Child Benefit

[mattx]

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

 

Which again proves [ well to me ] just out of date this and other elements of government aid is. I've already said it in a previous post - invest in a proper system which will take years, [ it would create jobs, create skills, get money flowing ] to implement and the money gained and saved would be fantastic but, NO government is prepared to invest like this - it's all short term gains to keep people who can't think more than 3 years down the line to vote for them. Never mind.

[localzuk]

Which again proves [ well to me ] just out of date this and other elements of government aid is. I've already said it in a previous post - invest in a proper system which will take years, [ it would create jobs, create skills, get money flowing ] to implement and the money gained and saved would be fantastic but, NO government is prepared to invest like this - it's all short term gains to keep people who can't think more than 3 years down the line to vote for them. Never mind.

 

Why is paying to the mother out of date? It is there for the mother to look after the child specifically, so it should be paid directly to the mother.

[teejay]

Why is paying to the mother out of date? It is there for the mother to look after the child specifically, so it should be paid directly to the mother.

 

Because these days it's not always the mother looking after the kids! It would be just as wrong to say 'we must pay it to the father becasue these poor women don't know how to manage money'.

[mattx]

Why is paying to the mother out of date? It is there for the mother to look after the child specifically, so it should be paid directly to the mother.

 

Sorry, I thought it was called child benefit, not mother benefit but I digress.....

There are Dads these days who to the majoirty of bringing up the children - there should be a choice.

[apoth0r]

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

 

I feel for you on the Advent front, I was also scammed out of £4000, has made this year tough with regards to deciding where to go next.

I just think that if people are earning over £45k a year on their own or as a joint income, then it is more then enough to be able to do without. That is a lot of money and would adiquately pay all bills and have plenty to enjoy life. I think the greed has blinded some people.

[creese]

I was a single father nearly 30 years ago, they wanted to pay CB to my (ex) wife. Eventually the fact she was living in Germany and was German made they change their minds.

[teejay]

Child benefit was initially brought in after WWII to help re-populate the country. As we are now over-populated nationally and globally, does it make sense to have it at all?

[beeswax]

Which again proves [ well to me ] just out of date this and other elements of government aid is. I've already said it in a previous post - invest in a proper system which will take years, [ it would create jobs, create skills, get money flowing ] to implement and the money gained and saved would be fantastic but, NO government is prepared to invest like this - it's all short term gains to keep people who can't think more than 3 years down the line to vote for them. Never mind.

 

Originally Child Benefit was paid directly to the father through an alteration to his tax code. The change to paying mothers served two purposes,

1. Low income fathers may have ended up paying no tax and therefore not receiving the full child benefit

2. It is more likely that the mother's name will appear on a child's birth certificate (c/f Ed Milliband).

 

The reason Child Benefit is a Universal Benefit is that it costs more to to assess which families deserve it than to administer it as a UB.

 

The new Tax Break which has been hinted at by David Cameron has been calculated to cost in the region of £750,000, whereas the amount of Child Benefit saved by the tory proposal is approximately £1billion.

 

£44,000 may seem a lot of money but if you live in the south east of the country it doesn't go as far as some of us would believe, so if only one person in the family is earning over the threshold of £44,000, losing child benefit makes a huge difference.

Edited October 6, 2010 by beeswax

[mattx]

Originally Child Benefit was paid directly to the father through an alteration to his tax code. The change to paying mothers served two purposes,

1. Low income fathers may have ended up paying no tax and therefore not receiving the full child benefit

2. It is more likely that the mother's name will appear on a child's birth certificate (c/f Ed Milliband).

 

The reason Child Benefit is a Universal Benefit is that it costs more to to assess which families deserve it than to administer it as a UB.

 

The new Tax Break which has been hinted at by David Cameron has been calculated to cost in the region of £750,000, whereas the amount of Child Benefit saved by the tory proposal is approximately £1billion.

 

£44,000 may seem a lot of money but if you live in the south east of the country it doesn't go as far as some of us would believe, so if only one person in the family is earning over the threshold of £44,000, losing child benefit makes a huge difference.

 

I've seen my tax change countless times over the years because of changes in tax requirements / tax breaks etc etc and I am left wondering how much money it costs to do this.........

So they save 1 Billion in cutting this benefit, but bankers still get around 4 Billion in bonuses........ Hmmmmmmm. The way this lot are currently going around doing things you may as well dig up John Maynard Keynes and stick him in charge.

[beeswax]

bankers still get around 4 Billion in bonuses

Correction, it's nearer £7b.

