Child Benefit

[flip_flop]

How the hell can a family with a single earner earning £60,001 lose all of their child benefit, yet a family with two earners each earning £49,999 will keep all of theirs?

This is a massive anomaly which the Govt has tried to explain away by stating it would be too complicated to administer.

What is too complicated about using the household income to determine who does and does not get child benefit.

In addition to losing my family's child benefit, I read in the paper yesterday that Ed Balls wants to take away my tax relief for my pension contributions in order to pay for the long term unemployed!

Does anybody else feel we get screwed at every turn?

[lynbrown]

I agree and will not vote Tory again. So disappointed.

[VHG]

>>>I agree and will not vote Tory again.

So you vote Labour? who allow mass immigration into this country, give benefits away as though we have a bottomless pit of money, and then usually bankrupt the country.

[rockyracoon]

I'm aghast at this child benefit change, it borders on the ridiculous. To add insult o injury, your tax is going towards paying this child benefit to the couple on 49k each.

Lynbrown, Ed Balls is Labour.

[anotheoldgit]

Even so, does anyone think that those earning £5,000 per month/ £1,153 per week, should expect the state to pay for their children?

[VHG]

>>>What is too complicated about using the household income

Disclosing a household income could lead to major problems amongst couples, and could even be challenged in court.

What you earn and what income tax you pay is a private personal matter and sometimes a husband or wife may not tell their partner what they earn.

For child benefit purposes it is easy to find out what an individual earns based on their PAYE, income tax return and their address.

But if the tax people start writing to famileis saying your houshold income is say £80,000 they are in fact disclosing what the couple earn between them, which one or other of the couple may want to keep private.

This could lead to massive problems amongst families and could in fact be considered a disclosure of personal private information.

And if you cant do it that way, how on earth do you find out a household income? Not everyone would give that information freely.

It is easy to rant and say finding out household income is easy, but it is not easy and its disclosure could lead to all sorts of other problems.

[sunny-dave]

You could extend that AoG and say why are we expecting 'the state' to pay for anyone's children?

[rockyracoon]

No, but I'm even less inclined to think that the couple on over 8k a month should still get it.

[Sqad]

flip_flop

\\\I read in the paper yesterday that Ed Balls wants to take away my tax relief for my pension contributions in order to pay for the long term unemployed! \\\

That is "old hat"...Gordon Brown " creamed" of the top of MY pensions in 1996....there was no outcry.........why?.......because they were Private Pensions.

Now it is time for the public sector to feel the pinch......as predicted by both major parties before the election.

[rockyracoon]

VHG, won't the receiver of the child benefit have to ask their partner to disclose what they earn so the don't fall foul.

[anotheoldgit]

sunny-dave

/// You could extend that AoG and say why are we expecting 'the state' to pay for anyone's children? ///

I totally agree after the first two, but children of poorer families should not go without the necessary things in life.

And after all, should being able to afford a family, be the soul advantage of the rich?

[sunny-dave]

AoG - I was musing aloud rather than advancing a serious policy suggestion (as a childless person I get very nervous about being very assertive on threads like this in case I'm accused of 'not caring about children').

At first glance I tend to agree with the 'capped at two children' idea - but that could also open a whole new container of wriggly things ... for instance, what if the woman marries again - do we reset the counter?

[jno]

here's a thing, aog showing more compassion for the poor than sunny-dave.

administers cold flannel to forehead

[anotheoldgit]

sunny-dave

/// what if the woman marries again - do we reset the counter? ///

You make a very good and interesting point there, I have thought hard about this but can't seem to come up with an answer, perhaps some other ABers have some thoughts on this?

[ummmm]

What about multiple births?

[jno]

more than just an anomaly, I think it's a massive injustice.

[furrypusscat]

I maybe old fashioned and probably will feel the knives sticking in but when couples have children they should be able to pay for their upkeep from birth until adulthood. Child Benefit wasn't given at all years ago.

[aelmpvw]

if i was the parent of young children and i didn't qualify for child benefit i would be delighted

[ichkeria]

The really daft thing about this is the 'opt-out' bit with tax assessments and extra payments to be made by those affected. Regardless of the issue of who should receive the benefit it looks like another expensive administrative nightmare. The sort of thing the Tories would have been probably rightly crucifying Labour for had roles been reversed. But then as I've said before how can you expect a party which doesn't apparently believe in government to govern competently?

[Prudie]

While I understand your annoyance at the anomaly you have to remember that in a vast number of families only one person is responsible for the upkeep of the child. Household income doesn't always fairly take that into consideration. At least this current proposal is a step in the right direction.

[anotheoldgit]

furrypusscat

/// Child Benefit wasn't given at all years ago. ///

Years ago children were sent up chimneys and down the mines, so as to bring in money to supplement the families income.