[Closed] child benefit

ask a simple question.. why does someone earning one thousand pounds a week.. a thousand pounds a week.. need 20 quid extra a week to raise thier kid?

i d much rather the 20 quid was spent on someone who would see a real difference for that 20 quid..

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

Not rude.

But also incorrect. Mortgage is about £12k a year, which is nearly half my net income after pension contributions. Then there's council tax, utilities, insurance. We end up with about £100 a month for frivolity.

Which is hardly rich, but according to the taxation system.....we're evidently loaded.

Mortgage is too big then, thats a choice. Benefits should be for those who cannot opt to pay 12k a year on their mortgage.

Tonyd.

Not accurate in the slightest.

I live in one of the lowest paid counties, Herefordshire, which has one of the highest housing costs when compared to salary. The housing costs are nowhere near southeast prices, I'm not claiming that, but the difference between salary and housing is high. I can't afford to buy a house, never have been in the financial position to. Low paid or average salary up until a couple of years ago.

I earn above the national average, but not by much. I recieve no benefits other than Child Benefit. The Wife and I made a decision when we had kids that she would stay at home to raise them. When they were old enough she returned to college, got qualified, and now works part time as a SEN Teaching Assistant. Works term time only, 15 hours per week for just above minimum wage, to ensure no child care problems.

I lived and worked in London, a long time ago admittedly, but decided that it was not the environment in which I wanted to live and eventually raise a family. Where to live, work, raise a family are choices I / We made.

You do not have to live in the southeast and work in London. You do not have to buy or rent a high priced house. These are choices you make.

To claim its hard to make ends meet on £50k is ludicrous. You really do need to have word with yourself.

well you are paying a 12 K mortgage - that is about 70-80% of the average earning net ish and you can afford a pension on top and its not even half your net earnings

You then have over £1k after your mortgage and pension.
You must be paying a lot for something if there is you only have £100 left over from that

Whilst you may not feel rich currently but in say 20 years time when you own the house and have the healthy pension pot you may feel differently

Someone poor will still be renting, may have had to move somewhere cheaper etc. You iwll retire to the coast with a nice pot from a house sale and a good size pension pot - and you will still think you are not well off - if my retired parents reaction is anything to go by.

Some of it is relative but really you cannot believe you are amongst the neediest in or society and at x 2 the average wage you are rich whether you accept it or not.

A few years ago this withdrawal would really have hurt us. At the time my income would have been c£61k and my wife's £25k. It sounds a lot doesn't it! Until you consider that...

- As part of my car allowance I had to fund a 4 door premium brand car less than 3 years old - £400 p/m
- My wide needed a newer reliable car also for her then job as a community nurse that could hold 3 child eats and two adults - £200 p/m
- We unexpectedly were the parents of twins rather than a single baby needed a lot of additional equipment
- The provider of our childcare, my mother-in-law passed away suddenly at the age of 59. (Totally OT, but one of the greatest people I ever met...)
- Decent child care started to cost us £1600 per month - only just under £500 provided by tax free vouchers - so I had to earn c£1500 p/m gross to pay the remainder
- The mortgage we were locked into without huge penalties, would not allow us to extend despite having only 12 years left and significant equity £1100 p/m
- Insurances for cars, home etc... c£220 p/m
- Utilities c£150 p/m
- Council tax c£115 p/m

Total earnings after tax and pensions - c£4200 p/m
Total fixed costs - c£3585
(And let's face it I have not included all of those...)

That would leave us with c£615p/m to provide food, clothing, commuting fuel (Significant amount for both of us...), for a family of five who preferred to eat freshly prepared non-convenience food - healthier but certainly not cheaper, did not go out a lot, did not smoke or drink and were not addicted to fashion/gambling/shopping/gadgets etc...

If one thing went wrong in a month e.g. washing machine broke or car broken into or child taken ill and had to pay huge car parking fees - all of which and many more happened, we were in a bad place.

The extra money that child benefit provided really kept us afloat...

jamj1974 - if your childcare was £1,600pm and your wifes car requirements were £200pm why was she still going to work?

Because...
- She loves her career and actually believes she is giving back to society by doing so (very important for her)
- Spending 5 days a week at home with 3 children under 3 may have driven her mad - and for clarity I mean clinically it may have made her mentally ill. Can you imagine spending at least 45 waking ours a week housebound. The difficulty involved in taking 3 children of that age out is huge with or without a car...

