personal allowance (although that one is coming in I believe).

And don't get me started on how complicated CTCs are - there must be a better way to do that to!

citygirl2010

bunny999 wrote: »

The only FAIR thing would be to abolish child benefit. It's crazy to encourage people to breed when the world is over populated and their are millions of unemployed.

I agree with what they are doing in a way, but on the other hand, what about the people who are higher earners that have debts etc, i know we all do, but even 20 pounds child benefit will be a big loss on any salary in this current climate, people still have bills to pay regardless of income, abolishing it totally would cause an uproar but hey its the government , they have the power to implement anything they want basically.

sulkisu

Badger_Lady wrote: »

But you're comfortable enough that you can choose not to earn an income...
I'm afraid I can't have sympathy for two-parent families with one income over the higher tax threshold. My sympathies are reserved for the single parents who both HAVE to work full-time and raise their children alone with no benefit entitlement.

I am not suggesting that parents should be paid by the State just for being parents and as I said in my previous post, I am in favour of the proposed changes in principle, but aren't you assuming (incorrectly) that all two-parent one income families, have 'chosen' to rely on one income? Depending on where you live and what you do, childcare costs (even for just one child) can wipe out a second salary, which means that for some families it makes financial sense for one parent to stay at home.

I am expecting a baby early next year and fortunately, I can afford to support the household while my partner stays at home with the baby. I can also afford the £300 p.w. full-time childcare costs if we chose to go down that route, but that's on a salary of £70k. Few higher rate tax payers earn this much.

roger196

Much easier to allocate child benefit half to each parent and then operate the means testing on that. It was not long ago that child benefit was taxed at 100% for those on JSA or 65% for those on housing benefit. This was because it formed part of income that triggered clawback.

Badger_Lady

liz-paul wrote: »

And please tell me how I can earn couple of grand a year at home easily without it affecting my kids? Cos every stay at home mum I know is looknig for the answer to that question

Entirely depends on your skills, but here are a few things I'm doing / have done on top of a full-time job:

- Facepainting (OK, not strictly "at home" but at children's parties etc).

- Vintage clothing online (you need to register for tax purposes but this isn't a major issue for a low-income part-time business). There are plenty of online wholesalers if you have a couple of hundred pounds to start yourself off.

- Guest blogger for a training website (based on my work experience).

- Life modelling (one of my favourites - I used to get £200 for a 4-hour session in my living room, plus copies of the pictures).

- Keeping chickens to save on my own eggs, plus selling the extras to friends / neighbours (my chickens were rescue hens and they lived in the outside loo eating my kitchen scraps, garden slugs and about £2.50 per month of layers pellets).

- Breeding cats (brilliant with younger children to learn about the lifecycle of a mammal, but you do have to cope with noisy cats in heat!)

- Graphic design (just the odd leaflet or brochure website here and there, by email, £120-£300 a pop).

- eBay trading assistant (you have to register and may have to visit clients / collect their goods, but the majority is at home).

- Landlady (one or two lodgers in my spare rooms).

... that's all I can think of at the moment but I'm sure there's more. Of course I'm not saying these are things you should do, just that you do have options. I spend a lot of time doing voluntary / charity work too because I don't really need any more income. I just get bored.

Badger_Lady

sulkisu wrote: »

I am not suggesting that parents should be paid by the State just for being parents and as I said in my previous post, I am in favour of the proposed changes in principle, but aren't you assuming (incorrectly) that all two-parent one income families, have 'chosen' to rely on one income? Depending on where you live and what you do, childcare costs (even for just one child) can wipe out a second salary, which means that for some families it makes financial sense for one parent to stay at home.

Sure... well in that case the households with two incomes should get a extra consideration for the childcare costs they pay out..? It all gets very complicated.

Anyway, my point was that a single parent has no choice whatsoever. They have to work, they have to look after their kids - surely you realise that any two-parent family has an advantage over them, that they have more options?

Yet the poster on page 1 seemed to think that a household with two parents and one income should be on an equal footing with the widow or the mother who escaped from an abusive relationship (sadly these examples are friends of mine). That they should get benefits not available to two-parent households where they've both "chosen" to work.