Child Benefit ........2013

[Bellenden Belle]

crystal7 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Belle Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't think the burden of private school fees

> is

> > comparable to that of childcare if we're

> talking

> > about expenses - the latter is a necessary cost

> > for any working parent (excepting those with

> > relatives who will do the caring for free), the

> > former is absolutely a choice.

>

>

> Couldn't agree more Belle!

Hear hear...private education is not a necessity for middle-class parents.

[toast]

Complex issue for sure, my concern is slightly different to others i have just read. Above and beyond all the other problems with this cut is the uneasy feeling that 'they' are winging it and possibly dont have the skill needed to cut a third of a budget without blowing it. Robert Preston wrote aninsightful article about this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/10/what_are_private-sector_lesson.html

I'm not a fan of the Torys but i really do hope they know what they are doing.

[Gubodge]

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you have two

> children and earn an ok as opposed to

> stratospheric salary, school fees leave very very

> little after other necessities come off.

If you can afford to send two children to private school then you are on a hell of a lot more than an 'ok' salary. And if you sent them to state schools then you'd be saving the extra money you must be spending on childcare during the extended holidays. It's a win all round.

We will not be affected by this, and unlikely to be for a quite some time, given the 2 year pay freeze we're both subjected to as civil servants. That said, we could, with a bit of belt tightening, manage on ?80 less a month with no significant impact on our lifestyle. I do not agree with universal benefits and see no other way of cutting this one without it either costing a huge amount to administer, or it affecting the poorest families.

My concern is that no thought (Ha! There's a surprise.) has been given to Home Responsibilites Protection. Will stay-at-home partners of higher rate tax payers still have a way of claiming this, even if they no longer qualify for Chb. Mr Barber?

[kristymac1]

For me the issue is not whether a family can 'live on' ?45K or not - some will live better than others depending on the number of people supported on that income and the household outgoings. My issue is this constant reference to the fact that it is the 'richest 15%' of tax payers who will be affected - this is simply not true - within the remaining 85% there will be households earning in excess of ?80K who will still get the benefit and many households within the so-called richest 15% who will be bringing in well below this - bottom line, that's unfair.

I have no problem per se with CB being cut for those in the higher tax bracket, but it should be implemented fairly. I'm happy for our family to contribute to erasing the deficit in this way and other ways too if necessary, but I just don't believe that it is beyond the Government to introduce these cuts fairly.

[Belle]

Gubodge Wrote:

>

> My concern is that no thought (Ha! There's a

> surprise.) has been given to Home Responsibilites

> Protection. Will stay-at-home partners of higher

> rate tax payers still have a way of claiming this,

> even if they no longer qualify for Chb. Mr Barber?

What is HRP? I've never heard of it before.

[Keef]

I think new mother was having a bit of a joke. I hope so anyway.

[Gubodge]

HRP means that as long as a non-working parent is claiming child benefit, they are (in effect) getting credited with national insurance contributions towards their pension. (Although not other benefits.)

[BB100]

I think new mother has a valid point if you reverse her reasoning. By paying for her child's education she relieves the state from the financial burden of schooling her child. If giving new mother child benefit enables her to do that and she is saving the tax payer thousands of pounds and freeing up a state school place then taking child benefit away is short-sighted foolishness.

Investing can reap greater gains than penny pinching.

[Bellenden Belle]

Oh for crying out loud.... I don't think the majority of people are squirrelling away their child benefit to pay for private education. As far as I know this has always been a tad more than ?80 a month.

BB100 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think new mother has a valid point if you

> reverse her reasoning. By paying for her child's

> education she relieves the state from the

> financial burden of schooling her child. If giving

> new mother child benefit enables her to do that

> and she is saving the tax payer thousands of

> pounds and freeing up a state school place then

> taking child benefit away is short-sighted

> foolishness.

>

> Investing can reap greater gains than penny

> pinching.

[BB100]

No you're right Bellenden Belle, but it's an interesting way of looking at it if child benefit can make a pivotal difference - new mother says it makes a difference to her.

For me I'm on a win-win-win - I'm under the threshold and married so I don't have any incentive to argue against this, but can see a wider picture.

[nikki73]

i am with kristymac on this one. Accept I should contribute but expect other better off families to do the same. Also if you do the maths i do wonder whether a higher earning tax payer woman mother of two kids under 5 isn't better off going part-time if she doesn't earn significantly more than 45k, once you take chilcare costs into consideration.

[sillywoman]

Personally I'm gutted. Our CHB amounts to about 8% of our net monthly family income. I work part-time & Sensibleman falls over the HRT threshold by a couple of thousand a year. We'll certainly find it hard to lose the ?240 a month. I understand the need for national belt-tightening (though as someone pointed out elsewhere SamCam appearing in a ?750 dress at the conference didn't make me feel good about her hubby's understanding of our 'average family' finances), and would be content - though with a slight gulp - to give up the money if It wasn't for the outrageous injustice of Mr & Mrs Joe Bloggs down the road. They (entirely fictional BTW) both working but under the HRT limit, with a net family income of almost double ours, will be able to get CHB for their one child, whilst we on a much lower family income won't be able to for any of our 4. Surely some mistake?

I'll have to go & do some serious maths, but it may be worth asking Sensibleman to consider taking a pay cut, as it may be more valuable for him to be paid below the HRT level & still be able to claim the CHB. Anyone good with numbers?

[new mother]

SW,

We have two children as we cannot give eg 3 children the sort of life I'd want to be able to. You chose to have 4 children. That was your choice (assuming you don't have quads! ;-)).

