Stay-at-home parents to lose out in child benefit reform

carolt

As touched on in other thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8040806/Stay-at-home-parents-to-lose-out-in-child-benefit-reform.html

chucky

carolt wrote: »

As touched on in other thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8040806/Stay-at-home-parents-to-lose-out-in-child-benefit-reform.html

Stay-at-home parents to lose out in child benefit reform

if the stay-at-home parent is not a Higher Rate Tax Payers they will still get Child Benefit - is that correct?

Really2

It's a lifestyle choice.

Unless we are saying any parent should stay at home no matter the partners wage (EG £20K) I cant see the fuss.

If the money is that tight for these higher rate earners, do what the lower earners do, work

carolt

chucky wrote: »

if the stay-at-home parent is not a Higher Rate Tax Payers they will still get Child Benefit - is that correct?

No - Graham was wrong on this.

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

It's a lifestyle choice.

Unless we are saying any parent should stay at home no matter the partners wage (EG £20K) I cant see the fuss.

If the money is that tight for these higher rate earners, do what the lower earners do, work

Is that desirable for either the chidren or the wider society?

Do we want a situation where mothers of young pre-school children all have to go to work?

chucky

carolt wrote: »

No - Graham was wrong on this.

so if you pay the Lower Rate Tax Payer you still get tax benefit.

so only if you're a Higher Rate Tax Payer will you not get Child Benfit anymore.

Arcaine

Given this unfairness maybe we should scrap child benefit in its entirity and pay it through tax credits?

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Is that desirable for either the chidren or the wider society?

Do we want a situation where mothers of young pre-school children all have to go to work?

Well I would tackle the millions who cant afford to stay at home parents before worrying about the ones that can afford too losing a state subsidy TBH.

Headline:
Top earns lose benefits as the possibility of a few hours work looms, just like the poorer have done for the last 20 years

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

Do we want a situation where mothers of young pre-school children all have to go to work?

child benefit is only 20 quid for first child and 13 for subsequent. that's not many hours even on the minimum wage to make up the difference. really people shouldn't be having children if they are 20 quid a week away from being able to feed, clothe and care for a child. i agree accidents happen. but deliberately planning a child without planning how to provide is irresponsible.

Radiantsoul

ninky wrote: »

child benefit is only 20 quid for first child and 13 for subsequent. that's not many hours even on the minimum wage to make up the difference. really people shouldn't be having children if they are 20 quid a week away from being able to feed, clothe and care for a child. i agree accidents happen. but deliberately planning a child without planning how to provide is irresponsible.

Perhaps child benefits should be much higher.
I suspect there are some arguments that child production is a laudible industry worthy of government subsidy.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

if the stay-at-home parent is not a Higher Rate Tax Payers they will still get Child Benefit - is that correct?

There was quite a bit of confusion surrouning this and I got the wrong end of the stick.

The BBC in the news purposely stated that any household with a higher rate taxpayer would lose child benefit to clear up confusion their end.

Did make me wonder what happens if a single mother lives with her parents and her dad earns 50k a year, but hey

Numbers still surprise me though. Only 1.2m people receive child benefit and have someone in the household earning over 44k a year? Seems very low, when you consider the amount of doctors, lawyers, dentists, middle managers etc there are out there.