I've no doubt you had you reasons, but you can hardly claim poverty when you are making those choices. FWIW - lots of women (and not a few men) manage to look after 3 kids without going mental.

Spending 5 days a week at home with 3 children under 3 may have driven her mad

Perhaps that explains why my poor mother is the way she is as she looked after 3 of us - poor thing.

My wife works 1 day a week as she doesn't earn enough to pay for the childcare - actually she could do 2 but her employer won't let her.

So you were earning £86k a year but were struggling? **** me what am I doing wrong. Admittedly only 1 kid but we have been fine on less than 35k for the last couple of years. This year mrs has done more work so we have more income which has mostly been saved. I really am puzzled.

For those saying that £50k etc is plenty to live on, and they manage fine on average income, I did some calculations.

If I was a sole earner on £65k a year, renting at £1k a month with four kids, then I receive no help from the govt.

In exactly the same circumstances, but the single earner on national average wage (£26,500 according to this [url= https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fbusiness-20442666&ei=_HbpULO2D8PQ0QX_qYHAAw&usg=AFQjCNEjQx_eIZQ_oEWy-Zc4FNmnFiPglQ&sig2=3P4TZ1xd6r-eKvPYMJ9rvQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k ]link[/url]) then the govt will top that up by another £20,257.76 (figures from http://www.turn2us.entitledto.co.uk). That figure is made up of Tax Credits £8,539.79, Housing Benefit £8,571.97, Child Benefit £3,146.

So the difference between average earnings and someone on the face of it earning nearly 2.5 times average, is actually much nearer 1.3 times. Still more, still a lot of money, but the focus on gross income is misleading - the net take home per person in the household is more relevant.

The [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/22/how-wealthy-you-compared ]guardian [/url]has a calculator that looks at where you come in the UK wealth stakes using after tax income. On the figures above, the rich £65k person is classified as "59% HAVE A LOWER INCOME THAN YOU - You are in the squeezed middle: income levels have not risen significantly and you're feeling the pinch".

The person on average wages - "51% HAVE A LOWER INCOME THAN YOU - you are in the squeezed middle: income levels have not risen significantly and you're feeling the pinch"

So neither are near poverty then and the wealthier one is wealthier - no offence but what was your point?

How does it work with average children numbers [ 1.8 so lets say 2]and average rent [£725]? The tax system will always have anomalies but better to look at the average [ as this tax rise does not use household income it is a rubbish , but cheap, and unfair [ tories for you eh], way of doing this

back up to about x2 then i assume on average?? Your links would take too long to do properly

Not saying they don't go mental. However at the time my wife was grieving very deeply and getting over a hugely difficult pregnancy where neither if our twins was likely to survive, had to get over the stress of two of her children being in neonatal ICU for many weeks, the continuing health issues if said children... Not an easy time...

Besides we would not have been hugely better off if she didn't work...

BTW was not claiming poverty just saying that the benefit was tremendously helpful and that perhaps others may now suffer in similar circumstances - painting the picture if you will...

Also worth remembering the costs of living have increased in the few years since my example... Probably by c£300 p/m.

Costs have increased by 300 quid? Really? I AM POOR A.ND NEED HELP

Look at average utility costs and food prices before using capitals.

That figure is made up of Tax Credits £8,539.79, Housing Benefit £8,571.97, Child Benefit £3,146.

I think you've got your figures wrong, salary of 26,500 and 1 child you wouldn't even qualify for tax credits, 4 children and you'd get less than a quarter of what you have stated.

anagallis-arvensis. I posted simply to illustrate how it was for us. You experience is obviously different but does not make mine less relevant or valid. I can understand that and don't have a need to challenge your approach, choices or experience. Perhaps you could try the same...?

Bless, I feel sorry for you now, I might start up a collection.

You could but considering your stated income and the associated taxation position it would only be my money paid in my tax that subsidises your taxation position coming back to me from your own donation. So for that reason don't bother...

what is she going to live on?

Your income.

On second thought perhaps you could make a donation? Donate yourself to my toolbox - it is missing a tool or two...

I wasnt going to pay in myself. I was going to stand outside shops and rattle a can for the squeezed middle.
Mods, mods help the poor richman called me a tool and my world is caving in and I'm too poor to afford therapy.

Cost of living irrelevant here
But if you are and its a problem that you can't afford to look after yourselves
let alone bring a child into the world in which will demand more money
you cannot find yourselves to live on.
IE Dont have any kids.

