Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:45 pm
Post subject: Just baffled by it all......
Sorry ladies, bit of a political moan but I am so annoyed with these Family Allowance stoppages!!
How can they justify that a single earner household of 60K should have it stopped yet a household with 2 earners are allowed to earn 86K a year before it is stopped (each earner can earn up to 43K before stoppages)? Don't get me wrong, I'm no where near that kind of earning but what really annoys me is why isn't it just set on household incomes in the way the tax credits are? Why not just say that any HOUSEHOLD that earns more than so much a year can't have the money?
If they hadn't changed tax credits to say this and set the household limit to a rediculously low 26K then I'd still be getting something which believe me, helped my family out quite a bit!
This new government just seem intent on annoying me with every single decision they make!! I totally understand that they have to claw back money from somewhere, I know the country is on it's knees but I just don't see how they can possibly justify this new move??
Whenever anyone is asked about it they just give the same "its the fairest system" answer without answering why they are then allowing some households to earn over 90K before losing any money?? And why are low income families penalised and only allowed to earn the amount 'per household' meaning that if both people work (which is the usual norm these days with the prices of everything else going UP!!)???
I'm gonna set up my own 'For Families' party and run for PM, atleast then I might get an insight into how they come to these ludicrous decisions!!!!
Ooooh I feel so much better for that pretty pointless rant haha!
Out of interest, are any of you affected by this 60K stoppage and how do you feel about the 2 earner households being allowed to earn more?
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:02 pm
They don't want to go through the means tested / or mountains of paperwork route. If you think about how many people have kids and everyone would have to fill in a form and they would then need to employ more staff thus costing more money.
It is bonkers though and every time some so called "intelligent" mp or other speaker on behalf of the government tries to justify it then it sounds even more bonkers. I personally think that if you have a household income of above £60k then it should stop. Or instead of income based then perhaps only allow child benefit for the first two children and reduce it to £10 per week per child. Some average earners I know give child benefit to their kids as a monthly allowance which wasn't what this benefit was introduced for. So l do think some people who clearly don't need it shouldn't receive it.
Good luck on becoming the next PM
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:03 pm
The simple answer is it would cost money to means test it properly like tax credits etc. as they would have to go over the total income of all households currently receiving it (about 8 million) ,linking both parents wages and they've admitted they don't want to do that , so they're doing this op out system now from 50k upwards,
I think in the hope most affected people will opt out rather than have to pay some back ,It's going to create more work for the tax office who already do an appalling job with tax credits as they will now have to find out if people earning over 50k claim child benefit and then work out their reductions , also the whole self assessment form and paying some of it back through your tax code etc. is all very confusing
It doesn't affect us directly but could do next year , I don't think it's fair that a family with one parent earning 50k + will lose some or all of it but a household with 2 people earning 49k each will keep it all , how they can say thats "basically fair" as cameron did I don't know
I know some peoples attitude is that people earning over 50k don't need it, but I feel if you earn that much you've obviously worked hard to get that well paid job, you already get screwed over with higher rate tax, you're not entitled to anything else so why shouldn't they get it as a little thank you for contributing so much ?
Plus the savings made by taking it away from these families are going to be minimal as they will have to employ extra staff to run the system , I can see it being yet another white elephant really
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:38 pm
Sounds like I am not the only one who argues at the TV / radio when such things are announced!
I agree about the idea of two children benefit limit as you've said banoffee. We are not near the limit either and although it would help (what money wouldn't) I decided that I could not be bothered to go through the paper work 2 years back so stopped trying to claim for anything - I am one of those who would rather not claim in the risk of claiming then having to give it back.
