I know it's not new but anyone else really hacked off about the child benefit cuts?

[Logan's Mum]

It doesn't make sense the way they've decided to do it. It should be done on household income over £50,000 not an individual income.

I'm a single mum & will qualify (just) until I argue my pay increase in Dec then it'll get stopped. Rubbish!

I don't 'need' it but I certainly want it ! I've paid a hefty wack of tax into the system of years and all I'm entitled to is £20 a week. Arseholes, I'll be taking it for as long as I can, it'll go in handy as extra spends for my Mummy Coffee Mornings!

Child benefit is to pay for clothes days out etcfor your childs benefit, not extra coffeenmornings. .. annoying.

Thanks but clearly as I stated I don't actually NEED the money - I can already afford the best for her without the measly £20 the Gov want to give me. So I will spend it willy nilly until my pay rise when it's whipped from under my nose!

If its soooo measly and you don't need it do the decent thing and donate it to charity rather than spend it on pointless crap.

With all due respect, do not make assumptions on where my money currently goes when you clearly would have no idea at all. That is a very rude thing to do.

See your first comment above

 

[sue_88]

It doesn't make sense the way they've decided to do it. It should be done on household income over £50,000 not an individual income.

I'm a single mum & will qualify (just) until I argue my pay increase in Dec then it'll get stopped. Rubbish!

I don't 'need' it but I certainly want it ! I've paid a hefty wack of tax into the system of years and all I'm entitled to is £20 a week. Arseholes, I'll be taking it for as long as I can, it'll go in handy as extra spends for my Mummy Coffee Mornings!

Child benefit is to pay for clothes days out etcfor your childs benefit, not extra coffeenmornings. .. annoying.

Thanks but clearly as I stated I don't actually NEED the money - I can already afford the best for her without the measly £20 the Gov want to give me. So I will spend it willy nilly until my pay rise when it's whipped from under my nose!

If its soooo measly and you don't need it do the decent thing and donate it to charity rather than spend it on pointless crap.

With all due respect, do not make assumptions on where my money currently goes when you clearly would have no idea at all. That is a very rude thing to do.

See your first comment above

So I go for coffee, lunches, dinner blah blah blah, yet you automatically assume I don't 'do the decent thing' and donate to charity?

Assumptions

 

[Logan's Mum]

It doesn't make sense the way they've decided to do it. It should be done on household income over £50,000 not an individual income.

I'm a single mum & will qualify (just) until I argue my pay increase in Dec then it'll get stopped. Rubbish!

I don't 'need' it but I certainly want it ! I've paid a hefty wack of tax into the system of years and all I'm entitled to is £20 a week. Arseholes, I'll be taking it for as long as I can, it'll go in handy as extra spends for my Mummy Coffee Mornings!

Child benefit is to pay for clothes days out etcfor your childs benefit, not extra coffeenmornings. .. annoying.

Thanks but clearly as I stated I don't actually NEED the money - I can already afford the best for her without the measly £20 the Gov want to give me. So I will spend it willy nilly until my pay rise when it's whipped from under my nose!

If its soooo measly and you don't need it do the decent thing and donate it to charity rather than spend it on pointless crap.

With all due respect, do not make assumptions on where my money currently goes when you clearly would have no idea at all. That is a very rude thing to do.

See your first comment above

So I go for coffee, lunches, dinner blah blah blah, yet you automatically assume I don't 'do the decent thing' and donate to charity?

Assumptions

Not really, I am basing the charity comment on how you spend your Child Benefit. What you do with the rest of your income does not concern me

 

[sparkle_1979]

I think it'd fair we don't get it as we don't financially need it

I think it's very unfair though that I don't get it as I am a sahm and hubby earns 80k, friends who have a joint income of the same still receive it, how can that be right ?

 

[LoraLoo]

I think it'd fair we don't get it as we don't financially need it

I think it's very unfair though that I don't get it as I am a sahm and hubby earns 80k, friends who have a joint income of the same still receive it, how can that be right ?

Can we swap hubbys please?

 

[MrsT&Ben]

I think it'd fair we don't get it as we don't financially need it

I think it's very unfair though that I don't get it as I am a sahm and hubby earns 80k, friends who have a joint income of the same still receive it, how can that be right ?

Can we swap hubbys please?

Could we split him???

 

[RedRose]

Like others, I can't see it being changed back. Perhaps the new system is hoping to further incentivise both parents working? I dunno.

