Child Allowance - Any Exceptions?

S1961

We currently look after our 2 Grandchildren full time, one with a Residence Order and the other under a Special Guardianship Order. Their parents (our daughters) don’t live with us and are both on benefits. They contribute nothing financially other than indirectly as we claim the child allowance. As I earn over £60K, I am assuming that by default this will stop in 2013 but this seems unfair in the circumstances. Is there any kind of appeals or arbitration process or does HRMC just hit us with an increased tax bill regardless?

Icequeen99

You can choose to stop receiving your payments of Child Benefit, then you won't have to deal with the tax charge and paperwork. If your income is definitely above 60k, that is probably the best thing to do.

In terms of appeal, the limits are set so you can't challenge them through appeal.

IQ

xylophone

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/cb-income-tax.htm#a9

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2213947/Child-benefit-cuts-hit-couples-3-000-tax-bill.html

whiffyleaks

Why is it unfair? It's the same for everybody else.

princessdon

whiffyleaks wrote: »

Why is it unfair? It's the same for everybody else.

Because they raised their children and are now raising their grandchildren which save the state a fortune in Foster Carer payments.

They will not be entitled to any other form of funding (unless they have a generous LA).

This is a family who takes in a child/ren who saves tax payers money. I'd suspect if the children were with parents they'd get a lot more than the pennies they pay for CB.

I totally understand why they asked this question and feel it is a bit unfair.

shop-to-drop

If your income is less than £50K when you deduct your pension payments you will still be entitled. May be worth increasing the pension contributions if you are still over. I hope you find a way to keep them.

princessdon

MrBill wrote: »

If it's unfair for that reason then they should simply give the children to the state to deal with. You make it sound like they're in it for the money.

I don't think it's unfair in the slightest, they earn an excellent income - why should it be supplemented?

Where have I suggested they should return their children? Just because you don't see why it is unfair doesn't mean I need to share the same opinion.

I think they should be paid a kinship payment etc as a carer - but they won't be because of income. They are doing everyone (particularly those children) a huge service and I would not begrudge them CB in anyway shape or form.

princessdon

MrBill wrote: »

I didn't say you suggested it. My point was that if they were doing it in the expectation that we foot the bill then why should they continue doing it when they money stops?

A wage exceeding £60,000 should not be supplemented for any reason. They have the means to make choices like caring for these children, it's a lot more than most people have.

Then we will have to agree to disagree as I think they deserve more than CB will ever be.


Given that families of £100K still get it (but that is my realy bug bear with the whole CB fiasco).

cheepskate_2

princessdon wrote: »

. They are doing everyone (particularly those children) a huge service and I would not begrudge them CB in anyway shape or form.

Are they?........................They didn't seem to bring up their own children very well, that S.S have to take the children off both of their daughters. .
Maybe history will repeat itself and the kids will end up on benefits with their kids taken off them and cost the taxpayer even more money

Some people on here seem to think you should get handed money anytime you sneeze

Chrissiew

cheepskate wrote: »

Are they?........................They didn't seem to bring up their own children very well, that S.S have to take the children off both of their daughters. .
Maybe history will repeat itself and the kids will end up on benefits with their kids taken off them and cost the taxpayer even more money

Some people on here seem to think you should get handed money anytime you sneeze

How the hell do you know how they brought their kids up? Why do people blame the parents if the kids turn out bad? They could have raised their kids in a perfectly good way but once a child gets older, starts mixing with other kids and teenagers that's when they can start to turn bad, nothing to do with how they were raised.

No one knows the circumstances with this family, they haven't been told why they are raising their grand children instead of the mothers doing it, no one knows if the kids were voluntary handed to the grand parents or if social services took the kids off the mothers, the daughters maybe just couldn't cope with having kids of their own, whatever has happened people shouldnt automatically jump to the conclusion it came about due to bad parenting.

I do have to agree though that £60,000 is a hell of a lot of money and £23, or there abouts, extra a week won't make much of a difference to someone earning that much, but they are saving the government a fair amount through looking after the kids themselves instead of letting them get taken into care so maybe a bit extra is deserved.

Tottyshouse

MrBill wrote: »

I didn't say you suggested it. My point was that if they were doing it in the expectation that we foot the bill then why should they continue doing it when they money stops?

A wage exceeding £60,000 should not be supplemented for any reason. They have the means to make choices like caring for these children, it's a lot more than most people have.

Child Benefit is hardly "footing the bill". Now Income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit, child tax credits. That's footing the bill. I imagine if the children were still with their mothers, they (the mothers) would be claiming that x2! Makes 20 quid a week look a bit of a bargain in my opinion. And lets not forget the grandparent earning the 60 grand is paying 20k back into the state every year! So let's not get silly and suggest the op is wanting the state to foot the bill!