Can Grandma claim the child Befefit instead of me?

nearlyrich

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

But I think what the OP is saying is that going to this college and living with the grandmother is what's best for her son.
So that's what they are going to do.

But if, having made that choice, they can get an extra £20 a week for the grandmother then why not?

Why not? because mugs like me pay 40% tax so they can have £20 a week of I don't think so:mad:

Dunroamin

nearlyrich wrote: »

Why not? because mugs like me pay 40% tax so they can have £20 a week of I don't think so:mad:

More to the point, many people who aren't higher rate tax payers will be paying tax so that a family with earnings around £100,000pa can manipulate the system and carry on claiming £20pw.

zagfles

ticktack wrote: »

The OP's question is reasonable, and the fact that they're losing CB is relevant. The legislation which changed entitlement to CB might also have made a new rule to prevent it being claimed by another family member to avoid losing it. It's not so easy to find this out by reading through the legislation. Perfectly reasonable to ask on here if anybody knows the answer.

The way this legislation has been introduced has not been very well thought out. It wouldn't be surprising if it all got changed again to stop up various loopholes.

This is what happens when inexperienced politicians think it's easy to make changes to a complex welfare system.

You give them too little credit, the policy was extremely well thought out. The practicalities of it are a nightmare, and it's unfair, and it's easily got round, so on a technical level it's a disaster.

But I doubt they care, because IMO that's not why they did it. It was always a political gesture. In times of cuts, they wanted headlines about richer people getting benefit cuts, they wanted richer people whinging about the unfairness of it all. And it worked. The policy is massively popular. Because it's easy to understand, and it appears to target people "getting benefits who don't need them". And it diverts attention from other cuts.

Facts like it's unfair, complicated to implement, and easily got around don't matter. It has acheived its purpose.

I don't blame the politicans, those who come up with sensible ideas don't get elected, because the general public prefer good sound-bites to good policies which they might actually have to read and think about. We get the govt we deserve...

ticktack_2

zagfles wrote: »

You give them too little credit, the policy was extremely well thought out. The practicalities of it are a nightmare, and it's unfair, and it's easily got round, so on a technical level it's a disaster.

Legislation which causes so much adverse publicity, and contains so many loopholes necessitating later amendment, is hardly "well thought out".

Facts like it's unfair, complicated to implement, and easily got around don't matter.

Oh yes they do. The inexperience of this administration keeps coming back to bite it, and will keep doing so because they show no signs of learning from their mistakes. Witness the farcical series of misjudgments incorporated in the recent budget, now unwinding in the headlines. Each of these fumbles carries an ongoing potential for further unwelcome (unwelcome to the administration) headlines, as more and more amendments have to be made just to keep the creaking system more or less ticking over.

We get the govt we deserve...

No, we get the government that manages to control more parliamentary seats. An incompetent government may control more parliamentary seats, but that doesn't mean that all of us somehow deserve their incompetence. Even those who voted Lib Dem or Tory don't deserve to suffer under the incompetence of these inexperienced, squabbling ministers. What we deserve is better politicians -- in all three of the major parties.

zagfles

ticktack wrote: »

Legislation which causes so much adverse publicity, and contains so many loopholes necessitating later amendment, is hardly "well thought out".

I said the policy, not the legislation. Show me an opinion poll which doesn't show massive support for this policy. It's a PR stunt.

This policy was announced in Oct 2010, with very few details other than higher rate taxpayers would lose CB and it would be taken from then via the tax system. This left all sorts of issues in the air, such as the unfair cliff-edge, the unfair dual vs single earner argument, definition of partner in the tax system, independant taxation etc.

Take the cliff-edge issue. Given that they'd already said CB would be withdrawn via the tax system, that issue is easy to solve. Have a taper - this is simple to do in the tax system, it's already done with the personal allowance withdrawal for those on over £100k.

But it wasn't till the budget a year and half later that they announced the taper. They wanted the controversy, they wanted this in the headlines to keep a popular policy in the news. We've had many discussions about this policy here in that time and I've always said there'd be a taper.

Oh yes they do. The inexperience of this administration keeps coming back to bite it, and will keep doing so because they show no signs of learning from their mistakes. Witness the farcical series of misjudgments incorporated in the recent budget, now unwinding in the headlines. Each of these fumbles carries an ongoing potential for further unwelcome (unwelcome to the administration) headlines, as more and more amendments have to be made just to keep the creaking system more or less ticking over.

There were controversial issues in the budget, for instance the cut in the top rate of tax which was bound to be a feeding frenzy for all the "Tories looking after their rich mates" types. This was a also a PR stunt - but set by the previous Labour govt who increased the top rate one month before the election as an elephant trap for the Tories. They were perfectly happy with a top rate of 40% for 12 years 11 months out of their 13 years in power.

From a purely political/PR perspective, I think the worst budget decision is the "granny tax". From a fairness/equality point of view this was a good decision, why should pensioners get higher tax allowances in the first place considering they get a lot of non means tested benefits such as winter fuel allowance, bus passes etc, plus as the IFS analysis of the budget showed, pensioners have been the group least hardset hit by the cuts over the last few years.