I know it can be easy to dismiss families with one earner at 50k+, but the reality is living is fucking expensive when you pay for everything yourself and don't receive benefits. Rent alone in some parts of the country is eye-watering. 50k doesn't always go that far. and for some families, I'm thinking particularly those with sahm's, child benefit can actually be the difference between being able to afford to stay home and not.

Not to mention the frustration that 'higher' earners feel when they only ever ever pay into the pot. And then in hard times the one monetary benefit you are entitled to is removed. It's not necessarily how I feel about child benefit, but I can appreciate why people feel fustrated at the changes.

 

[tallybee]

The way they've done it is bullcrap, it should be done on family income.

But the reality is that the cost savings are peanuts in the scheme of things and it's an idealistic policy not a practical one.

 

[Belle25]

Come on ladies-the MPs have to screw us over somehow to pay for their 'expenses'...xx


On a more serious note-this gov seem to hate stay at home mums-we are not valued grr

 

[stephx]

I do think it should be based on joint income, however- it should still be capped at £50k (joint or single income)

As the above lady put it, people earning £50k+ do not need a 'measly' £20 to put towards their child. They don't need it- it's as simple as that!

 

[Tasha]

The problem is means testing it costs more than they save, so would be a pointless exercise. This way they are seen to be doing something that wasn't taking from the poor (but was taking from some middle income families, again).

 

[sparkle_1979]

Haha it's not bad is it, plus he works away 6 mths a year

 

[Abigailly]

I do think it should be based on joint income, however- it should still be capped at £50k (joint or single income)

As the above lady put it, people earning £50k+ do not need a 'measly' £20 to put towards their child. They don't need it- it's as simple as that!

I'm using your comment as it's a general opinion.

But until my OH went self employed he was on just over 50k and I was on about 5k. Because we were in a fairly new relationship and only just living together while trying to work out how to be parents together we didn't share finances. He paid for the house etc, my wage and a small 'allowance' paid for my car, most child stuff and our day to day outings. I NEEDED the child benefit. It's how our finances worked. Never assume that you can read an entire situation by one persons wage.

Not to mention, once we finally got a joint account, £50k really doesn't go far when it's the lifestyle you've adapted to. We were paying off a lot of debt on top of paying for a house that we paid far too much for as it's what it was worth at the time.

Now though, we benefit from the government's stupidity as we earn 3x what we used to (self-employed), but because we take it in dividends we're still entitled to most benefits. The only one we do take is CB, which goes straight into Niamh's saving account. We worked out a few months ago, when the debate originally came up, that between us both, since we both started paying tax we've put £140k into the big ol' tax pot. I honestly feel Niamh is entitled to it.

 

[stephx]

I do think it should be based on joint income, however- it should still be capped at £50k (joint or single income)

As the above lady put it, people earning £50k+ do not need a 'measly' £20 to put towards their child. They don't need it- it's as simple as that!

I'm using your comment as it's a general opinion.

But until my OH went self employed he was on just over 50k and I was on about 5k. Because we were in a fairly new relationship and only just living together while trying to work out how to be parents together we didn't share finances. He paid for the house etc, my wage and a small 'allowance' paid for my car, most child stuff and our day to day outings. I NEEDED the child benefit. It's how our finances worked. Never assume that you can read an entire situation by one persons wage.

Not to mention, once we finally got a joint account, £50k really doesn't go far when it's the lifestyle you've adapted to. We were paying off a lot of debt on top of paying for a house that we paid far too much for as it's what it was worth at the time.

Now though, we benefit from the government's stupidity as we earn 3x what we used to (self-employed), but because we take it in dividends we're still entitled to most benefits. The only one we do take is CB, which goes straight into Niamh's saving account. We worked out a few months ago, when the debate originally came up, that between us both, since we both started paying tax we've put £140k into the big ol' tax pot. I honestly feel Niamh is entitled to it.

I stand by my opinion, so in your case your OH was bringing in 50k and allowing you to struggle financially in that you needed the gov's £20? To me that's wrong. A single mother on income support wouldn't carry on claiming and getting supported by the government if her working OH moved in Her OH would be expected to cough up or not move in!

I understand that you adapt to the money you have incoming but when you bring home in excess of £3K per month- I really fail to see how £80 a month makes any difference financially. Debt is a lifestyle choice, people on benefits can live within their means and not get into debt, so can the rich. Debt just means you have overspent somewhere along the line, and again.. not down to the gov to stump up to ease finances.