Unless the government will make up the shortfall of course.

Don't worry about universal human rights - just the benefit budget...

If you're earning 4500 (at a guess - you don't say how much your pension payments are), and 80 quid is enough to make a big difference, then you are seriously overstretched - that's less than 2% of your take home.

And I notice you calculate everything 'after pensions' - whilst pensions are lovely and all that, the purpose of benefits isn't to subsidize your cushy pension surely - and I bet you were paying more than 80 quid a month into that. And 400 quid a month for a car - I bet you didn't drive the cheapest car that you could get that fitted the specifications of your company scheme? And I bet you weren't squeezing that family of five into a two bedroom flat in a not so nice area?

I might be wrong obviously, but I would be surprised if that ever so expensive lifestyle didn't include quite a lot of 'essential spending' on things that people on normal salaries either don't get (massive pensions), or can't afford (big houses, more expensive cars than needed).

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

Ditto.

Funny my wife stays at home and looks after our kids, we manage on 1 not very high salary. We took the decision for my wife to give up work, as its much better for the kids, especially in the first 5 years. We wouldn't have had it any other way.

I guess it's just a choice some people make, to still have a fancy house and nice cars or well brought up kids.

Just seems to me there are too many people living way beyond their means.

as its much better for the kids, especially in the first 5 years.

The research on this is very mixed and it s nothing like as clear cut as you suggest

I guess it's just a choice some people make, to still have a fancy house and nice cars or well brought up kids.

to still have a fancy house and nice cars or well brought up kids.

Do you think nurseries are bad places?

Stevewhyte I think your point of view is fine but any working mothers would get really upset about it and its only based on your opinion. I dont care you can say what you like to me but just be aware its only an opinion. My son goes to nursery two days a week when the mrs works. It might go up go three soon. In comparison to other kids I know who dont go to nursery he seems a lot more mentally robust.

I find it odd that anyone would think keeping their kids out of nursery is a good thing - maybe 5 days a week for a 6 month old might be too much though!

what they are saying is that it is good for kids to be brought up by their parents* - I find it odd you have never heard this view articulated anywhere before

You could also heed your own advice a-a - its not like you were overly civil when discussing it with the "rich man"

* without pointing out the obvious it depends on many factors not least what the parents are like and what the nursery is like. I dont think there is an actual law of nature here that shows which is best in all circumstances.

3 bedroom house £150k in Birmingham, so take a guess at the quality of the area. Try buying a year old Audi/BMWMercedes 4 door saloon over two years for less than £400 p/m.

Also child benefit for 3 children is 4.6% of £4500...

[img] [/img]

Children that *need* benefits.
(No four door saloon was harmed in the taking of this picture)

Ha ha! Funnily enough I believe in some universal benefits - and more solidly applied and constructed taxation as well. I also think re-distribution of wealth needs to cross international borders. There again, I am a socialist.

jamj1974 - Member
Also child benefit for 3 children is 4.6% of £4500...

Good little earner

You could also heed your own advice a-a - its not like you were overly civil when discussing it with the "rich man"

my point easnt about being civil, I am pretty uncivilised as you have noted. It was about dressing up opinion as fact.

...he seems a lot more mentally robust.

Were does it say that it's desirable for kids to be 'mentally robust'. What age is best to acquire this robustness and how robust do they need to be?
Not cry at the beginning of 'Up'? Is lump in throat allowed? 🙂

I get dust in my eye during up... Must be unbalanced.

Good point well made Ianmunro

As for that argument about childcare. We made a choice for my wife to be a stay at home mum, it was not a difficult choice, when you think abut the options. I be most people would choose it if money was not part of the equation. We decided to take money out of it ourselves.

I have a pretty good background knowledge, both wife and I had stay at home mums, wife was a nursery teacher and I am secondary and have seen the downsides of other people bring up your young children.

Things clearly change when they start to get older, particularly in secondary school.

But even then having a parent at home always knowing where the children are and looking after their welfare seems to me like the best option. Many of you clearly disagree but then thankfully you are not bringing my kids up. Happy days. 😀 😀

Steve. I think your option can work really well. Certainly wouldn't completely disagree.

I struggle with long sentences, but there's already inequality in the tax system:

A couple on £25k each pay less tax than a couple with a single earner on £50k, for example. Someone in the 40% tax bracket makes bigger savings when making use of ISAs, pensions or bike to work schemes than someone in the lower tax bands. The child benefit changes are just another example.

