[Closed] child benefit

a_a - it's based on households/joint income, not marriage.
If you live together you shouldnt be getting it if one of you are over the income threshold

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tools/hicbc/checker.htm

I know that and you know that but mrs outrage doesnt.

ah, sorry.
brain running on tickover.

It doesn't seem fair.
If I earn over 50k and they stop my wifes child benefit, what is she going to live on?

She gets most of her needs met when she comes round here!!

its pissing my brother off. He's just over the threshold so he loses it (his wifes income is minimal). But Mrs S and I jointly earn a bit more than him, but get to keep it.

Cant say Im a big fan of universal benefits anyway, but Im sure they could have worked out a better way of doing it...

Thats true but lets be honest we earn less than 50k combined and i have no clue how much it is or whats done with it!

I passed on my child benefit payments to the nspcc as I felt our income was enough and it was way less than £100k, I've now ' opted' out so it stays in the pot, if your income is over £50k imo you should not need it.

You still get it over the 50k threshold don't you, its just subject to taxation?

Child benefit should be withdrawn from everyone and the money going towards free healthy school meals for everyone with breakfast for anyone that wants it @ Junior/infants .Uniform vouchers given @ the end of every school year to be used @ local shops not friggin Asda/Tescos.

Rich

You still get it over the 50k threshold don't you, its just subject to taxation?

but get to £60,000:00 and it's completely gone

£50k a year...i wish!!!

Universal benefit, a rather weird concept. Should average earners and above be getting it , no. However to lose income you've got used to isn't pleasent, doubly so when you see how much tax and NI you pay each month. Seond the way the current shower has implemented the policy is unfair, unprincipled and sill probably cost more thn it saves.

Our whole tax system is nuts, treat you individually for tax purposes so they can take as much as possible but then consider you as a couple when it comes to benefits to limit what can be claimed. I'd be a lot happier if they treated those people who are married / in civil partnerships as a ingle entity for both tax and benefit considerations.

I wouldn't contemplate having a child unless I had the resources to raise one - without taking child benefit into consideration. IMO, if you are going to be relying on CB, you shouldn't be having them.

Oh, and if your family income is over 100K - WTF are you moaning about!

Mightmule have you been out in the real world recently?

My income is just below the threshold and we put all our child benefit in kids savings accounts so in theory if we can save it we don't need it, however I rationalise it by telling myself its compensating for the Labour/Tory removal of support for higher education.

I'm slightly Daily Mail about most things but as someone whose family look after themselves, use minimal NHS resources and have never claimed anything, if this is the one thing my 40% tax bracket gives me and I'm investing it in the future then I'm happy to take it.

Forced into self assessment tax just to they can claim back £2 child benefit here as my income is (with an essential car allowance and some savings interest etc) just very slightly over £50k
It's not the money, like others have said, we don't really need it but what is annoying me is that I have no choice but to go self assessment or potentially get fined, a hassle I can do without (and didn't know about as not received any explanation letter)
Could have been handled so much better

Mightmule have you been out in the real world recently?

Why yes I have, thank you.

Oh, and if your family income is over 100K - WTF are you moaning about!

well you havent been paying attention then 😉

Its the way it is assessed that is strange :

Couple A - 2 kids. One parent earns 60k, other earns 10k, household income 70k - benefit is withdrawn

Couple B - 2 kids. Both parents earn 50k, household income 100k - full benefit is paid

Can't see the logic

[quote=stumpyjon]Our whole tax system is nuts, treat you individually for tax purposes so they can take as much as possible but then consider you as a couple when it comes to benefits to limit what can be claimed. I'd be a lot happier if they treated those people who are married / in civil partnerships as a ingle entity for both tax and benefit considerations.