I have to say, despite not being near the limit I would consider myself to be on a good wage, so I do wonder why some people need to claim benefits when they are on £50k+ per household - the more you earn the more you spend, so it would be a case of getting people back to living on by their means like the old days
Personally, and if I were deputy PM to you, Lilly777, I would suggest that support is given until children are at school (2 child limit for the money), then jobs or volunteering be made available and then the benefits be given as tax reductions from income or hours of volunteering, instead of handouts.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:51 pm
Oh, and to add, my propsal of tax reductions is alongside association housing, disability allowance, carers allowance, or incompacity sick pay (remembering that i would encourage volunteering) - I wouldn't scrap housing as too many families cannot earn to get a deposit or get on the housing ladder anymore, so I do think that is fair, just the 'handing out' of money would be my reform.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:32 pm
So I don't fit into it *yet* but not that far off. When I first had Alex I did consider not claiming it at all, but the number of people (even almost everyone on here) said I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face, so eventually I claimed it. However it goes towards nursery fees which god knows how people manage to pay who are not on a good wage as I pay almost £900 a month
I agree its ludicrous system, but I susppose they have to start the wheels in motion somewhere and as always with these things I can see that more and more people will be encompassed on each budget year, until finally I suspect there will be no such thing as child benefit in the first place.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:01 pm
I think part of the problem is they're hitting middle earners hardest at the moment, they very same people who now have to pay ludicrous amounts to get a uni education, will once they're earning be paying for things like child benefit for everyone else and yet not be getting it themselves
They'll also be paying the top tax of 50 % on some of their earnings which in itself I think is ridiculous , I mean whats the point in spending years getting an education and then being skint for years paying back student loans and then getting half your wage taken of you as soon as you earn it and in the end be no better off
I think what this government is doing is short sighted, we need well educated people to be doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. but the way things are going it won't be worth bothering getting a good education and trying to better yourself
I'd agree a fairer system might be to limit it to the first 2-3 children perhaps
I know I was pretty shocked to get a letter from the tax office the other day with my OH's new tax code which states that he would have to pay 50% tax on any earnings over 45k to me the 50% bracket should only apply to the company director types on 6 figure salaries not average people just trying to do well for themselves
Totally off the child benefit topic now when you work out how much of every pound you get goes back to them in one tax or another ,income tax, NI, VAT on everything from your weekly shop to your fuel bills , fuel tax , stamp duty, savings tax etc. etc. I sometimes wonder why anyone bothers working
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:56 pm
Me and dh both went to Uni and got good jobs. He is over the threshold so we have now lost our child benefit. I do agree with cutting it as it wasn't essential to keep the roof over our heads or food on the table and the government has to get some money from somewhere. And yes it's unfair that two people just under still get to keep it but to set it up to police it would cost so much and would probably be a pointless service like the CSA!
It annoys me when people say that we are earning so much that basically we don't deserve it. We work hard and take nothing so we do deserve to have things that people who aren't working can't. What annoys me more is that people are asking to work only a set amount of hours because any more and they would lose their benefits. I don't agree with anyone not working and people who are working should get support not the ones that aren't.
I don't think it should people's right to stay at home and look after their kids and claim benefits. If you can afford to stay home, great. If not, get to work! x
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:16 am
I think thats why they changed some of the tax credits rules Pepperpot because there were some people who as a couple only did the minimum of 16hrs between them even though they could do more , but didn't want to as doing less hours meant they got more benefits that was putting a huge burden on the tax credits system cue the cut for anyone earning 26,000 or more , I think some of the problem is we do have a benefits culture to some extent and some people know are coming from second generation families were no one works , I know my 2 oldest daughters complain they have friends like that who don't work and don't want to work and grew up with parents whose attitudes were do as little as possible to get as much as you can
One of these parents is in his mid forties and has been on job seekers/income support or the equivalent since he left school almost 30 years ago he's literally never worked a day and yet they have 3 kids (who are all now also on benefits , their daughter admits she had a child so she doesn't have to work )maybe if they made people like him work for their benefits doing community schemes then they'd realise they might as well get off their backsides and get a job
Slightly off track but when we lived in Germany their Kindergeld was more than child benefit, also available to everyone and actually went up for the 3rd child and yet they don't have this same problem of long term benefits claimants and have a lower teen pregnancy rate than us , this is despite teens being allowed to drink in bars from 16 (although they can't drink spirits) so that tells me a lot of Britains problems are purely down to the attitudes that some people have that they're "owed" something rather than they should work for it