So whats your thoughts on the matter?

Persoanlly i feel the level is very low, given alot of people earn on average ??????20k each if in full time employment, and obviously higher in London etc.

We will lose the benefit as hubby earn above the rate, part f me feels its unfair, that we pay a higher tax etc and get nothing, yet some people who refuse to work will get all the benfits still.

mmm i agree, it is the only thing that people earning that much get back (benefit terms) despite paying in the biggest chunk, think its unfair to take it away! We may not lose it as I am planning on going back PT though if i went back FT we would lose it as by 2013 i would earn over the amount!

however this is the senario i think is terrible... if you are a single income house hold - 1 person earning 44K the other a SAHM you lose the benefit but total income is 44K...
2 people both earning 30k total income 60k still would get it! that totally sucks in my opinion!! it really penalises those who stay at home to care for their kids!

Im a bit on the fence too. I would feel better if it went to familys on the breaqd line, and not just going into paying offf the banks debt and the War.

God I wish we both earnt 20k each a year we only earn 27k between us. We both work full time by the way. I am glad that we can keep ours we kind of rely on it to buy healthy food.

I also was think that why do people that earn that much need an extra 80 quid. (waits to be shot down for that comment)

I agree in principle, because I always thought it was a bit of a waste to pay child benefit to eneryone (when a lot don't need it) but i think a ??????45k threshold is way too low.

MrsB27 - i ddn't realise that about single or double income. Basically i'd worked from 16 in the same job until last August when i left to live with my now husband and i had Ethan now 10 months (today), i then became a sahm, as it was cheaper for me as child care is soooo expensive where i live, i'd be going to work and literally not taking a penny home, so hubby has to have the better job a joint choice. Yet if he went and got a much less paid job and then i went to work, we'd get tx credit and child benefit, where is the incentive to thrive in the workplace!?!?!?!

mcrvamp - i think income depending on where you live, and bills you pay, can sometimes (no all of the time) even itself out over the country, so then people are being penalised for choosing to live in better places.

I agree it defintiely doesn't seem far to remove it just because one person in a family earns above the threasehold yet in another household a couple together could earn way above it when their incomes are put together but still get child benefit!

Watch this the government will realise this now and do it like child tax credits and say no household who earns ??????44K either indiviually or jointly is to get child benefit from 2013!

So glad to see you're discussing this, I've been ranting at dh for the past hour! It's not so much them dropping it for high tax payers that gets me, but the inconsistency. So one parent working vs both, although I do understand that if both parents work then there is a childcare cost too. It just seems so anti-family as if they don't want sahm's.

Is anyone in the position where they're close to the ??????44k cut off? Will you be saying no to a payrise or asking for a bigger one?

i dont think they have thought about this very well tbh.

i just said to hubby if he gets a much lower paid job, less stress, travel etc, and i earn a minimal wage, we'll get tax credits, child benefit and costs towards childcare. Why the hell did he think getting a good, and going to uni to achieve it was a brilliant idea?!!!!!!??! lol

Samiana - thats a really good point for those just on the line, not sre what i would do in those circumstances tbh.

we are close either way and if i was ft we'd lose it. if they decide to joint income we'll lose it but by a smalllll amount.

my feeling is that i don't object to paying tax and somne of it being used to support the army of hard working low paid families, but i do object to people like my friend who regularly tells me she won't work more than 16 hours because why should she... with wage and benefits she gets nearly a ft wage!!!! that makes me rage! why should i work my ass off and earn a decent wage pay tax and get nothing back?????

This pees me off. ??????We are one of those couples who worked hard, got our careers sorted, bought our own home and cleared our debts before we started a family. ??????Like a lot of people, when planning what to do and getting a mortgage we did the sums. ??????We took into account things like child benefit, childcare vouchers etc. ??????I've now decided to be a SAHM but as my OH earns above the threshold we will lose the child benefit. ??????As it is, we're still okay as this was going into a savings account as a "uni fund" so we'll have to figure our where to find that bit extra to save.

What irks me is the attitude of some people when cuts are made/taxes increased that affect the so-called wealthy. ??????Most people live just within their means and often every penny is accounted for with mortgage, loan repayments and other such commitments. ??????Changes to income/benefits/taxes can have a huge impact. The incentive to study hard, work hard, set up a home before you have a family is decreasing in this country. ??????A lot of politicians are a short-sighted bunch making some unsustainable decisions.

Sorry if this is an incoherent ramble - not much sleep recently!

"I also was think that why do people that earn that much need an extra 80 quid. "

Not shooting you down at all but hubby and I earn close to that and yet the amount of money that we get in the bank every month is similar to my sister and her oh who earn about the same as you and your oh because we are in a higher tax bracket and get about ??????30 a month tax cradits and nothing towards childcare. Sometimes people who appear to be on high wages don't actually take home as much money as you would think. Also in my case oh has 2 children from a previous relationship and pays a lot of maintenance each month and so I will have to pay all our child care costs so ??????80 would make a huge difference to me. It makes the difference between having a tiny bit of a buffer each moth and literally walking a tight rope. Its also hard to accept the huge amount of tax I pay every month knowing that I will literally get nothing back in return. At least by 2013 Jason might be in nursery so childcare will be lower. The only reason our joint income nears this is because my oh works 80 hours a week at minimum wage as a security guard.

[Modified by: faithie on October 04, 2010 10:37 AM]

Firstly, they already know about the inconsistency and aren't planning to make it joint income any time soon. George Osborne was on the radio this morning and was asked specifically about it. It is frustrating for those who find themselves in that situation, but if I remember correctly, only 10% of the population pays higher rate of income, so I guess the logic is that it will be an injustice to a tiny portion of the population relative to all the other injustices that cuts to benefits are going to bring.