Mate its just the same with car/motorbike insurance. NCB doesnt carry over between vehicles, yet accidents+claims do? WTF? Have your cake and eat it insurance comps! I have 2 m/bikes and a car for my wife which we alternate on insurance. I have 3 different NCBs yet if I crash one, I'm screwed!

well you havent been paying attention then

No, I was too busy fantasising about having a family income of over 100K 😀

I'm slightly Daily Mail about most things but as someone whose family look after themselves, use minimal NHS resources and have never claimed anything, if this is the one thing my 40% tax bracket gives me and I'm investing it in the future then I'm happy to take it.

i am sure we are all happy to take it but would we care if it was taken away?

or [i]in extremis[/i]

Couple A - 2 kids. One parent earns 60k, other earns nothing, household income 60k - benefit is withdrawn

iainc - Member
Its the way it is assessed that is strange :

Couple A - 2 kids. One parent earns 60k, other earns 10k, household income 70k - benefit is withdrawn

Couple B - 2 kids. Both parents earn 50k, household income 100k - full benefit is paid

Can't see the logic

Agreed in full!

Also -

Cant say Im (sic) a big fan of universal benefits anyway,

Nor am I. Richard Branson et al receive child benefit regardless, when they clearly don't need it. Benefits should be paid to those in need, not just to anyone/everyone.

We're getting bitten by this also. I earn very marginally over 50k, we've 2 kids (2 and 3), so I'm going to have to self assess and then repay some/all of it depending if I do any overtime all year. The missus stays at home to look after the children because a) we'd prefer it that way and b) she couldn't earn enough to cover the cost of two in nursery.

We're not exactly struggling but life is not cheap and we have to watch what we spend very carefully.

Friends of ours, both parents working and with a household income of almost £90k and they get to keep the child benefit.

We can and will do without this money (it'll be put away either for the kids or to pay the tax bill at year end), and I'd happily give it up if I thought this was being done more fairly. As it is I'm going to be as awkward as I can and will make the ****ers work for the money.

Like Ben, Stoner Jrs child benefit goes into their CTFs for use when they're 18.

We wouldnt miss it as such, but Im not going to start "doing a Starbucks" and give it back because I dont believe in universal benefits. Might just as well boycott ISAs and pension contributions as well....

add to the pot self employed, 'company directors' etc who will be able to 'account' their way around it.

They deserve a mdeal for this, they've come up with a tax system that I think is now so complex that the politicians and civil servants and their army of special advisors and consultants don't really understand what they have achieved till it's all to late and somebody has found the loop holes/flaws/dodges after the new law is implemented.

It's a silly idea to give it to everyone, and when we were earning more we didn't claim it. Now we do, but we fall foul of the stupid way it's set up. My sister's household probably has the same take-home as me and gets to keep it, I don't.

Had an interesting debate about this last night in the pub as wifey's friend has her child at the nursery the bbc were filming at (no it wasn't her being interviewed!)

I definitely think it is unfair when it is based on one income rather than joint income.

These families with 'big' incomes mostly live in expensive areas. So whilst a salary of £50k sounds alot when you are paying £1k per month in childcare, £1400 in rent (on a modest 2 bed) etc.... it doesn't stretch far hence the moaning.

Of course they could always quit their whinning a move up north where things are cheaper - if they could get work. But that is easier said than done

I regard it as a state imposed 2.5k pay cut. So I'll have to get a better paying job to displace the "loss".

[i]I've now ' opted' out so it stays in the pot[/i]

😯

What, like that jar you put your spare change in?

[i] when we were earning more we didn't claim it. Now we do[/i]

Utter rot, you (or more likely your wife) like most would have claimed it from the birth.

iainc - Member
Its the way it is assessed that is strange :

Couple A - 2 kids. One parent earns 60k, other earns 10k, household income 70k - benefit is withdrawn

Couple B - 2 kids. Both parents earn 50k, household income 100k - full benefit is paid

[i]Can't see the logic[/i]

Cost of implementation. The plan would be to take it away from more but in this case they got lucky as it would be very ineffective.

I just don't get why they don't get rid of all benefits for working folk and just raise the personal allowance another £5k would encourage more people into work and would massively simplify the benefit system and save millions.

At the same time force everyone to pay tax paye, no income allowed unless this way. It's easily do able but the Tories don't want to pay any more than they have to with there wee consultancy jobs and non exec directorship.

Well I always thought it was a good universal benefit as it means that we all support those with kids - having kids seems an expensive thing to do and those without them have a lot less in the way of expenses. Maybe CB isn't the best way of achieving this but as it stands the change is a bad one IMO - many higher earners feel they spend a lot on supporting those that contribute less to society and this benefit, that they feel they pay for, was at least a universal one.