The changes coming in which will impact on lower income families are a bigger deal than this.

what they are saying is that it is good for kids to be brought up by their parents

Is this a 7x24 thing now? Kids learn a lot from nurseries IME. My son loves it and I wish it worked out so I could send him more often.

By mentally robust I mean he doesnt fall into floods of tears if his mum leaves the room or cry his eyes out if some bigger kid accidently knocks him over. All just opinion anyway. He did a brilliant fake cry and bottom lip pout when he watched Up last week so he obviously as heartless as me!!

I agree Miketually. As said earlier was trying only to illustrate how things in my experience were not as simple as people might assume. I am more concerned with changes to DLA for example and the ramifications this has for those relying on it.

A £60k salary may seem a lot if you live on £25k salary, but if you've 3 kids the Govt has suddenly taken away a very large chunk of your 'spare' cash. This is the real problem for those folk.

And a £60k salary won't buy you a house in many places, without a seriously large deposit.

And for those with a company and employ your spouse, just make sure they either actually do some work and/or earn income. This is what we've done in the past and while it takes 'advantage' of the tax system, what would you do - pay more tax than you have to?

It should be universal but the whole things needs to be looked at as a whole. The Danish system puts the focus on the family and at the same time encourages women to work if they which by much cheaper childcare, flexible working hours and the ability to share maternity / paternity leave. Giving money to people so they can spend it on stuff for themselves not the kids is not a good idea.

b r - Member
A £60k salary may seem a lot if you live on £25k salary, but if you've 3 kids the Govt has suddenly taken away a very large chunk of your 'spare' cash. This is the real problem for those folk.

And a £60k salary won't buy you a house in many places, without a seriously large deposit.

Really, how about living within your means, just like people on £25k have to.

If £60k won't buy you the house then look at smaller house or a different area just like the rest of us.

Yeah people who work in London could live in Birmingham with that £60k easy and commute to London if they have to.

Interestingly when the Gov't reduced the amount of vouchers higher earners could pay for using salary sacrifice they just moved new people onto the lower levels, rather than everyone as is happening with child benefit.

Who in their right mind would choose to commute from birmingham to London every day? Thats like saying we could all sell our houses and live in yurts - we could but it aint going to happen for most folk.

Which is only an option if you live somewhere with affordable housing - that place is not london

Its possible your job ties you to London and therefore you have to live there

I think that is what jamj meant when he said not as simple as it seems and it is foolish to think your circumstances have no affect and that you can fully control them all
I hope you teach children to look for nuances in your day job rather than spur absolutes at you

For example my mate works in "media" [ its quit eniche his job]and its all in london there are basically no jobs doing what he does elsewhere so he is tied to London* whether he likes it or not. London is more expensive than here so his money does not go as far.
*for sure some in his industry could leave but not all as it is mainly [95% +] done in that there London.

Of course he could retrain etc but it not just as simple as you are making out with absolute statements.

[i]Really, how about living within your means, just like people on £25k have to.[/i]

Great post... The reason people are annoyed is because they've suddenly had a big chunk of money taken away, not that they weren't (or were) living within their means.

[i]If £60k won't buy you the house then look at smaller house or a different area just like the rest of us. [/i]

And where would you recommend, with work? So the average house price in the UK is £250k with terraces coming in at £210k.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/houses.stm

Its possible your job ties you to London and therefore you have to live there

Lots of people in London won't be affected by the change, because they don't earn much. Where do they live?

And where would you recommend, with work? So the average house price in the UK is £250k with terraces coming in at £210k.

Next time you drop your kid off at school, ask their teacher where they live. Then look there.

"Really, how about living within your means, just like people on £25k have to. If £60k won't buy you the house then look at smaller house or a different area just like the rest of us."

We don't have a big house! I could move to a different area - but will I find a job easily or will the increased commuting costs remove the savings from a cheaper mortgage. How about I stay in the area I spent most of my childhood in and not lose quality of life by commuting further. I live in Birmingham, not Solihull or Warwick or Banbury. Birmingham is pretty cheap! I live within my means and pay a lot in to the system - why should I not get a little out of it. As a household we pay somewhat greater than £3k in tax and NI. People who earn less and pay less tax are not living within their means - they are also living within mine, my higher taxation subsidises their lower taxation. I have no problem with that until either: -
1). People who rely on benefits through need are suffering as they are withdrawn
2). People who contribute less than I (In pure financial terms) get really sanctimonious about what small amount I receive and say because I have used it that I am making poor choices etc...