[teejay]

Originally Child Benefit was paid directly to the father through an alteration to his tax code. The change to paying mothers served two purposes,

 

That was a different allowance, the Child Tax Allowance which along with the Married Couples Allowance was scrapped by Gordon Brown. Funny how after scrapping those it took him over 2 years to introduce the current tax credits system to replace it.

[jsnetman]

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

 

Not in my case, my wife is subject to no recourse to public funds so I claim it. But in normal circumstances yes. I still don't understand how a family on 80k gets it whereas a single earner above the threshold does not. I woulkd agree it should be scrapped for anyone over say 40k joint or single and paid out to the more needy. Why not means test it just about every other benefit is, could it not be linked toi tax credits i.e anyone claiming tax credits or unemployed gets child benefit.

Edited October 6, 2010 by jsnetman

[teejay]

Correction, it's nearer £7b.

 

Well, considering the banking sector generates 20% or more of tax revenue, so around £80 billion, it seems a bargain to me.

[torledo]

£44,000 may seem a lot of money but if you live in the south east of the country it doesn't go as far as some of us would believe, so if only one person in the family is earning over the threshold of £44,000, losing child benefit makes a huge difference.

 

yes, it's a certainly a lot of money to lose. but most of the anecdotals i've read online from those who may be affected when the changes come in seem to be along the lines of....'we don't rely on the CB payments, but they pay for treats/stuff that it'd be nice for the kids to have'. i don't think you could say the same about tax and benefit changes lower down the income scales, where you do have genuine reliance on some basic payments received through the benefits system.

 

does that make it fairer ? no. Is it justification for ignoring the anomalies ? no. But it's more of an indication to me that politically it won't quite be on the scale of the 10p farce. They've even got three years to do a complete U-turn, which brown didn't give himself the luxury of with the 10p change..

[jsnetman]

Why not means test it just about every other benefit is, could it not be linked to tax credits i.e anyone claiming tax credits or unemployed gets child benefit.

[beeswax]

That was a different allowance, the Child Tax Allowance which along with the Married Couples Allowance was scrapped by Gordon Brown. Funny how after scrapping those it took him over 2 years to introduce the current tax credits system to replace it.

 

OK, a different name but serving the same purpose.

[teejay]

OK, a different name but serving the same purpose.

 

This was in addition to Child Benefit, really more of a precursor to Child Tax Credits.

[mattx]

Found it:

 

 

Liar Liar pants on fire.

[Dos_Box]

Hmmm. Not a lot of context there. Technically the are keeping them, just not if you earn over 44k.

[apoth0r]

Hmmm. Not a lot of context there. Technically the are keeping them, just not if you earn over 44k.

 

.....which shouldn't be devastating for said 'high-earners'

 

Summed up and sorted

[mattx]

Hmmm. Not a lot of context there. Technically the are keeping them, just not if you earn over 44k.

 

George Osborne: "We will preserve child benefit"

 

Preserve - keep or maintain in unaltered condition.

 

sorted.

[mattx]

Philip Hammond fails to convince on Child Benefit cuts:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp9lI1T9YKg&feature=related

[mattx]

And just to add insult:

 

BBC News - Cameron hints at tax break amid child benefit row

 

So family 1. Mum earning £40,000 & Dad earning £40,000. £80,000 a year, + Child Benefit also get Tax break in 2015 for being married !! Great.

Family 2. One earner earning £45,000 = NO child benefit + NO Tax break because they are not married.

 

This lot could not run a bath, let alone the country.

[apoth0r]

Aww poor Family 2 on their £45,000 a year job

My girlfriend pays her mortgage, raises a fantastic lad, she pays her bills, maintains her own house, has time and money for her son and all this paid on a 30 hour a week teaching assistant wage. (tax credits and child benefit)

I have no sympathy for people earning £45,000 and not being given a bonus paid for by tax payers.

[witch]

Aww poor Family 2 on their £45,000 a year job

My girlfriend pays her mortgage, raises a fantastic lad, she pays her bills, maintains her own house, has time and money for her son and all this paid on a 30 hour a week teaching assistant wage. (tax credits and child benefit)

I have no sympathy for people earning £45,000 and not being given a bonus paid for by tax payers.

Missing the point: most of us agree that you shouldnt get the child benefit if you earn this amount, but is it fair that you will still get it if there are two of you who individually earn just below the higher tax threshold?

A quick straw poll at work showed that there are quite a few couple who are both teachers, who earn around £40k each and so under the new rules they would still get child benefit.

That can't be right, can it?