Those people that earn enough to push them over the lower limit should look at salary sacrifice options - increased pension contributions perhaps.

My sister doesn't work and her husband earns less than £20k but they're planning their 3rd child - only affordable because of the benefits they get. The middle class often say they can't afford so many kids - for whatever reason.

I think a useful benefit would be to be able to offset all childcare against tax so that both partners can work if they want so more tax is likely to be paid and also more child care people employed.

we'll be lucky as a family to earn that in ten years..

fire her into space from a cannon

the self employed cant be expected to pay tax PAYE. income over a year can be very volatile and even from year to year vary substantially.

The point is you get rid of all the bs self employed contractors who are ripping the arse out the tax system. It's the only way to ensure everyone pays tax in a fair and equitable manner. It seems to. Me that everyone who are on paye are the mugs who have no choice.

Here we go again. I can hear the echoes of TJ and his "well off theory".

I agree the way the threshold is calculated is unfair, but to claim that £50k doesn't stretch very far and people with this level of income have to watch what they spend just shows how out of touch with reality some people are.

Sucks....

Salary below threshold, but value of Company car nudges taxable benefits over 🙁

So now sat in what BBC report as the UKs only 65% tax band WTF. More tax under the Tories than under Labour. Would be better off going 4 days a week, but how the **** will that help my, the company's of the country's productivity!?
Well and truly fubar

ETA - and for all those saying £50k is some sort of decadent nirvana - get a grip. Mrs rkk01 teaches and the going rate for pressies amongst those "supported" by our taxes appears to have been between £500 & £1000 per child 😯

but to claim that £50k doesn't stretch very far and people with this level of income have to watch what they spend just shows how out of touch with reality some people are.

I would be willing to bet you don't live in Surrey and commute to london then.

£50k =approx £2900 per month

£1200 on rent
£1000 on childcare

that leaves £700 per month for bills, food, travel (train fare to london ain't cheap).

One of the reasons we moved away from London so we could actually afford to buy a house, despite earning what [i]should[/i] be comfortable salary.

Is it time for us to blame fatcha yet?

Blame the bankers, its all their fault... End of!

Is it time for us to blame fatcha yet?

Will reference to certain shoes do?
I have no useful contribution to make?

fire her into space from a cannon

wish i could!!!!

Is £50k a joint take home income?

Assuming it is, then what is the lower earners share of that?

Not trolling, genuine question.

Winter fuel allowance for UK pensioners on the Algarve, anyone?

ourmaninthenorth - Member

Is it time for us to blame fatcha yet?

Can't we just take that as a given?

As someone about to become a (step) grandfather, can I just say that I firmly believe that some financial recompense is surely due to hardworking (step) grandparents throughout the land?

Ta.

Dear lord are you lot 10 years old or something? No it's not fair but then it's hardly the only inequity in the tax and benefit system is it. No one ever said life was fair so get over it.

It's not the unfairness that annoys me, it's the clumsiness.

I have the lovely situation of earning £60k with my wife not working.

Child benefit paid for the kids food & some clothing.

Yes we made a conscious decision to be single income, but that was in the interess of the kids getting the best possible start in life rather than being left at childcare all the time.

So despite Scameron bleating on about 'families' he's done a great job of shitting on those of us trying to create a good environment for the kids. Whilst my gross salary is decent, the disposable income is pretty much bugger all at the moment. This leaves a significant dent in our finances.

Yet my neighbour with 40% higher income still gets it.

And I haven't had the letter.

Nor do I want to self asses.

Bet the tax take is negligible too.

I have the lovely situation of earning £60k with my wife not working

Whilst my gross salary is decent, the disposable income is pretty much bugger all at the moment

Would it be rude to suggest that you're living beyond your means or one of you is spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave?
We managed great on a single wage of about 75% national average with 3 kids

Strange that "universal benefits" should be considered a "weird concept", when the concept is one of the three foundations of the NHS which is considered a national treasure? Old Beverige must have been an odd bloke to pull such a weird stunt! Or perhaps, he was on to something? 😉

Indeed
I wonder how many consider personal tax allowances as a universal benefit?