Should the taxpayer subsidise that choice?

THat is the principle behind the cut.

[Fuschia]

SW: can he claim childcare vouchers as that will reduce his taxable income? Can be sued for summer schemes etc.

NM: I also have child no 4 on the way and CB is very important to us financially. We don't get any help with childcare costs or anything. We ARE the taxpayer! I'd rather my tax went on benefits than nuclear weapons!

[sillywoman]

No NM, I quite agree that the taxpayer shouldn't fund my 4, or your 2 (though FYI 4 wasn't really what we'd intended) and I'm not really wanting to get into that whole how many children should people have debate as there's no correct answer to it - it just goes round in circles. We all make decisions based on our life circumstances at the time. It's not really for you to judge mine without knowing me & my circumstances intimately -and I don't think I'll be sharing my life story with you over the forum even if you wanted me to, which I sorely doubt ;-)!! If the principle behind the cuts was really 'the taxpayer not subsidising anyone's decision to have children' then surely they would be cutting very differently and applying cuts fairly to all families on or above a certain income. I don't think that's anything to do with the proposed cut to CHB.

Fushia - ours are all at school now & I work from home so that we don't have to have afterschool childcare or it's attendant costs. Maybe I should reconsider though? Bummer eh?

[new mother]

Totally agree v personal decision and not for anyone to judge.

BUT.the problem then becomes ...once people subsidise others, they DO feel they have a right to judge.

To take an extreme example, it does rile me to think I am paying for massive families to lvie in massive houses in central London that I personally cannot afford to live in on my post mega tax, minimal income!

[sillywoman]

As I said, that argument can go round for ever, only ending with no welfare state at all and workhouses for the poor & elderly - & what sort of society is that?

I just came on for a bit of a moan & a grumble at the blatant injustice of DC's proposals, was not really anticipating an analysis of how comparatively draining my family (who only claims CHB & nothing else) is to the taxpayer.

[Fuschia]

SW: your children will be paying all our pensions in years to come. Each child is a positive addition to the economy if you look at their lifetime... a child doesn't cost more in benefits than it contributes in tax etc over its life, just the opposite. Hence most European countries have policies designed to increase the birth rate!

[Fuschia]

These articles are about the costs of fertility treatment but have some info about the NET contribution to society of each child, once benefits and education etc have been netted off

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ferguswalsh/2010/09/the_globalisation_of_fertility_treatment.html

'Professor Evers said each new life contributes around 238,000 euros (?200,000) to the economy once healthcare, education, social welfare and retirement costs were taken into account. He based his calculations on the Netherlands but said similar calculations could be done elsewhere. '

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5095884.stm

[Belle]

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Totally agree v personal decision and not for

> anyone to judge.

>

> BUT.the problem then becomes ...once people

> subsidise others, they DO feel they have a right

> to judge.

>

> To take an extreme example, it does rile me to

> think I am paying for massive families to lvie in

> massive houses in central London that I personally

> cannot afford to live in on my post mega tax,

> minimal income!

But New Mother, you were saying earlier in the thread that your income is impacted mainly by the cost of private schooling (and that child benefit helps with this)? So not really fair to complain of minimal income in the context of people here whose kids are in state school, and who rely on child benefit.

[expat]

> Each child is a positive addition to the economy

Only if they are tax payers.

[Fuschia]

expat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Each child is a positive addition to the

> economy

> Only if they are tax payers.

What proportion of the children of higher rate taxpayers don't go on to contribute to society by working?

[The Nappy Lady]

Sillywoman - we are in the same boat - hubby just over the limit so we'll lose child benefit, but I only work part time, and actually it is really only to 'keep my hand in' until DD2 starts school - little left after I've paid childcare costs.

We can cope without the money, although it is a big help with cost of childcare for our little one so I can actually go out to work 3 days a week, BUT I am so cross, like you, that a couple who both work and are each under the threshold, but with a much greater total income will not lose the benefit whilst we will.

What I don't understand is this;

If they are going to take away our benefit based on my hubby's income (details of which they will get via Inland Revenue I presume), why can they not get details of our total JOINT income, and then apply the rule of who does and does not get the benefit? I accept we need to accept the loss, but not the way it has been applied so unfairly.

I have been trying to work out whether we'd be better off if I got a job back in the City part time, and hubby went part time so we are both under the threshold, share childcare between us around work hours, so no childcare costs and then still get child benefit. I suspect we would be, and how daft is that?

I think the whole thing is being rushed through and done really badly. If you want people to knuckle down and accept the hard times in order to help get the country back on track then at least implement the change in a sensible and fair way.

[Saila]

Removing CB from higher rate tax payers seems inevitable in today's climate

However, this silly loop hole smacks of a rushed through policy

They have 3 years to reformat the online form to include a check box asking if the spouse earns more than the threshold

edit to say: 'joint income is more than threshold'

It will get ironed out before they introduce this particular cut

It's just an error

This is all about distracting the middle classes ahead of the REAL cuts on the 20th

[Earl Aelfheah]

The reality is that there need to be cuts and you can't just target them all at the poorest simply because it's less likely to upset the papers. If you earn ?44 K and have a familly in London, it's tough. But you're still better off than the vast majority. There is little doubt that it will be the poorest who really feel the pain, post 20th October.

I would like to see the super rich, especially those in the city who contributed to the crash, burden a greater share. The government (despite a bit of empty rhetoric) have done nothing to reform the banking sector, nor to seriously press the banks to repay the debt they owe the taxpayer. I think this issue is a more appropriate target for peoples ire.