If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Child Benefits
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
As you may or may not know, the rules of child benefits are changing, and it could reduce the entitlement of child benefits to about 1.2 million families. From January 2013 families where one parent is earning over £50,000 per annum will no longer be able to claim the total amount of child benefit.
This may seem to you a fair decision, but consider this: a two-parent family, with each parent earning £40,000 a year will still be entitled to claim full child benefit, compared with a single parent earning £51,000 a year, who can no longer claim full child benefit, even though the total household income in considerably less than that of the two parent family.
Upon discussion among TheSite leaders, we all felt that this was a little odd; how could this be fair?! A couple of people leaned towards wanting to limit the amount of children that you could have before one was no longer entitled to claim child benefit at all - perhaps so that the money would be distributed in a fairer way. However, this could seem unethical, as it would require parents to seriously consider whether they could afford to have another child or not - would this be fair, or would parents carry on going ahead with having children they couldn't afford to bring up in a reasonable manner?
So, we'd like to hear from you - do you think that this new ruling is a good way of cutting down on benefits? Do you think it should be done differently? Let us know by replying to this post! Can't wait to hear your thoughts!!
This may seem to you a fair decision, but consider this: a two-parent family, with each parent earning £40,000 a year will still be entitled to claim full child benefit, compared with a single parent earning £51,000 a year, who can no longer claim full child benefit, even though the total household income in considerably less than that of the two parent family.
Upon discussion among TheSite leaders, we all felt that this was a little odd; how could this be fair?! A couple of people leaned towards wanting to limit the amount of children that you could have before one was no longer entitled to claim child benefit at all - perhaps so that the money would be distributed in a fairer way. However, this could seem unethical, as it would require parents to seriously consider whether they could afford to have another child or not - would this be fair, or would parents carry on going ahead with having children they couldn't afford to bring up in a reasonable manner?
So, we'd like to hear from you - do you think that this new ruling is a good way of cutting down on benefits? Do you think it should be done differently? Let us know by replying to this post! Can't wait to hear your thoughts!!
0
Comments
If we are going to point out that 2x 40k earners keep the limit, yet a single £51k earner doesn't, don't we have to realise that its still someone earning twice the national average of wages, well more than twice.
The bigger question in my mind is why the state has to support people who have children? I agree that we should, but even I find it difficult to argue why. There are hard working people who struggle to make ends meet and the benefit can and often does make the difference to peoples ability to afford having a child. If we are to go down the line of if one person is entitled to it then why not everyone? I think the state should be there to support those who need it and allow people within reason to have the same chances as others. However perhaps the root problem is societies insatiable need to have something just because someone else has it.
I really am not making much sense here, but letting my mind free in this thread. Perhaps the problem in solving issues like this is that we're damned if we take emotions into account, and then accused of being emotionless if we don't.
Also consider, though, that the household with two incomes is a household with two taxpayers, so they'll be putting a hell of a lot more into the system than they are taking out. Or should we expect our middle-earners to just give, give, give without even getting a token amount of support?
I do think that child benefit should be capped at 2 kids. I don't think it's anyone's right to have a big family, and I don't think it's a good message to blindly support the popping out of more and more children without having the means to support them.
Two earners will pay less tax than the single income though. Two x personal allowance and not in 40p bracket at any point.
This actually directly affects me. I have no problem with the idea of losing out, I do object to the ludicrous way that the maths on this has been done, as per the example given. Shit happens though and I *am* earning damned good money.
Anyone who think that CB is enough to pay for kids clearly doesn't have any.
Good point well made! Got my pregnobrain in at the minute. Although to be honest I think that CB should remain non-means tested, and money saved by capping the number of kids eligible and maybe also reducing the amount as the children grow up and working options for the parents are increased.
As far as unplanned pregnancies go - abortion is not the only option. There is always budgeting to make your £33-a-week benefit for two kids stretch to three instead, or good, old-fashioned getting a job? And contraception (including sterilisation) is free, so tbh I don't see it as an excuse.
Its shit when its working class and middle class families who are the most affected, when its the rich and the big corporations that both caused the mess, and are still avoiding taxes left right and centre.
Im less bothered about the cuts than i am about the fact that the rich arent facing them
Yes I understand how taxing works, you mentioned about raising revenue, which I just pointed out that it wasn't. All the government would be doing is paying out less. Although it is a touchy point and we should be concerned about what the government do with the tax we pay, but when it ends up in their coffers it isn't ours anymore.
This scares me....
How much some of the poorest kids are gonna suffer.
Well, it certainly won't be drawn when those children become the tax payers of the future, the Govt won't say "Oh well, we will only tax two of them", will they?
We are heading to a position, within the next 20 years, when those over 65 will outnumber those coming through as workers and future taxpayers. This is an economic nightmare scenario. We don't pay taxation and Nat Ins to pay for our *own* pensions and future health service, we pay it so that the current pensioners and patients can draw on it.
Child Benefit is a drop in the ocean and if reducing it means a reduction in the birth rate then it's very much a negative impact.
At least, that's a perspective which should be considered.
Yes, higher income households might not 'need' it, but you can be sure they'll spend it and in doing so keep cash circulating in the economy. Th higher salaried households pay far more into the system than they get out, I don't see why this should also be taken off them, especially in such a poorly thought out way.