Child Benefit- is is now means tested?

Person_one

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Not really, a working couple earning £35k each with a couple of kids could be paying out £1200 a month in childcare, and would likely need 2 cars for the 2 jobs, so most likely be worse off than a family that can afford for one of the adults to stay at home and earn nothing.

What on Earth kind of lifestyle are people leading that 70K pa isn't enough to cover it?

Are they driving vintage bugattis to work? Leaving their children with Mary Poppins all day?

rachbc

Person_one wrote: »

What on Earth kind of lifestyle are people leading that 70K pa isn't enough to cover it?

Are they driving vintage bugattis to work? Leaving their children with Mary Poppins all day?

Not at all - take home pay on £35k, if paying a student loan and 8% pension cont is £1800, if you are paying £750 a month for 1 pre school child to go to full time nursery (£35 per day) and £350 per month for 1 school age child to attend out of school club (£15 per day). A mortgage on a modest 3 bed family home in the sw could easily be £1000 a month for a family who had small deposit...

evansmummy

Person_one wrote: »

What on Earth kind of lifestyle are people leading that 70K pa isn't enough to cover it?

Are they driving vintage bugattis to work? Leaving their children with Mary Poppins all day?

Ah c'mon we all live to our means. I'm a stay at home mum and my hubby is just in the higher rater so our £500 a year is being taken off us.
No matter how much you earn you live to your means. The higher your salary, narturally, the higher your outgoings. We've got a good income on just one salary but we've certainly not 'well off'. We aren't going on holiday abroad ( 5 days in the Lakes) but friends who have a lower income are going on holiday abroad 3 times a year. Saying that we've not got a penny on a credit card so I can sleep at night rather than worrying about a stack of debts.

jem16

onlyroz wrote: »

Not sure the exact amount, but I know the 40% tax threshold was dropped in the last budget. I've so far managed to keep below it.

Exact amount is £42,475.

jem16

evansmummy wrote: »

I'm a stay at home mum and my hubby is just in the higher rater so our £500 a year is being taken off us.

At the moment the possible workaround is to pay pension contributions that take you out of the higher rate tax bracket so perhaps your hubby could do/is already doing that.

Spendless

2 x £35K income parents, could indeed have high childcare costs. Alternatively they could have kids at f-time school and grandmother helping out on school runs and hols for free, or Secondary school age children and no need for childcare. Personally, if they were going to make the rules no CB for higher tax payers, I'd rather they'd said, you can't claim CB if there are 2 higher rate payers in the household. That would have least made it more equal.

Violetta wrote: »

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2010/10/higher-rate-tax-payers-to-lose-child-benefits
It's from April 2013
Child benefit will be removed from families where either parent earns enough to pay the higher 40% rate of income tax – currently around £44,000.

But two-earner households where neither parent's income is above this threshold will continue to receive the benefit – worth £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 for each additional one.

In some cases, this could result in families with an income of almost £88,000 receiving child benefit, while others on little more than half this sum lose out because one of the parents stays at home to look after the children.

Has that been announced? It's what I suspected (new tax year) but can't see anything to confirm that. I might have missed it though.

What I'm wanting to know is what they have done about the NI stamp (it used to be called HRP) that comes with anyone claiming CB whose youngest child is under about 12. My youngest is 8 and though I currently work, the job is a temporary one, and the contract finishes soon. I live in an area of high unemployment, and it took me 18 months to find the job I currently have.

jem16

Spendless wrote: »

What I'm wanting to know is what they have done about the NI stamp (it used to be called HRP) that comes with anyone claiming CB whose youngest child is under about 12. My youngest is 8 and though I currently work, the job is a temporary one, and the contract finishes soon. I live in an area of high unemployment, and it took me 18 months to find the job I currently have.

Changes are here;

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10018691

I would expect that in these cases you would still claim child benefit even though you might not get it.

Spendless

jem16 wrote: »

Changes are here;

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10018691

I would expect that in these cases you would still claim child benefit even though you might not get it.

Yes, thanks. I knew about current changes but not what is happening come 2013 (which isn't mentioned on that link).

I do remember on the day the 2013 CB changes were announced, GO saying something along the lines of 'we hope that people won't claim and then us have to take more tax off the 40% tax payer to adjust the amount (cos of the admin costs involved). I'll see if I can find what his words were.

Ok from this link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/george-osborne-under-fire-welfare


But Osborne sparked fury after admitting that a household with two people earning £43,000 each, totalling £86,000, could still receive the benefit, whereas a household where just one person was earning £45,000, would have it withdrawn.
Osborne said this was because the government was trying to keep the system "as simple as possible".
He said he hoped higher-rate taxpayers would stop claiming child benefit but, if they did not, the same amount would be deducted from them through the tax system.

RedwoodBrook

evansmummy wrote: »

No matter how much you earn you live to your means. The higher your salary, narturally, the higher your outgoings.

Just because you have money, doesn't mean you need to spend it!

Person_one

RedwoodBrook wrote: »

Just because you have money, doesn't mean you need to spend it!

Exactly, and why should anyone be exempt from having to learn how to live on a lower budget? Living at the upper limit of what you can afford is pretty daft if you have the option not to.

There's a point at which it becomes seriously distasteful to be handing out money to fund luxuries for the well off.

I see tons of families on pretty low incomes managing just fine, most of whom would be ecstatic if they were told they'd have to cope on just 70K gross!