Tony Blair described the biggest mistake of his first term was to not over-index the basic state pension when inflation was only about 1%. It lead to "peanuts" headlines in the Sun. Ever since then there has been a minimum 2.5% increase to the basic state pension. There is no logical reason for this at all, why should pensioners get above inflation increases when inflation is 1% but not when inflation is 3%? PR, nothing else.

No, we get the government that manages to control more parliamentary seats. An incompetent government may control more parliamentary seats, but that doesn't mean that all of us somehow deserve their incompetence. Even those who voted Lib Dem or Tory don't deserve to suffer under the incompetence of these inexperienced, squabbling ministers. What we deserve is better politicians -- in all three of the major parties.

Do you want "experience" like Gordon Brown and the 10p tax rate abolishion farce? He'd been in power over 10 years as PM or chancellor, is that what experience gets you? That was far more incompetant than anything in the last budget, because not only was it unfair and regressive, it was disasterous PR.

They ended up having to adjust personal allowances mid-tax year to recover from that, a complete shambles, and far worse than anything this lot will have to backtrack on.

ticktack_2

zagfles wrote: »

Do you want "experience" like Gordon Brown and the 10p tax rate abolishion farce?

No, I want better politicians, in all the political parties, as I said.

The hallmark of this administration is incompetence.

The hallmark of Brown's administration was a deeply troubled leader whose personal problems disastrously clouded his judgment.

Every administration has its own weaknesses. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man", they used to say. In the present times, the hour has well and truly come, but the men (and women) who've come with it show no signs of being able to rise to the occasion.

zagfles

ticktack wrote: »

No, I want better politicians, in all the political parties, as I said.

The hallmark of this administration is incompetence.

The hallmark of Brown's administration was a deeply troubled leader whose personal problems disastrously clouded his judgment.

Every administration has its own weaknesses. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man", they used to say. In the present times, the hour has well and truly come, but the men (and women) who've come with it show no signs of being able to rise to the occasion.

Isn't it strange how the (probably) least respected profession is politics, the people who run our country, and the people who we directly elect.

People tend to have great respect for doctors, nurses, pilots etc and trust them with their lives all the time. But nobody elected them, they were appointed by demonstrating their competance to people who are experts. Not (like with the govt) by people who mostly haven't got a clue and will believe any old rubbish which they are told by whatever newspaper spouts the political prejudices which fits with theirs.

Like I said, we get the politicians we deserve. After all, we put them there.

jetplane

OP don't forget that grandma can claim the child tax credit too so it's £80 week not £20.

She doesn't live in Scotland does she? One of my work collegues actually bought a property in Scotland with the sole intention of using this as residency and saving all of the costs of university study.

The cuts to child benefit are just a token gesture, the wealthy never really suffer they just get creative. Check out the savage cuts to tax credits where it really hurts the lower paid. Meanwhile the 10k tax free earnings means nothing if your on housing benefit.

zagfles

jetplane wrote: »

OP don't forget that grandma can claim the child tax credit too so it's £80 week not £20.

Good point!

She doesn't live in Scotland does she? One of my work collegues actually bought a property in Scotland with the sole intention of using this as residency and saving all of the costs of university study.

Very MSE! Assuming the kids what to go to a Scottish university.

The cuts to child benefit are just a token gesture, the wealthy never really suffer they just get creative. Check out the savage cuts to tax credits where it really hurts the lower paid. Meanwhile the 10k tax free earnings means nothing if your on housing benefit.

That's another problem with politics, the use of ridiculous hyperbole like "savage" to describe what is not an unreasonable change in the eligibility critera for WTC, expecting a couple to work 3 days between them to get a benefit which is only for people who "work". Is it "savage" that a single parent can't and never could get WTC on 15 hours?

The differences between the parties (despite what they say) are incredibly minor, yet are exaggerated out of all proportion by politicians and by other political activists eg unions, papers etc in order to create an "us and them" mentality - whose side are you on, to create an almost tribal support for a party rather than support based on an understanding of their actual policies and their competance at doing the job of running the country.

jetplane

zagfles wrote: »

Very MSE! Assuming the kids what to go to a Scottish university.

That's another problem with politics, the use of ridiculous hyperbole like "savage" to describe what is not an unreasonable change in the eligibility critera for WTC, expecting a couple to work 3 days between them to get a benefit which is only for people who "work". Is it "savage" that a single parent can't and never could get WTC on 15 hours?

The boys were told they were going to a scottish university. :cool:

Why use a ridiculous word like hyperbole when you can just say exaggerate? I wasn't referring to the 16/24 hour rule as I happen to agree that a couple who are both capable of working should not choose to work only 16 hours AND have their wage doubled with tax credits.

I was referring to the cuts that affect 2 people who work full time on minimum wage, the cuts to earnings disregards, cuts to the baby element, cuts to the childcare element, withdrawal of the basic family element, removal of the 50+ element, the reduction in notification time, freezing of amounts. When it hits the lowest earners they are savage, brutal, crude, harsh, whatever word you want to use.

Particularly as the tax credit system has encouraged employees to only seek 16 hour contracts and employers have been more than happy to oblige. Less paperwork for employers and more flexibilty for their business.