Child Benefit Changes

[Unwell Cat]

Surprised there is not a topic on this already following the Governments announcement today. So if I earn over 44K a year as one half of a partnership or as a single parent (with a child of course) I no longer get benefit for my child (approx £82 a month). However if I earn up to £43K and my partner earns up to £43K (totaling £86K PA) therefore not exceeding the £44K individual earner rule I still get child benefit.

How is this a fair judgement? I'm not saying what the cut off point for child benefit should be but I think it should be fairer than the above shambles. Unless I've misunderstood?

Surely it's more sensible to just make the cutoff point £44K (or lower) for the household or this to difficult to implement?

[Baseley09]

Why do people who earn anything like £44k get any sort of child benefit in the first place.

Yes the new ruling is retarded, the set up before was also.

I agree about your household income point.

[Robster]

New rules are totally bonkers, 2 parents earning 43k in the same household should not be getting any beneift .

[merf]

its not about fair, its about saving money and not introducing a huge means testing administration that costs more than the savings to run.

the whole idea of child benefit seems mental to me in this day and age for people earning an ok wage, its a historic handout and should be axed.

I really hope the coalition goes far further and really gets to grips with benefit in general, far too many people with their hand out getting far too much and inflating the cost to the taxpayer horribly for those that are in genuine need and should receive assitance.

[teddymeow]

Why do people who earn anything like ?44k get any sort of child benefit in the first place.

This is what I was thinking. If Daddy earns ?44k and Mummy stays at home that's probably their choice so why should they get benefits?

Surely Mummy could get a part time job while the kids are at school and earn more than the benefits anyway.

[Neon Ignition]

Saw this in the papers this morning and it is pretty laughable that such a big deal is being made of it. Regardless of where you live a salary of £44k is nothing to be sniffed at and so claiming child benefits on top might as well be fiddling the system it's so unneeded compared the amount of families and parents who are actually in low incomes.

[Psyduck]

Surprised there is not a topic on this already following the Governments announcement today. So if I earn over 44K a year as one half of a partnership or as a single parent (with a child of course) I no longer get benefit for my child (approx £82 a month). However if I earn up to £43K and my partner earns up to £43K (totaling £86K PA) therefore not exceeding the £44K individual earner rule I still get child benefit.

How is this a fair judgement? I'm not saying what the cut off point for child benefit should be but I think it should be fairer than the above shambles. Unless I've misunderstood?

Surely it's more sensible to just make the cutoff point £44K (or lower) for the household or this to difficult to implement?

You're right that that particular situation (which is going to be very rare!) is a bit unfair. However, as you say, it'd be difficult to implement. There'd be plenty of scope for fraud, and that just bumps up costs and makes everything more complex...

As others have said, IMO, it's pretty much fair enough. Not saying a single person earning 44k is necessarily rich, but I'm sure there's plenty of luxuries they can cut back on if needed without harming the child.

[Number45]

Saw this in the papers this morning and it is pretty laughable that such a big deal is being made of it. Regardless of where you live a salary of £44k is nothing to be sniffed at and so claiming child benefits on top might as well be fiddling the system it's so unneeded compared the amount of families and parents who are actually in low incomes.

Surely the issue to discuss is why a household earning 86k is entitled to benefits over one that's earning 44k?

EDIT: Not that I disagree with your post, obviously.

[Unwell Cat]

Surely the issue to discuss is why a household earning 86k is entitled to benefits over one that's earning 44k?

EDIT: Not that I disagree with your post, obviously.

I think this was the original point I was trying to make.

[merf]

so anybody earning about £42k with a couple of kids may be better off refusing a £1500 pay rise at work ?

nice.

[Shez]

I doubt those figures will see the light of day - I suspect some tweaking before it is implemented.

[abigsmurf]

To be honest I'm fairly glad these changes are in place. While it is a bit silly a couple earning £43K each still gets benefits whereas a single £44k earner doesn't. The truth is that someone earning £44k+ doesn't need the benefits, whether they're a lone earner or not.

If they have to make lifestyle adjusts then so be it but frankly, unless they're budgeting is piss poor, these adjustments will be so minor as to be barely noticable.

I get fed up of every budget giving ever more to people with children and the ever increasing trend of treating the childless as second class citizens.

[Vince]

The reason they are not doing it by household is there would be the added overhead of working out who lives with who etc, its much simpler just to apply it to high earners. If you look at the amount of paperwork and pain that goes with the tax credit system then you'll see the reason they went the way they did.

[Hohum]

Surely the issue to discuss is why a household earning 86k is entitled to benefits over one that's earning 44k?

Admittedly it's a bit awkward to argue a case for that, however in that specific scenario if both parents happen to be earning ?43k a year each then it's highly likely that they're both working full-time... thus they lose out in other ways anyway (kids don't see much of them, babysitting costs, etc).

Regardless, I think it's a step in the right direction.

[beecee]

Admittedly it's a bit awkward to argue a case for that, however in that specific scenario if both parents happen to be earning ?43k a year each then it's highly likely that they're both working full-time... thus they lose out in other ways anyway (kids don't see much of them, babysitting costs, etc).

Regardless, I think it's a step in the right direction.

thats all fair and well for couples, but what about single parents? child care costs are massive, i pay more than my mortgage every month in childcare, and thats only 3 days a week!

so for a single parent 5 day child care can cost about ?180 per week! and thats for only one child!