Tories scrapping child benefit for people who earn over £44,000

[sarasen92]

depends on where you live,the average locallys around an extra 6-6.5k

hardley amounts to 44k before tax,plus csa payments from a father in a better paid job

 

6.5k rent 1k ct 1k community care grant free computer with free internet. free milk free school meals free dentist eye tests, like i said 10k plus 10.5k cash. 20.5k if you wanted that via working you would have to pay tax so 24k?

 

or am i wrong?

[chem1st]

We as a society need to look at ourselves in the mirror and see what we value. We need to value the cohabiting (Married? - Surely marriage is a good thing for society) couple, adults and children.

 

This child benefit policy will need amending.

 

Couple, 1 on £43,875 or less, gets child benefit.

Couple, both on £43,875 or less, gets child benefit.

Single, £43,875 or less, gets child benefit.

 

Couple, 1 on £43,875.01+, ineligible for benefit.

Couple both on £43,875.01+, ineligible for benefit.

Single on £43,875.01+, ineligible for benefit.

 

These arbitrary figures do not value correctly the worth of a couple, the worth of an adult, or a child (specifically children on the basis of cost per child).

 

Maybe a couple should be allowed to earn 1.5 times a single person? 1.2, 2.1? (But would that be each or together)

Maybe the threshold should be higher for those with more children (And a few % higher if married). 10 kids cost more than 1, but by how much?

How much should an adult be allowed to pay for his/her upkeep?

 

Give a few values to those quantities and we can have a better society.

 

Surely a man with a wife and 10 kids to support earning £43,876 deserves to pay less tax, or receive CB for example, in order to bring the income (per mouth to feed) above that of a single person who is not working, a pensioner or a disabled person for example.

 

He would get £32,197.99 after INCOME tax and have to support 12, without CB. That would be ~£2683, per mouth to feed. (And he would still pay council tax, TV license, VAT etc.)

 

A few other figures to consider would be the rate of IS/JSA for under/above 25s ~ £2696-£3403

Sheffield LHA ~ £3380-£11668

Pension Credit ~ £6760

Disabled? Council tax? etc.

[staninoodle]

My GF is a lone parent,shes never had a comm care grant,and pays her own internet via virgin media.

shed get free dental and optical as required,and free school meals,although her son prefers sarnies as he doesnt like the stigma.

all in all,with rent paid £3k,CT £0.75,father on low income but refusing to pay csa£0.00,makes a grand total of £14.2 pa.think your very mislead!

Most middle income single mums,have middle incomes single dads paying in excess of £5,200k pa,and these dads are more likley to pay thier maintenance

[chem1st]

My GF is a lone parent,shes never had a comm care grant,and pays her own internet via virgin media.

shed get free dental and optical as required,and free school meals,although her son prefers sarnies as he doesnt like the stigma.

all in all,with rent paid £3k,CT £0.75,father on low income but refusing to pay csa£0.00,makes a grand total of £14.2 pa.think your very mislead!

Most middle income single mums,have middle incomes single dads paying in excess of £5,200k pa,and these dads are more likley to pay thier maintenance

The property is often valued more than the people.

£3.75k of benefit on the rent and council tax, £0.15k TV license, £5.15k for each her and him in your example.

[staninoodle]

As its a benefit aimed at poorer income children,id just like,FOR ONCE,that the savings made go BACK to these poorer income kids and NOT into paying off other peoples debt.

After all it wasnt they who made mistakes,our children,our future,and EVERY child deserves one,no matter who the parents may be:rant:

[Anna B]

Re; the argument about single income of £44,000 (no child benefit) less fair than couple income 2 x £43,000 = £86,000 (gets child benefit.)

 

Just wondered whether the basic tax allowance would be greater for a single parent, so he / she could earn more before paying higher tax rate, so gets to keep more earned cash, and possibly child benefit.

 

Doesn't solve the problem, but shows that the devil's in the detail, also that if system for assessment becomes complicated it will cost more to administer, probably wiping out the savings.

[rothschild]

I'd have preferred to see that done, rather than penalising children.