Samiana, we are on the edge and my husband is likely to become a higher rate payer due to promotion in the next five years. We will sacrifice the child benefit when that happens as promotion is far more important to his overall career trajectory than the benefit is to our income at the moment (if that makes sense). Yes, it will probably make things a bit tougher temporarily, but nothing that good budgeting can't overcome. Given that we both individually and together earn above the national average income, I really can't complain. I would far rather it was assured at a decent level for those who really need it than that we get it at the expense of others.

Now, if they don't limit who gets a free bus pass to those not paying taxes at the higher rate as well, I really will be furious. Penalising children to pay for the (wealthy) elderly is just not on!

Oh, this has really rankled me. I'm sure there was someone saying not so long ago that child benefit would not be means tested and now look.

My husband has just returned to work after being unemployed for a year. During that year we were entitled to absolutely nothing. He now earns enough to pay the higher tax band, but we don't have much in the way of spare money.
I am a SAHM because childcare cost more than my net salary.
I'm 40 and worked full-time for 20yrs, my husband has worked for 15yrs so far, In that time, we've paid a lot of money in tax, and got precious little in return when we needed it.

My dh earns over the threshold so we will lose it no question. My head says that it is fair to take child benefit away from high earners to benefit families who struggle - it's very nice to get that ??????188 per month, but don't actually need it to survive.

But, another part of me, (maybe the spoilt brat part!) just thinks typical! the ONLY benefit we get from the gov is being taken away! We're not entitled to anything else, and child benefit felt like a nice helping hand - saying, hey you're helping bring up the next generation - have a little bit of extra help.

I'm disappointed that the gov isnt tackling the hordes of young men who have never worked, claim benefits and father several children by different women! They obviously won't be affected! (and I've not even been watching Jeremy Kyle lol!)

One of the towns near us has a real benefits culture - you go there on a weekday mid-morning and there are always gangs of men wearing tracksuits all hanging around. Always smoking and at least half of them have dogs - I just think Oh go and get a job!! We are in the south east - there are jobs everywhere!

I don't care what anyone says, there is no incentive to work hard in this country anymore - there is a sector of society (I'm not saying it's everyone) that thinks it is ok not to get a job and that benefits are a lifestyle choice. My husband has worked hard and made a lot of sacrifices in his life to get where he is today - he wasn't handed his career on a plate!

Oh well.....
x

I'm in two minds about this - I can appreciate that there are some families who probably don't need the money, but I don't think that level is ??????45k. As others have said, DH and I have worked hard to buy a house (and we both work in London that means any home if v expensive as is travel!), that doesn't mean we're rolling in cash at the end of the month and every little helps.

Having said that I appreciate that the government needs to cut costs (however as a civil servant I'm getting a bit pee'd that it's my job, pension etc... that are getting cut, whilst rich bankers continue to get their bonuses - but that's another issue!), but what about lowering the age that children still recieve child benefit for everyone, at the moment I think it's about 19.

I also disagree with George Osbourne's arguement this morning, part of which was that why should lower income families pay extra tax to fund those better off to have child benefit - fine, but I wasn't aware the government would lower for anyonetax because of this move.

ELF

babybarbarella - i agree completely!

I love these threads, A plethora of people moaning about how they pay loads of tax and NI and 'get nothing back;', conveniently forgetting that a) it's not a savings plan and b) it's all ACTUALLY paying to school your children/cover their healthcare costs/defend their country and keep them safe/police the streets they occupy....

sorry but i have to comment on this, my husband works 40-50 hours a week, and once his wage is balanced out throughout the year (he's a roofer so gets a lot of work in summer and minimal in winter, so can earn ??????500 odd pound a week in summer but come winter, if he doesn't work at least 2 days a week he doesn't even get basic) averages out to ??????244 a week, so we do get full child tax credit and small amount of working tax credit, but wages, tax credits and child benefit (we have 4 children), our yearly income is still only ??????27k, i manage just fine to pay all the bills, feed and dress the kids and ourselves, so someone earning ??????17k more than us should easily be able to live without that extra ??????35 a week for 2 kids (we get ??????60 for 4).

and will i work, the answer at the minute is no, i have 2 soon to be 3 children that are not of school age and 2 school age ones, childcare in the summer hols for me working a full time 9-5 would cost me in the region of ??????500 per week, we would also lose all working tax and half child tax so effectively just for us to break even with what we get now i would have to earn ??????625 per week after tax, so actually at the mo, the government supports people who want to be a sahm dont get me wrong, once childcare isn't an issue (when my older 2 are both over 13) and i only have to pay for 3 i will work because i don't want to spend my life sitting on my bum. but at the minute it just wouldn't be worth it. xxxx

but have to agree with some on the 'dossers' couples who choose not to work because it means losing their lazy daytimes and something for nothing (state benefits) xxx

I love these threads, A plethora of people moaning about how they pay loads of tax and NI and 'get nothing back;', conveniently forgetting that a) it's not a savings plan and b) it's all ACTUALLY paying to school your children/cover their healthcare costs/defend their country and keep them safe/police the streets they occupy....


Knew you'd have something to say, Mrs S

I am one of those people who thinks it's injust, as I wrote above. I'm very much aware that our taxes pay for education, healthcare, defence etc. However, a percentage of our taxes is for welfare. Mine, my husband's and our children's welfare was disregarded whilst my husband was out of work. Had we been reckless with our earnings beforehand, mortgaged ourselves to the hilt, etc, we would have received help. As it was, we got no financial assistance to clothe and feed our son, other than the child benefit.