I could say people should make the choices I have to earn more money and pay more tax - I don't however, because it may not be the right thing for them to do at any point in time, or it may not be the choice they are prepared to make.

Your life = your choices. Earn less pay less tax, earn more pay more tax. I don't care but don't feel you have made better choices than I or are occupying the moral high ground because of them. If you are - you are only deluding yourself.

Plenty of people commute B'ham to London and did even in the 70/80s JY. Fast, efficient service, time to work/sleep/socialise on the train. No need to live in the smog (if you live outside Brum). Not much different from other London commutes and better than many that are closer but involve slower trains.

Druidh, still a very good question!!! 😉

And a £60k salary won't buy you a house in many places, without a seriously large deposit.

I think the word "some" rather than many would probably be more accurate. Besides, you don't need a house to raise children.

Br, bit strange those figures? They don't seem to tally with the Land Registry website! Average house price there seems to be about 170k, so a comfortable mortgage on £60k

Lots of people in London won't be affected by the change, because they don't earn much. Where do they live?

London is not the place i would choose to have two kids and 25 k to live on - though we we would not die. I am not sure many of us would tbh and its obviously going to be tougher than doing it up north and will get you less.

Commuting that far is madness IMHO THM. I would not even entertain the thought.

I wouldn't either, but I can see why people do it especially if job requires lots of reading and writing that could be done on a train.

yes but live in Birmingham and work In london

Its one of Dantes layers of hell surely

Lots of ranting about "living within your means like I have to"

Funnily enough I do. What it means is that we need to find extra income or cut our cloth accordingly. We've made the cuts (looks like no holidays this year, satellite TV has gone) and are looking for ways of generating extra income. Preferably without paying income tax on it now....

My grumble is the way this has been implemented. It was income we've relied on in the past year or so. Yes others need it more and I have no issue with that as such, What I do have a problem with is the thresholds for calculation (surely doing it on combined household income of around £90-100k would have addressed most of this) and the hypocrisy it creates (i.e. my neighbours who have higher combined income receive child benefit whereas we don't. Despite costs being the same)

There's a nasty underlying message about how the state values those of us working our proverbials off in middle england as well.

Next election will be a train crash for the tories. Rightly so.

How about doing it on a combined income of £50k, sounds about right.

Things are getting tight for everyone, more so for the lower paid, your not really going to pick up much sympathy crying about how we can't survive on £60k a year. Anyone who thinks so must be a banker and have think skin.

No moral high ground on my part, I just had to make the hard choices, I moved jobs and wife no longer works and we had to move house. Sorry but in this case we have walked the walk and not just spouting the usual bull that most on here do. The tax system seems to be a moving platform right now. I'm paying significantly more in tax with increased pension contributions than I was last year and my income has now be static for 3 years. So fleking what I hear you all say, you care as much about that as I do about someone earning £60k and loosing their CB.

Next election will be a train crash for the tories. Rightly so.

Great, then the blithering idiots that walked us open eyed into this mess can have another go - that or the part timers somehow get out of pre school and into big school...

They're all too busy playing politics than running the country IMO 👿

Oh, and this tortuous argument about living within means... Come on, I'm sure we all do that (mostly) but regardless of income we all end up living and working within an environment that stretches our budget especially in this climate so even a small loss is a PITA...

There's a nasty underlying message about how the state values those of us working our proverbials off in middle england as well.

Isn't it just the same message as "lower" England has been receiving for some time; Times are hard and there is less money to spend so you will lose some benefits.

Still, we're all in it together 😆

There's a nasty underlying message about how the state values those of us working our proverbials off in middle england as well.

Isn't it just the same message as "lower" England has been receiving for some time; Times are hard and there is less money to spend so you will lose some benefits.

Still, we're all in it together 😆

That's the thing Steve I don't need anyone to care - just want less of the gross over-simplification that many employ. From previous posts I am pretty sure you are a teacher, which offers more geographical mobility with your employment - which as you say lets you walk the walk. Got to admit that I am envious of that as due to my specialism, I need to work where big businesses are - which are seldom located out of large cities.

