Child benefit changes :-/

[Sleepy sue]

Hi all I heard today that they are looking at changing child benefit to a means tested benefit!!
Apparently if you or your partner are on 40% tax then you won't receive it, but both of you could be just under 40% tax (technically almost 80,000) and you would get it. That doesn't quite make sense!!!

Also if these changes happen in 2013 does that mean if we are entitled now they would stop it ??

:-/ xx

 

[redbear]

So if your household income is +80,000 your child tax would be stopped. But it would be after the date they gave... i wish we had an income of 80,000 they could keep the £20 lol x

 

[tillzy69]

So if your household income is +80,000 your child tax would be stopped. But it would be after the date they gave... i wish we had an income of 80,000 they could keep the £20 lol x

Totally agree! For people with that kind of income £20 is small change to them!

 

[jules84]

My partner and I are on relatively 'comfortable' wages . me £30k before deductions and him on slightly more (sometimes are wages go up with overtime etc so that's our minimum) and I think if low earners are expected to live on £15/16k for a WHOLE family then if your earning £80k or ANYWHERE even close to it, that £80 a month would most definitely be better going on the families on low incomes who are struggling, realistically think what £20 a week could do for those families?

If a family can survive on £15k why cant a family on £80k not cope without £20 a week??

Obviously this is only my opinion

xxx

 

[jojo_2012]

The problem is a couple each earning £39,000 each so £78,000 as a household are both lower rate tax payer so get child benefit.

Yet a household with one parent earning £43,000 or so won't get child benefit because they're a higher rate tax payer.

But I've read that if you up your pension contributions to drop yourself just below the upper tax amount then you still get child benefit, but this is only worthwhile when you've got a few kids and child benefit really adds up.

 

[Laura_C]

The changes they are suggesting have not been thought through properly at all!

A family with only one earner who pays 40% tax will not receive it, yet if a family has two earners just under that threshold then they will still receive it! So basically they could be earning almost twice as much as the family with the one earner on 40% tax yet still get child benefit! It's backwards!

 

[jules84]

The problem is a couple each earning £39,000 each so £78,000 as a household are both lower rate tax payer so get child benefit.

Yet a household with one parent earning £43,000 or so won't get child benefit because they're a higher rate tax payer.

But I've read that if you up your pension contributions to drop yourself just below the upper tax amount then you still get child benefit, but this is only worthwhile when you've got a few kids and child benefit really adds up.

Good point... but personally my opinion still stands as even a family with over £40k still have £25k + a year than families on low incomes - the lower income families I bet would sure swap there £15k INC CB for £40k+ without it lol

Gosh I've read that back and I sound quite rude! But if I gave up work (or cut my hours drastically - which one of these options I will definitely do) my husband would probably make hours up and I'm 99% sure he would be on 40% tax then and I still don't think we would need £20 a week. Now if it wasn't going on anything else - sure give it to me and I will stick it in a bank for my lo, but when it will be regenerated to those who need it more I'm personally all for it .

Am I making sense? xx

 

[jules84]

The changes they are suggesting have not been thought through properly at all!

A family with only one earner who pays 40% tax will not receive it, yet if a family has two earners just under that threshold then they will still receive it! So basically they could be earning almost twice as much as the family with the one earner on 40% tax yet still get child benefit! It's backwards!

I agree with this 1000%

It should be household income , not based on tax xx

 

[BevG]

between me and my OH working whatever hours we could get overtime etc we made 22k last year. and that made us not qualify for working tax credits, this year will be less due to me being preg and not working as much and then reducing hours in work. if we got 40 k a year i wouldnt be looking to get any benefits as i get nothing now!

 

[jojo_2012]

Don't worry Jules I agree with ya.

I'm putting my sons into a savings account for uni from this year onwards gonna need it.

 

[jules84]

Don't worry Jules I agree with ya.

I'm putting my sons into a savings account for uni from this year onwards gonna need it.

When I'm lucky enough IF I received benefits I will do the same. And I think that's what makes me feel sad, we're shoving it into a trust fund for our lo's to literally piss against a wall at uni (if we're lucky ! lol that's what I dont with my savings) when others struggle to feed their kids' well.

I nearly feel guilty.

