Child Benefit

[mattx]

Family 1. Two earners on £40,000 each, total income £80,000 still get child benefit.

Family 2. One earner on £45,000 family doesn't get child benefit.

 

George Osborne. Sir, you are a moron.

[torledo]

i think this is a really a numbers game, the number of families on dual incomes with both partners below the earnings threshold has to be substantially greater than single income families where the income earner is ABOVE the threshold. So you'd be making a hell of a lot more people angry if you applied it to houshold income above 46k or even a higher figure of say 60k. Now

 

And on top of that, how many in the high earning single income group have children who are all above the age at which CB stops getting paid...most people i know on those type of middle manager salaries have a partner who works or children who are at university or in work, or surely in a lot of cases they are wealthy off enouhgh where you have one 'stay at home' parent to not need the CB payments ? Sure, there will be cases of single parents with young children just above the threshold who are being hit unfairly with this but again each financial situation is more complex... and that's the anomaly plus the high marginal tax burden, plus the individual cases where it's clearly unfair. Anyone who's any good at their job plus has the experience goes on contract anyway where they pay themselves a much lower salary so don't get hit with the high marginal tax burden of higher rate PAYE.

 

But then that high marginal tax burden and 'unfairness' has always happened under the tax credit system for single income households on moderate PAYE incomes....it's been highlighted before, but nobody takes it seriously, probably because these single income families don't read the guardian and the high marginal tax burden on them doesn't have anything to do with child benefit.

[chrbb]

@Toledo I think I actually agree with you on this one - has that ever happened before?

[apoth0r]

Unfortunately something has to be done, this currently doesnt effect me but at the same time, I'd be willing to do my bit in order to get things back on track. People can moan and moan about it effecting some and not others because of x,y and z but in the end I'd rather see people with large incomes be hit then the same people who just scrape by, which has always been kicked in the nads time and time again.

[AyatollahPies]

i think this is a really a numbers game, the number of families on dual incomes with both partners below the earnings threshold has to be substantially greater than single income families where the income earner is ABOVE the threshold. So you'd be making a hell of a lot more people angry if you applied it to houshold income above 46k or even a higher figure of say 60k. Now

 

And on top of that, how many in the high earning single income group have children who are all above the age at which CB stops getting paid...most people i know on those type of middle manager salaries have a partner who works or children who are at university or in work, or surely in a lot of cases they are wealthy off enouhgh where you have one 'stay at home' parent to not need the CB payments ? Sure, there will be cases of single parents with young children just above the threshold who are being hit unfairly with this but again each financial situation is more complex... and that's the anomaly plus the high marginal tax burden, plus the individual cases where it's clearly unfair. Anyone who's any good at their job plus has the experience goes on contract anyway where they pay themselves a much lower salary so don't get hit with the high marginal tax burden of higher rate PAYE.

 

But then that high marginal tax burden and 'unfairness' has always happened under the tax credit system for single income households on moderate PAYE incomes....it's been highlighted before, but nobody takes it seriously, probably because these single income families don't read the guardian and the high marginal tax burden on them doesn't have anything to do with child benefit.

 

Are most of us Edugeekers no good at our jobs then?

[Dos_Box]

It's also down to how to detect how much a household earns. the 'system' only detects individual earnigns, so for a govt to do a blanket search for all earners over 44k is reletively easy to do. I don't think there is a single govt database that contains info on ALL joint income. Ergo, it is easier to setup and administer this way.

TBH, if you earn 44k or above you don't need child benifit full stop anyway!

[JJonas]

TBH, if you earn 44k or above you don't need child benifit full stop anyway!

 

Exactly what I was thinking and by 2013 you will have probably had more than £1700 of pay rises anyway.

[AyatollahPies]

It's also down to how to detect how much a household earns. the 'system' only detects individual earnigns, so for a govt to do a blanket search for all earners over 44k is reletively easy to do. I don't think there is a single govt database that contains info on ALL joint income. Ergo, it is easier to setup and administer this way.

TBH, if you earn 44k or above you don't need child benifit full stop anyway!

 

I agree totally, but I think the point Mattx is trying to make is that it's been done in such a stupid and unfair way.

[webman]

AyatollahPies: Not stupid and unfair. More like easier, quicker, and less complex.