It's not the unfairness that annoys me, it's the clumsiness.

That would be the clumsiness which saves more money than any less "clumsy" system would?

I'm amazed that nobody on here (notably including some people who I thought were trained economists) appears to understand the very real advantage of universal benefits in terms of increased take up by those who really need them. Or are you just ignoring that because of some perceived theoretical disadvantage? Of course this change to CB means it is no longer a universal benefit, but it is still close enough that it shouldn't make any difference to take-up amongst the poorest.

...how come I'm suddenly feeling so left-wing on here?

aracer - Member
That would be the clumsiness which saves more money than any less "clumsy" system would?

shirley the effort should be made to reform the tax system then so that adding a second column to the spreadsheet doesnt cost the government a billion quid or whatever they hope to save from this

it does penalise families with either a homemaker or a lower/ underemployed partner

living in london 50k isnt that much and our childcare is over a grand a month for 4 days a week, weve just had our 2nd child and when they are both in nursery its no longer worth both of us working, how does that help the economy!?
ultimately the governments confused and 1/2 arsed policies on childcare will only further weaken the country

back on topic
I strongly suspect that the number of overpayments will cause problems for lots, cost loads to reclaim and end up saving the government a minimal amount

This is the biggest ad for a single benefits system and a reform of taxation there has been in a while.

The best idea would be if all benefits were universal. Give everyone a base line of income, then remove the tax allowance but otherwise tax income in the same way as before.

Tons of advantages ...

It's obviously fair, as everyone gets it.

There's always an incentive to work, as you make a gain from any money you earn (minus tax) rather than getting stuck in the 'benefits trap'.

Save a bunch on red tape as it's loads simpler to administrate.

Could also lead to the removal of the minimum wage (as everyone gets a minimum anyway), so it would be easier to have full employment as jobs which would otherwise not be worth hiring someone for could now be priced accordingly.

Are those in favour of means testing for Child Benefit also in favour of a similar approach for the likes of the NHS and state education? I'mjust trying to assess where everyone stands on the matter.

No the NHS and Education, like having your bins emptied are a service provided through tax. Benefits should be for those that need them imo.

Benefits should be for those that need them imo.

Like state pensions?

Excellent question druidh and one that is (edit, well SHOULD be) at the heart of the current debate and was at the heart of the foundation of the NHS. GO is getting himself (and us) in a muddle by obscuring many of these core principles and most importantly of making the basic error of confusing households and individuals - I guess that's the trouble with having a historian running fiscal matters!!!!

A_A, that "should " read, the NHS, education, bin collection [b]and child benefit[/b] are provided/funded through taxation (and as a result are all PROGRESSIVE even though they are not presented that way!) That is the crux.

So, numpty question... Is this for the current (2012/13) tax year, or opting out in advance of the forthcoming 2013/14 tax year????

Can't decide what to do at the moment 🙁

This cack handed policy is crap for working families.
How can it be fair to give someone on 50-60k an effective tax rate of 65%?

The Government say that the top 15% should pay more into the pot.
I agree with this, however this policy only affects the 15% with kids!

Why not keep the benefit as universal and add a smidge to income tax for all over 50k or somthing to make sure that all high earners pay a bit more into the pot, and not just rob £2500 from those trying to raise a family.

Like state pensions?

yes, but means testing that would be much trickier as we want to encourage people to save for their own retirement so i would have no clue how that could be done. Child benefit is much more straightforward. Most here seem to be using it to save for their kids adulthood anyway so it isnt benefiting choldren in the case of us squeezedsingletrackmiddleworld people.

Why not keep the benefit as universal and add a smidge to income tax for all over 50k or somthing to make sure that all high earners pay a bit more into the pot, and not just rob £2500 from those trying to raise a family.

"Tax increase on hard working families" + "Keeping Benefits for Millionaires" = PR disaster

😉

It was quite brave of them to introduce this as is pi55ing off a number of their core voters.