But on the other hand some high earners have huge outgoings and may need it, crazy

xx

 

[l_maclean]

It all sounds very bizarre, but it could be to do with admin costs. I know that sounds really stupid, but I was having a rant about benefits being paid to people who don't need them - like heating allowance that goes to anyone over I think 60/65 working or not, and even some people not living in the country, but my dad pointed out that sometimes the admin costs of applying these things to only the people who need it more cost so
Much more, it's not worth it. And I guess admin is the one place we could all agree is a good place for cuts to be made. Xxx

 

[jules84]

It all sounds very bizarre, but it could be to do with admin costs. I know that sounds really stupid, but I was having a rant about benefits being paid to people who don't need them - like heating allowance that goes to anyone over I think 60/65 working or not, and even some people not living in the country, but my dad pointed out that sometimes the admin costs of applying these things to only the people who need it more cost so
Much more, it's not worth it. And I guess admin is the one place we could all agree is a good place for cuts to be made. Xxx

LOVE the admin statement ROFL!

This makes sense! x

 

[l_maclean]

It's so simple when you think about it - and it seems really unfair, but I guess to "means test" everyone for some things, would cost a bloody fortune - then we'd all be moaning about paying for that instead of money going to those who need it. Lol
Xxx

 

[jules84]

Exactly esp when it would probably cost more than £20 to do it . I think a lot of the times the government are afraid to give people the chance to make more fraudulent claims too. There's such a huge loss there which 9 times out of ten if the people didn't claim incorrectly and there was more money available it would be doled out to THOSE people anyway lol

I think UK had £6 Billion benefit fraud last year - CRAZY!!! xxx

 

[Lisa_85]

Don't worry Jules I agree with ya.

I'm putting my sons into a savings account for uni from this year onwards gonna need it.

I didn't realise how shit my wage is lol, I'm a low earner and I'm doing the same if he doesn't use it for uni and i can do without using it for him I'm going to give him the options for driving or deposit on a house when he is old enough.

I can only do this for now as i live with my mam and I'm saving CB and CTC in a savings account. As far as i see its money for him so whilst i can provide out of my low income ill let him choose what to spend it on when he is older
X

 

[Sleepy sue]

The problem is a couple each earning £39,000 each so £78,000 as a household are both lower rate tax payer so get child benefit.

Yet a household with one parent earning £43,000 or so won't get child benefit because they're a higher rate tax payer.

But I've read that if you up your pension contributions to drop yourself just below the upper tax amount then you still get child benefit, but this is only worthwhile when you've got a few kids and child benefit really adds up.

This was the point I was trying to make.

I have no problem with higher wage earners not receiving cb. However this whole thing of if it goes to a lower wage earner it can really help, can in some cases be BS!!! There are a lot of people out there who have never done one days work through choice not circumstance!! Now these people I don't believe should have the £20 that higher earners would have had they should get off there bum and work!!!!

Sorry if I've offended anyone but please note the choice not circumstance comment.
X

 

[Nurse 26]

I see what you are saying sue and totally agree, me and Oh were discussing this when saw it on news.

I have given up work to be a stay at home mum. Oh has a good job and next year will prob make just over the 42000 bracket, which is great and neither of us would object if the rules changed and we did not recieve any child benefit at all BUT what would annoy us would be that other high earners, eg a couple making 39,000 each WOULD recieve this. Its just not a fair system.

xx

 

[TORino]

It's certainly not fair the way they are administering the system but I believe they are doing it this way to maximise the saving from it.

The administrative cost of a fairer system would effectively cancel out some of the saving and they are reluctant to do this because they are hell bent on reducing the deficit.

I could get on my soap box about the government and the austerity measures but I won't because I live and breathe this daily at work and it winds me up something terrible.

Sort it out Dave!

 

[Nic36]

The problem is a couple each earning £39,000 each so £78,000 as a household are both lower rate tax payer so get child benefit.

Yet a household with one parent earning £43,000 or so won't get child benefit because they're a higher rate tax payer.

But I've read that if you up your pension contributions to drop yourself just below the upper tax amount then you still get child benefit, but this is only worthwhile when you've got a few kids and child benefit really adds up.

This was the point I was trying to make.

I have no problem with higher wage earners not receiving cb. However this whole thing of if it goes to a lower wage earner it can really help, can in some cases be BS!!! There are a lot of people out there who have never done one days work through choice not circumstance!! Now these people I don't believe should have the £20 that higher earners would have had they should get off there bum and work!!!!

Sorry if I've offended anyone but please note the choice not circumstance comment.
X

I totally agree!