 

If the Govt did what what Dos_Box mentioned about knowing all joint incomes - how difficult would that be for them to set up, get right, and implement it? And that's before they start using the data for the child benefit situation.

 

I think they're doing the best they can using existing data, and it is fair. I agree with Dos_Box - if you're earning £44k+ you shouldn't need handouts from taxpayers, most of whom earn a lot less!

[teejay]

There are always losers however you do it. The big advantage of the way it's being done is that it's achievably with the current databases, staffing and IT systems meaning this is an actual saving rather than billions being squandered on extra IT contracts.

In all honesty, I would've prefered if they had got rid of child benefit all together, those who really need it already receive child tax credits.

[AyatollahPies]

AyatollahPies: Not stupid and unfair. More like easier, quicker, and less complex.

 

If the Govt did what what Dos_Box mentioned about knowing all joint incomes - how difficult would that be for them to set up, get right, and implement it? And that's before they start using the data for the child benefit situation.

 

I think they're doing the best they can using existing data, and it is fair. I agree with Dos_Box - if you're earning £44k+ you shouldn't need handouts from taxpayers, most of whom earn a lot less!

 

Don't have kids so don't know the full ins and outs of Child Benefit, but surely you have to fill in a form to get it, and surely you have to put the incomes of both parents on it? There you go, both incomes immediately made available.

 

It's not fair in the sense that a couple that both earn £40k, thus a combined income of £80k can still get it whereas a single income household of £45k would not be allowed it. (My understanding of it)

 

Regardless of weather or not you think those on £45k+ should be entitled (I personally don't think they should), you cannot suggest that this is a fair way of doing it?

[mattx]

I agree totally, but I think the point Mattx is trying to make is that it's been done in such a stupid and unfair way.

 

Indeed - with all the info the government holds on us - [ tax records, property, how many living in household etc etc ] then it would be straight forward to work out what the overall income is. What they don't take into consideration is also cost of living. I have lived in London most of my life and it's expensive - god knows why, it just is.

There is no excuse in my book this process is un-fair but something should be done however I feel this is not the correct way of doing it.

Maybe, just maybe they should be doing more on bankers bonuses......They got us into this mess and yet again they will be getting around 7 Billion - [ yes that's 7 Billion pounds ] in bonuses this year. A few billion of that will be put back into the system but it's still extracting the urine.

But don't worry though - because of all the cuts they are making - schools, health, state etc - they still WON'T cut back on defence.

 

Can someone remind me when the last time they saw the Army holding a fete, or event to raise money for weapons ? Schools and hospitals do it all the time !! [ But not for weapons !! ]

[adhutton]

There are always losers however you do it. The big advantage of the way it's being done is that it's achievably with the current databases, staffing and IT systems meaning this is an actual saving rather than billions being squandered on extra IT contracts.

In all honesty, I would've prefered if they had got rid of child benefit all together, those who really need it already receive child tax credits.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I have 3 children and my wife and I both work full time and are on modest incomes - nowhere near the £45k a year. We get only £10 per week Child Tax Credit and would find it quite hard to lose the Child Benefit money.

 

Do you have any kids? Do you know how expensive they are? Have you seen the price of food, shoes, clothes etc. these days?

 

Andrew

[Dos_Box]

Actually it's not that easy. Many points of information held by the govt are in seperate and disparate systems. There was a HUGE aoutcry when teh previous govt suggested makign 'super' databases with all of the information on there, not least because the opportunity for misuse was rife, and the previous govt's track record in IT projects wasn't exactly the best in the world. I'm afraid that it isn't easy, and the easiest system is to use the exisiting one, which is rater limited in scope. With divorce and seperation at such high levels and people renting and moving properties mixed in with 'cohabiting' unmarried parents how do you judge a 'joint income'?

[bossman]

Quote:

You can please "all of the people some of the time" and please "some of the people all of the time" but you cannot please "all of the people all of the time"

 

It may seem like stupidity from our perspective but to be honest I really do feel for the government at this time as I personally feel they are trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear" and being honest in their evaluation about the situation this country is in.

 

It couldn't keep going on as it was with the Labour government (even though I vote labour) borrowing and spending at such a rate that the country was near to bankruptcy, we could have easily have gone the way of Greece and Spain.