Not having a dig at you individually, just yet to hear of a case where a high earning household needed child benefit.

 

[LoraLoo]

Deleted before i end up going off on a proper rant.

 

[dgirllamius]

I can't see how anyone can financially struggle on 50k+. We get 15k between us and we manage fine. It'd be heaven for us to have 3000+ euros every month. Makes me wonder what kind of lifestyles people lead to earn that much and still need help from the government

 

[stephx]

I can't see how anyone can financially struggle on 50k+. We get 15k between us and we manage fine. It'd be heaven for us to have 3000+ euros every month. Makes me wonder what kind of lifestyles people lead to earn that much and still need help from the government

Exactly, it's a lifestyle CHOICE

 

[Abigailly]

We didn't necessarily need it, I did originally, s I said, we were establishing ourselves as a couple. I could have easily just gone to the council and said I want a house and full benefits. I could have also lied and said I was living with my parents full time, instead of being between the two houses. And claimed 1k plus a month in tax credits etc.

And unfortunately, debt wasn't a life style choice for me. It was debt wracked up by an ex boyfriend who then fucked off to Canada somewhere leaving me with this debt in both our names that I didn't even know he had. Thankfully that's sorted but I had to pay it at the time or end up with bailiffs back on my door step again while I tried to sort it.

And as for how you can spend 3k a month, when you have a mortgage that is almost 1k a month and a car that's not far off that. Both bought pre-pregnancy when we both had the means.

They're all irrelevant though, as they're previous situations. My biggest bug bare is that it's taking off those who pay the most again. I'm not saying my partner's tax is any more important that anyone else's tax, but I hate that it's always the middle section that suffer. At the same time it was decided that the 50p tax was coming down. It's only if you're rich you benefit from this country. It's completely back wards. They give more to those with more and the less you have the bigger a percentage they take off you.

Not to mention my next door neighbor has a joint income of roughly £84k, and they're still entitled to CB, it's a completely imprudent system. That is going to end up costing more than it will save after they start calculating how much people should pay back etc.

 

[babyhopes2010]

my dh earns 28k and im not working at the mo. BUT my dh pays taxes u should AND we arent entitled too any benefits apart from this 20 a week.
we could survive without it in terms of we would still have a roof and food in our bellys.BUT the lil luxuries wouldnt happen.

i feel its the middle income earners that suffer. those that are off the cusp of benefits but earning mega money such as 50+k a yr. In which i really cant see how you'd struggle without it.

and yes i agree that the income should be based on a household and not a single earner. maybe put the joint income threshold down.

 

[RedRose]

I stand by my opinion, so in your case your OH was bringing in 50k and allowing you to struggle financially in that you needed the gov's £20? To me that's wrong. A single mother on income support wouldn't carry on claiming and getting supported by the government if her working OH moved in Her OH would be expected to cough up or not move in![\B]


I understand that you adapt to the money you have incoming but when you bring home in excess of £3K per month- I really fail to see how £80 a month makes any difference financially. [\B] Debt is a lifestyle choice, people on benefits can live within their means and not get into debt, so can the rich. Debt just means you have overspent somewhere along the line, and again.. not down to the gov to stump up to ease finances.

Not having a dig at you individually, just yet to hear of a case where a high earning household needed child benefit.

I think you have a totally valid point but just wanted to say re the above-

Of course the family you mention above would still be supported by the government if they needed it- housing benefit, council tax reductions, child tax credit, income support, milk and veg vouchers etc. I don't think they would all be taken away if a man moved in would they? Or did I completely get the wrong end of the stick sorry

Also, with regards to the £20 not making a difference- I think it's worth clarifying exactly what child benefit is supposed to be: an inclusive social security paid to mothers (primarily) to be spent on the children's enrichment. If we're still talking about a family with one earner at 50k and a sah parent, then it's fair to assume that the wages are spent on living and the child benefit paid to the mother is to be spent on the children. It's about 1.3k annually, which is now having to be found in your living expenses.

Regardless of that, child benefit was introduced to support families and children and enrich them for the good of society. It wasn't strictly introduced as a benefit for the empoverished families in society- there are many many other benefits and social securities which are there to support and help the lowest earners. Child benefit was supposed to be used to help all families.