The fact is though Steve, I do actually care that you are earning less in real terms than three years ago, I feel it is not reasonable that you do so - especially when you work for the state. I also would be more concerned if you lost your CB than losing it myself.

This isn't about the haves vs the have nots. This is about the we don't give a shit about anyone but big business/old money Conservatives and the rest of us stuck in the mire not of our own making.

[quote=fizzicist ]
Next election will be a train crash for the tories.
The Labour Party has promised to restore universal child benefit then?

Well said jamj, ask, and fizzicist.

For the record Steve, I also have to live in this area as it is where my work is. My wife's family live in the area so it would be nice to stay here if possible (although admittedly unlikely). I don't work in London. We currently rent a very modest house in a nice area, we'll buy this year but somewhere cheaper. I've moved all over the country (and Europe) with work so have no qualms about moving if we need to, but in my current role that isn't possible so we can't just up sticks and move North. In real terms my salary (private sector) has been going down for the last 10 years or more despite promotions and more and more responsibility. The only benefit I/we have ever received is CB. We have no debt and decent savings, which are being constantly eroded by the governments policy of bailing out the ****less and over borrowed at the expense of the prudent and all of our young.

I may earn decent money, and as I said we're not exactly struggling, but we do have to watch what we spend. I fail to see how this is a bad thing? We certainly don't live above our means and we absolutely don't expect to be subsidised. We don't particularly want to subsidise others to the degree we do, but we don't get a whole lot of choice in that.

I don't expect, need, or want sympathy. The above random outpouring is just my attempt to provide a different perspective to the commonly held stereotype of anyone that doesn't work down a pit for 10p a week.

As jamj says, this isn't (or shouldn't be) about the haves and the have nots. I'd actually suggest that most of us should be classed as have nots since none but the very rich and/or well positioned will be gaining from any of this.

Anyway, enough ranting from me. Thatcher is on the telly in a minute so I'm going to watch that and think naughty thoughts.

We certainly don't live above our means and we absolutely don't expect to be subsidised.

So whats your point caller, should CB be a universal benefit or not?

is £50k plus 'Middle England'?

Well in the top ten percent of earners in the country.

Perhaps this thread should have 'first world problems' in the title?

So whats your point caller, should CB be a universal benefit or not?

is £50k plus 'Middle England'?

tonyd - Member

As I said before I think, what bothers me is that a family with an income of almost twice ours gets to keep their CB. If this is to be based on income it should be household income IMO.

Bit of poo-slinging going on in this thread IMO but does anyone not agree with this? Personally I reckon child benefit should be limited- we've only got so much money, it shouldn't be given to people who have least need of it. But that's got to be done right- which means in a way that saves money, and in a way that people can agree is fair.

Bank Managers and Headteachers used to be middle class IIRC, what do they earn now?

Branch managers for the bank I work for tend to be quite young and on well under £30k. A girl I worked with a while back managed three branches in the Welsh valleys, working 12 hour days for £24k pa. Admittedly there are bonuses on top of that if targets are met, but it's not a job I'd do given the salary.

When I was a kid Bank Managers (i.e. branch managers) were important people and (I assume) rewarded accordingly.

Head teachers: afaik £60 - £100k + (secondary school).

But that's got to be done right- which means in a way that saves money, and in a way that people can agree is fair

iirc it was done this way as it was cheap
It would be expensive to work out household income and then apply it and easy if just one person pay higher rate tax.

I think the problem was that if it was done on household income it ran the risk of costing more to administer than to collect- not sure if that is true tbh

Its been implemented in an unfair manner for sure.

They managed to base child tax credits on joint incomes ok. They manage to restrict housing benefit, JSA etc.on joint incomes. The only reason it was originally based on households wih one wage earner paying 40% tax was because CMD thought most voters would fixate on the perceived well off getting stung and miss the fact that he was breaking the taboo of universal benefits. It's based on tbe 50k mark now as they had to backtrack after people at incme levels kicked off about how poorly and unfairly it wa being implemented. All they did was raise the threshold hoping that as fewer people would get caught they'd be less fuss missing the fact that people weren't happy about the mechanism. Personally I don't think households with an incomeof 42.5k should get child benefit.

I earn shit loads*. Living in London is expensive. Yes I could move to the north and my wages/cost of living would reduce / change ratio.

Either way I won't begrudge my kids £80 a month, nor will I let them suffer without it.

Shit happens, what else is there to say?

*edit : added for effect probably not true