 

Yes it will have an impact on some people and I really do feel for them but come on 44k is still a large amount for a single earner, better than say 10k which quite a lot of people earn and even though there are 2 wage earners in the family it still only amounts to 20k for some families.

 

The so called middle class as they like to call themselves are much better off than those on the breadline and the upper class well I feel the government should bring in an even higher rate of taxation for these people but we all know too well how good they are at avoiding taxes so it would be a waste of money and time.

 

I do feel for people in certain positions where they are just above the threshold and I am at this moment experiencing this with my son going to Uni and having to pay for some of his expenses as we are not entitled to anything except his tuition fees. We are just over the threshold and it will be a little tight for us over the next three years unlike some of his friends who have full access to all benefits because their families have split up.

 

A family we know split up and the wife remarried between her and her new husband they are over the threshold for their sons College and Uni fees but as the Ex Father still lives on his own and is in fulltime education they told the governing authorities that the son was living with his father which meant that while going to college he received the EMA allowance although he was living with his Mother and new father this is what they did for his Uni fees also trying to dupe the authorities.

 

I know of more people in these situations and it is not fair that couples who marry and stay together bringing up children should be penalized for being together whereas those that play the system because they are either single parents or divorced should get away with taking from the system what is sometimes not due to them, this is also so unfair.

 

So what is the solution? I don't think we are in the position to slate people who have a better working knowledge of the countries finance than us.

 

"We are mere pawns in the game of life".

 

Apologies if I have ruffled anyones feathers it is not a dig at anyone in particular just get so frustrated after seeing this country, my country go downhill so fast over the last decade.

[mattx]

Actually it's not that easy. Many points of information held by the govt are in seperate and disparate systems. There was a HUGE aoutcry when teh previous govt suggested makign 'super' databases with all of the information on there, not least because the opportunity for misuse was rife, and the previous govt's track record in IT projects wasn't exactly the best in the world. I'm afraid that it isn't easy, and the easiest system is to use the exisiting one, which is rater limited in scope. With divorce and seperation at such high levels and people renting and moving properties mixed in with 'cohabiting' unmarried parents how do you judge a 'joint income'?

 

Have to disagree - it's VERY easy and there is plenty of skill and knowledge in the database field to get this data together - and looking at the long term this would save millions of pounds in other areas. As usual though the government want quick fix dirty solutions and won't spend now and invest. They won't invest in schools, they won't invest in hospitals and they won't invest in other areas. But they are more than happy to keep the out of date and dirty bonus culture alive in the city on a money system which needs a complete overall however, as it's really the city running the country and calling the shots and not ANY government then this does not surprise me.

Look back at the divide between the have and the have nots under Thatcher and Major - give it 5 to 7 years and that will look like a stream compared to what will happen.

I have not witnessed one government over the last 25 years that has had a proper 10 year investment in the country - it's all short term gains which just make it worse.

[teejay]

Don't have kids so don't know the full ins and outs of Child Benefit, but surely you have to fill in a form to get it, and surely you have to put the incomes of both parents on it? There you go, both incomes immediately made available.

Child Benefit is a universal benefit, so you get it at present no matter what income you are on, therefore they don't ask for your income details on the form. From what I understand, there is an easy way with current systems to check if there is at least one parent on higher rate income tax, but it would cost a lot of money to introduce a system that check if both parents are on the higher rate.

May not sound the fairest of ways I know, but the idea is to reduce government spending to reduce the deficit, not create costly extra layers of beurocracy.

[Butuz]

Yes they have made a mistake. Combined earners shouldn't get child benefits either. If you can't afford to have children you shouldn't!! Child benefit should be used in emergency’s i.e. if one earner loses their job or the like and combined income suddenly drops under say £20k - £25k then I agree with child benefits.

 

However if your earning over £45k singly or up to £80k combined and you are so inept that you manage your massive amount of money so badly that you somehow can't afford to live without child benefits then frankly you should not be allowed to procreate!!!

 

That's all I am going to say on the matter because frankly I'm on the verge of going off on one and my face has gone all red !!!!

 

Butuz

[witch]

I do agree, anyone on that income shouldnt get the benefit, BUT why should the many people whose joint income is above the higher rate tax threshold still get it?

I believe that this will affect a large number of people and there must be a fairer way.

IMHO perhaps the easiest way without increasing costs, would be to continue to pay it to all, but reduce the amount, and make it up by increasing child tax credits which are paid to the people on lower incomes who need the money.

