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

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Or indeed teachers with rich husbands.

These days high income earners tend to marry high income earners, thus reducing the number of households with high income earners as they are concentrated.

Batchy

This is household income and nothing to do with what rate of tax you pay...

so 2 people earning 22k ... no child benefit. no tappering

Alls that will happen... a little salary sacrafic, and pension contributions, makes all the difference.

chucky

Batchy wrote: »

This is household income and nothing to do with what rate of tax you pay...

so 2 people earning 22k ... no child benefit. no tappering

Alls that will happen... a little salary sacrafic, and pension contributions, makes all the difference.

i can't see the problem - why should people that are well off be on benefits in the first place.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ninky wrote: »

but deliberately planning a child without planning how to provide is irresponsible.

Let alone three children.....

Really2

Generali wrote: »

These days high income earners tend to marry high income earners, thus reducing the number of households with high income earners as they are concentrated.

I was trying to say that earlier (but failed)

People measuring 2 people earning £25K each against one earning £50K is neither here nor there when it comes to the benefit.
It ignores the fact that it is more likely the partner of someone earning £50K+ is also likely to earn a similar amount.

People don't stop working because their partners earn over £44K. They stop because they want to, that reason is regardless of partners wage so just as likely should a partner earn the average wage.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

These days high income earners tend to marry high income earners, thus reducing the number of households with high income earners as they are concentrated.

i'm doing my personal bit for wealth redistribution though!:D

LeeSouthEast

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?

Why not? Never did me any harm, and both my parents worked. I'm now a fine, responsible upstanding member of the community (allegedly).

Batchy

Im personally a higher rate tax payer, and over all the years never had a problem paying tax into a system that redistributes child benefit, as I would like to receive it on the same basis when i have a child myself to care for... why now, when its MY TURN, do they turn the tap off, after I have paid into the system through working for the last 15 years already.

Talk about missing the boat... if you put your life on hold til you was able to provide for a child with a home and a decent income, you really do get punished.

This is what gets me about TAX... and MOVING THE DAMN POSTS ALL THE TIME!

Cash flow forcasts, planning ahead... what the point when all the time you have to re-evaluate and change the plan... this just keeps some monkey in employment managing change.

What they should do now, it give it back in the tax code of all tax payers, it sounds harsh, but you need to reward workers to just working. The times of free benefits should have never happened... benefits should not be an OPTIONAL alternative, its should be a last resort scenario if you can't work.

[Deleted User]

the condems will go for the easy option and end CB at 16

ninky_2

Batchy wrote: »

Talk about missing the boat... if you put your life on hold til you was able to provide for a child with a home and a decent income, you really do get punished.

.

you are not being punished. life has already rewarded you. how about those of us who aren't having children? we still pay tax.