Child Benefit to be scrapped for higher earners

George = Gordon?

The tories have turned red innit?

Well that's going to cost me about £45 a week - just what I wanted.     

It will affect our income next year but I can't really argue with it. 

Hmm.  Sounds fair, until you consider that a family with one parent earning £45k will lose it, but a family with 2 parents earning £44k each won't.   But to implement it fairly would probably cost more than it saves.

Can't really argue with the theory, but............

I seem to be in a minority but I don't think it's fair simply because - as has been mentioned - it is using individual income when the relevant thing is household income.    Why is a family with 5 kids and a household income of 45k losing about £70 a week whereas it's possible to be on 80k and lose nothing ?

People may say you should pay for your own kids - you had them.   I can see the logic but at the same time the state is imposing quite a few conditions on parents regarding how they bring up kids so a bit of  a subsidy on fulfilling that doesn't seem unfair to me.   I don't agree with school uniform, I don't agree with having to pay for classroom materials, after school football, school music lessons etc - but I have to.  This is all stuff that when I was a kid would have been free.   

popsider wrote (see)

People may say you should pay for your own kids - you had them.   I can see the logic but at the same time the state is imposing quite a few conditions on parents regarding how they bring up kids so a bit of  a subsidy on fulfilling that doesn't seem unfair to me.   I don't agree with school uniform, I don't agree with having to pay for classroom materials, after school football, school music lessons etc - but I have to.  This is all stuff that when I was a kid would have been free.   

Thats the cost of having children today though surely? Why should the state subsidise people having kids? Its not the government that forces school uniform/football/music lessons......if you want your children to take part then you have to pay for it.

fat buddha wrote (see)

pops - the only fair system is to scrap child benefit totally irrespective of income. you want kids - you pay. you don't want kids - you don't subsidise others through tax to have them that's the only fair system in my mind

I suppose by the same logic as some are using we should only have private education - if you want to have kids then you pay for them to be educated ?  

Same goes for the NHS and just about any other state expenditure where the money comes from general taxation but is not distributed absolutely equally.    If you live in an inner city then I suppose you should pay more for policing than someone in the Highlands.   If you are a woman you pay more for your pension as you are likely to live longer etc etc.  

The argument that they are your kids you pay for them doesn't stack up when you extend the logic to other areas - unless you are an advocate of having no real state provision of services at all.  

If people say that the well off don't need child benefit then that's a different matter - but in that case it should be done on household income - not on individual income - the proposals as they stand are not fair.     

I agree with FB - but this is at least a step in the right direction.

On the football, music lessons, etc., - seems reasonable that those who use the services should pay for them. 

Uniforms are imposed by the schools, not the government, I believe - take it up with the school.

JWrun wrote (see)

Thats the cost of having children today though surely? Why should the state subsidise people having kids? Its not the government that forces school uniform/football/music lessons......if you want your children to take part then you have to pay for it.

I think you'll find there are laws about sending kids out to earn a living at 12 years old.   The govt does impose certain conditions on parents - I do have to fork out for a uniform to send them to the school allocated by the state - if I don't send them then I end up in court.      If I keep them at home then I have to spend time educating them - meaning I wouldn't be able to work.   

We are a society - being a parent is very expensive - it doesn't seem unfair that some of the conditions imposed BY THE STATE on parents are offset by some financial subsidy in the form of child benefit.   

 edit - Wilkie - the school is a state school - I have to send my kids there (or another even further away which would cost even more) or else I am legally required to educate them.   If it was possible for me to send a note in saying my daughter will be attending in jeans and a sweatshirt from now on believe me I would. 

fat buddha wrote (see)

pops - the only fair system is to scrap child benefit totally irrespective of income. you want kids - you pay. you don't want kids - you don't subsidise others through tax to have them that's the only fair system in my mind

Amen Lord Buddha.

As far as I can see, higher rate tax paters are already paying more into the pot than the rest, then to effectively tax them again by taking away the ONLY benefit they get will leave people seriously pissed off.

I know a family where the husband is deliberately working only 15.5 hours at the weekend to maintain his benefits (which are considerable)

He doesn't even get up through the week. And why should he when Mr LB is paying for him to sit on his arse? He won't lose his child benefit but I will. Mr LB doesn't see his children all week - he's away working. This guy gets to pick his up from school.