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

Gorgeous_George

Solution- Higher rate tax payer moves out leaving stay at home mum with the kids. Stay at home mum takes in a lodger.

GG

silvercar

woodbine wrote: »

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

Always the way, scare people first, modify it so it isn't so bad, everyone gives a sigh of relief.

StevieJ

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?

Could get a job in a nursery

Gorgeous_George

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

Hi carolt

Remember this (link Post #2)

Better than having a Tory govt only...

Hope they form a Lib Dem coalition, as the LDs tax policy would help my wallet nicely.

GG

Really2

Stay at home mums with partners earning over £44K they are financially inactive.

They are getting free health care etc yet are paying no tax.

So they cost more to the state than 2 working parents, in reality they are being subsadised when not working.

ninky_2

another solution. tee hee. http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/middle-class-to-sell-their-children-201010043135/

Wookster

Maybe people will think twice before turning on the sprog tap.

I hope that under 18s who fall pregnant will be obliged to stay home.

If you can pay for it and it doesn't bother me, do what the hell you like, but if I am subsidising your choice then I have every right to set limits on what you can do/ are entitled to.

Gorgeous_George

I think all higher rate tax payers with children should apply for a gun licence. It'd be interesting to see if the sudden change in stats spooks the ConDems or the children :eek:

GG

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

Stay at home mums with partners earning over £44K they are financially inactive.

They are getting free health care etc yet are paying no tax.

So they cost more to the state than 2 working parents, in reality they are being subsadised when not working.

not necessarily. some sahm's may well have private healthcare arrangements.

childcare is not free so whether you do it yourself or pay someone else that money has to come from somewhere. it may well be more cost effective for women with low earning potential and more than one child to provide the childcare and do all the housework. same if it is the bloke. there are a few sahds around my way.

don't forget that sahm's don't earn their own pension and aren't getting unemployment benefits so may well end up costing less to the state. if couple's can afford for one parent not to work (or even one non parent partner) that's fair enough. i guess the issue is that benefits should not subsidise a lifestyle choice.

MissMoneypenny

chucky wrote: »

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.

It doesn't sound like it will be too good for those that immigrated, kept a UK bank account and didn't bother telling the UK government they had moved and to cancel their child benefit.

I wonder if the new universal card will be able to identify those that did that, so that the government can deduct the overpayments from any future benefits, such as their furture UK pensions?