 

How on earth would the child/children of a parent/parents earning £44,000 per year be penalised? Somehow I very much doubt that their new clothes would suddenly come from oxfam or that they would have to walk about with holes in their shoes.

One lady was brave enough to state that her child benefit was paid straight into her childrens bank accounts. She was also honest enough to say that they didn't rely on the child benefit for anything.

So, her children will be penalised by not having a nice fat wad in years to come.

 

What I do find a bit odd is the way that this whole issue is being dealt with. The threshold is £44,000 per working parent. If one parent earns over that amount then the child benefit is stopped. If there are two parents each earning £43,999 they get to keep the child benefit. Yet if there is only one working parent earning £44,001 they lose their benefit.

It doesn't seem fair somehow.

I definately think that if both parents live in the same house then the benefit should stop at a total income £44,000.

Thankfully it's something that doesn't affect us......and wouldn't have done in the past either. lol.

I bet it isn't long before a few drums are being beaten though. Having said that.......if I was a higher tax payer then I would be feeling a bit peeved right now as well.

[Tony]

£44000 household income is the cut off, way to low. insane. and anti family. why dont we just not pay child benefit for more than two kids.

 

It sounds like you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is an individual income not the household income.

 

So to explain the anomaly as presented, for example:

 

• Husband earns £40k, wife earns £10k (total £50k) they will receive CB.
  
• Wife earns £50k, husband out of work (total £50k) they won't receive CB.
  
• Husband earns £40k, wife earns £35k (total £75k) they will receive CB.
  

[Alex C.]

In some cases (where a persons income is just above the £44,000 threshold), the best option could be to increase pension contributions (untaxed so if you increase pension contributions by £1000, you're only reducing take home pay by £600), to drop you below the £44,000 limit, then claim child benefit.

 

The net effect is you are paying more into a pension, and still receiving the child benefit payments.

 

It is lunacy though that a family earning £87,000 between them (£43,500 each) will receive child benefit, but a family earning £44,500 on their own won't.

 

Maybe this will all change in 2013, just like the labour 10% tax fiasco, where no-one seemed to consider the implications until after it was put into practice.

[Ms Macbeth]

We as a society need to look at ourselves in the mirror and see what we value. We need to value the cohabiting (Married? - Surely marriage is a good thing for society) couple, adults and children.

 

This child benefit policy will need amending.

 

Couple, 1 on £43,875 or less, gets child benefit.

Couple, both on £43,875 or less, gets child benefit.

Single, £43,875 or less, gets child benefit.

 

Couple, 1 on £43,875.01+, ineligible for benefit.

Couple both on £43,875.01+, ineligible for benefit.

Single on £43,875.01+, ineligible for benefit.

 

These arbitrary figures do not value correctly the worth of a couple, the worth of an adult, or a child (specifically children on the basis of cost per child).

 

Maybe a couple should be allowed to earn 1.5 times a single person? 1.2, 2.1? (But would that be each or together)

Maybe the threshold should be higher for those with more children (And a few % higher if married). 10 kids cost more than 1, but by how much?

How much should an adult be allowed to pay for his/her upkeep?

 

Give a few values to those quantities and we can have a better society.

 

Surely a man with a wife and 10 kids to support earning £43,876 deserves to pay less tax, or receive CB for example, in order to bring the income (per mouth to feed) above that of a single person who is not working, a pensioner or a disabled person for example.

 

He would get £32,197.99 after INCOME tax and have to support 12, without CB. That would be ~£2683, per mouth to feed. (And he would still pay council tax, TV license, VAT etc.)

 

A few other figures to consider would be the rate of IS/JSA for under/above 25s ~ £2696-£3403

Sheffield LHA ~ £3380-£11668

Pension Credit ~ £6760

Disabled? Council tax? etc.

 

And its all those variables that would make it much simpler to leave Child Benefit as a universal payment, with any clawback made via the tax system. I also agree with other suggestions that it should be changed from individual payments for each child to a family premium paid when the first child is born (probably based on whats paid for two at the moment) - even easier to administer. If CB is to be removed once there is a certain level of income, then to be reasonably fair it should be based on household income not that of one parent.