 

 

*the case for not paying it was highlighted when a teacher, who is on £34k, and whose husband works full-time as well, stated that she used her child benefit for...Christmas presents!!!

(they would still get it under the proposed new rules)

[apoth0r]

I think too many people expect things.

They now have it in their mind that they are entitled to benefits, when in fact a majority don't even need them. "But it's nice to have that little extra"

I'm afraid to say that the previous government has made things so bad that we can no longer afford (as a country) to have a little extra. Yes we all loved the lavish free spending government, but look where we are now.

It's not a human right it is a 'bonus'.

 

A quote I found from last year - "Treasury figures show that welfare payments will exceed income tax receipts by almost £25 billion"

A £25 BILLION defecit!

Scrap it all!

Edited October 6, 2010 by apoth0r
added quote

[torledo]

IMHO perhaps the easiest way without increasing costs, would be to continue to pay it to all, but reduce the amount, and make it up by increasing child tax credits which are paid to the people on lower incomes who need the money.

 

but in practice how would you do that ? By increasing the child element of tax credit perhaps, but the point i was alluding to earlier was that as CTC is means tested, you can have a situation where basic rate tax payers on moderate incomes get virtually nothing in the way of CTC as their pay progresses. Single income families below 35k for example start getting hit by a high marginal burden because of the reduction in CTC, no WTC entitlement, and no Housing benefit or Council tax benefit either. plus they pay for prescriptions, dental etc. this is where the real scandal lies in our 'progressive' tax and benefits system, but i can only conclude the numbers of people in this bracket are so small [in relation to other households politicans want to woo] so as to be inconsequential to government

 

incorporating CB into the tax credits system probably wouldn't help them if the means testing is done in the way the CTC means system was carried out by labour.

[LeMarchand]

Yes they have made a mistake. Combined earners shouldn't get child benefits either. If you can't afford to have children you shouldn't!! Child benefit should be used in emergency’s i.e. if one earner loses their job or the like and combined income suddenly drops under say £20k - £25k then I agree with child benefits.

 

However if your earning over £45k singly or up to £80k combined and you are so inept that you manage your massive amount of money so badly that you somehow can't afford to live without child benefits then frankly you should not be allowed to procreate!!!

 

:clap2:

 

I do agree, anyone on that income shouldnt get the benefit, BUT why should the many people whose joint income is above the higher rate tax threshold still get it?

I believe that this will affect a large number of people and there must be a fairer way.

IMHO perhaps the easiest way without increasing costs, would be to continue to pay it to all, but reduce the amount, and make it up by increasing child tax credits which are paid to the people on lower incomes who need the money.

 

Good plan, though I say cut it entirely and up the credits. Mme LeMarchand says (may not be true any more) that when she got CB it went to the mother directly as many fathers would not hand over "their" wages to provide for their children. (Her ex certainly spent most of his in the pub). So maybe there is an argument for it.

 

I wonder if this seemingly ridiculous allowance for couples isn't an attempt at social engineering - stay a nuclear family and you'll be better off.

[torledo]

it is not fair that couples who marry and stay together bringing up children should be penalized for being together whereas those that play the system because they are either single parents or divorced should get away with taking from the system what is sometimes not due to them, this is also so unfair.

 

well said.

[andyturpie]

Good emotive subject guys and I give it about another 10 posts before lockdown. Our total household annual income is £26k, mortgage of £125k have a 6k debt because of a tax credit issue which wasn't our fault which we are repaying back (so our current payments are cancelled out). Car failed MOT so we scrapped it, no transport.Bosses of Advent training had ran off with my last 6k of redundancy for an MCSE course which left me with no way of affording further training. Nothing left for a holiday and we deem our virgin broadband and mobiles as a luxury not a neccessity. However know of people on less income and more benefits who can run a car and a family holiday each year. Opposite case younger sister, registered alchie failed detox twice at taxpayers expense, free flat, enough money to get absolutely w**kered every night on cider. Flat has just been refitted out with NEW kitchen and bathroom of her choice. Ours stands like the set from the Good Life sitcom (70s G plan and formica). To say my urine is currently boling over is an understatement lol

[witch]

FYI: child benefit is still the only benefit paid DIRECTLY to the mother