Would be interesting to compare tax paid by the people losing this to benefits received, a small price to pay to keep these people comfortable with the huge cost to the country of the benefits system as a whole. Of course the cost of having a child is vastly more than these payments anyway - though the less well off get other child related benefits.

Allowing all child care to be paid for via salary sacrifice would be a great move.

CHB - that is the rational solution but as ATP notes above not the politically-expedient one! The trouble/interest with these debates is the problems/fun you have when you isolate individual aspects of tax and benefits rather than viewing them as a whole. That is why druidh's question is so important.

But this week is going to be all about political subterfuge with benefits as the Tories attempt to get their own back in Dealings 50p tax trap but trapping labour with the cap on benefits proposal. As usual both sides will benefit from muddying the waters to their own benefit.

add to the pot self employed, 'company directors' etc who will be able to 'account' their way around it.

I was talking to my mate about this before Christmas. He is a MD of his own company and pays himself £70k per year in salary. His wife is on the payroll and gets £10k per year for admin, but she has never been near his office. They have 4 kids, so I guess the loss to them could be significant. To ensure they don't lose, his wife will become the Company Secretary and get a salary increase and he will take a salary drop to £50k.

The double benefit here is, that they will also see an increase in their take home salary. He currently pays 40% tax on the £20k that he will transfer to his wife but she will only pay standard rate, when she starts earning it. So for arguments sake he will pay roughly (excl NI) £8k tax on the £20k he earns but once his wife takes that part of his salary, she will pay roughly £4k. So as a family they will be £4k better off and retain their family allowance. The cost to their business be be nil, but HMRC will lose out.

So win/win for him.

[quote=shotsaway said]
So win/win for him.

Until HMRC decide to investigate the company books and query the Company Secretary salary.

I agree the way the threshold is calculated is unfair, but to claim that £50k doesn't stretch very far and people with this level of income have to watch what they spend just shows how out of touch with reality some people are.

1 - "the self employed cant be expected to pay tax PAYE. income over a year can be very volatile and even from year to year vary substantially. "

don't entirely disagree with that, but I do disagree with the ability of 'non PAYE employees' to pay dividends, pay wifes etc 'token job' salaries, do massive pension contributions, claim travel expenses, expense 'wholly', necessarily and exclusively' things like 42" plasmas etc etc, they have access to a wide range of 'tax alteration' schemes that 'employees' do not. In a nutshell I think that 'true employees', like my dad who was PAYE in low skill jobs all his life are getting the smelly end of the brown stick.

2 - "the self employed cant be expected to pay tax PAYE. income over a year can be very volatile and even from year to year vary substantially. "

Given I've been made redundant 3 times and 'forced out' once, I've also had "income over a year can be very volatile and even from year to year vary substantially" - I was expected to pay that PAYE and wasn't allowed to move tax allowances from a good year to a bady year.

Fair - imho - is treating people identically. For me the differences are to much.

Personally i feel chid benefit should be scrapped as it is structured
and be re configured to a Benefit in which it is given only when
un employed and if you become pregnant but unemployed then
not given until your back to work and then made un employed should
then the Benefit be given.

tonyd - Member
I agree the way the threshold is calculated is unfair, but to claim that £50k doesn't stretch very far and people with this level of income have to watch what they spend just shows how out of touch with reality some people are.
I'd suggest that you might be a little out of touch yourself, or perhaps live up North in a house you bought more than 15 years ago.
POSTED 43 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Or is it that you are living in a house and area that is beyond your means and what want other tax payer to subsidise it for you. 😆

if someone cannot 'survive' on 50K -- they need some reality living.

must have some expensive habits 😉

I'd suggest that you might be a little out of touch yourself, or perhaps live up North in a house you bought more than 15 years ago.

bought a house on less than half of that opp north 2 years ago. Its even in a nice [ relatively] area - just a terrace house mind but three bedrooms

You may be out of touch with the reality of the north as well as thinking 50 k is hard to live on

For sure "relative wealth" depends on outgoings etc but 50 k earners are not on my list of folk who need help and assistance to get by.

If you're struggling on 50k it's of your own doing..

Try living in Surrey. 50k won't get you far for a slice of paradise 8)

Our combined income living in the south east might reach 50k this really and we are hardly struggling.