Child Benefit cuts in the UK

Sarah - posted on 10/04/2010 ( 24 moms have responded )

5,465

31

344

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11...

From 2013, benefits will be removed from any family where one parent earns more than about £44,000 a year.

Labour said the move - aimed at saving £1bn a year - undermined the coalition's claim to be a family-friendly government.

But Chancellor George Osborne described the plans as tough but fair.

He also announced plans to cap the maximum amount of benefits that any single family can claim at about £26,000 - to ensure families are not better off on welfare than in employment.

About 1.2 million families - about 15% of recipients of child benefit - will lose out on payments currently worth £20.30 a week for the eldest child and £13.40 for subsequent children.

Families with three children no longer eligible for the benefits - which continue to the age of 19 - face being £2,500 a year worse off.

While critics said they accepted it was right that better-off families should be targeted, there was anger about apparent anomalies in the proposals.

Households where two parents each earning slightly less than £44,000 - adding up to a combined family income of over £80,000 - will keep the benefit while households where just one parent earns over £44,000 will lose it.

Your Thoughts?
I actually agree with what they've done.

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

[deleted account]

Cathy, yes the London and the surrounding areas are more expensive than the rest of the country. However, when you (general you) actually focus on WHAT you spend, you realise that you waste a lot. Do you really NEED that magazine once a week? Do you really NEED that coffee on the train? Do you really NEED Heinz ketchup? Can you get rid of certain spending, such as a coffee on the way to work, take a flask with coffee from home instead of paying £3 + for shop brought coffee, or reduce the cost of needed spending, such as supermarket own brand ketchup is very close to Heinz etc. Sometimes we have to be economical and smart with our spending. Buy in bulk or special offers, there are ways to make money go soooo much further - £44K is A LOT of money if you are sensible with it!

Sarah - posted on 10/06/2010

5,465

31

344

Also, you will still get free childcare sessions when your youngest turns 3, and the £13 or so a week you would have been getting from Child Benefit would have nowhere near covered your childcare costs.

Yes, living in London is going to make it harder to live comfortably, but I still think it can be done. Plus, if you got a job then you may end up qualifying to get Child Benefit again anyway.

I think it's a good idea still. I think a lot of people just don't NEED that money. :)

[deleted account]

Louise without wanting to be rude, £44K a year is plenty of money, especially when you consider that many people manage to live quite comfortably off much less. Our household income has dropped by half (my hubby and I earned pretty much the same amount of money while I worked (I'm a SAHM now) give or take a couple of hundred pound) and we are still living quite comfortably. Granted we have had to be more aware of our spending and have to save up for things more now BUT we are still comfortable.

It is not the governments fault that you choose to live to the top of your income, we all knew that there was going to be major cut-backs to help haul us out of this recession. We are all going to 'lose out' with some of the cuts and changes, but they are needed. Yes you may be better off not working but instead of focusing on the negative points why not use this to help you make cut backs and save money that you are spending unnecessarily. (I don't mean to sound as though I'm attacking you, it's not your fault just trying to give another persepective from someone who wishes they could have somewhere near £44K a year brought into their home)

Louise - posted on 10/05/2010

5,429

69

2322

Devils advocate here. We are just over the limit of 44K as I do not work as I am a sahm. I am trying to put one son through uni and one son through college and raise a toddler. That money was going to pay for childcare so that I could go out to work. Now I can't. We have so many bills it is ridiculous. Our only choice now is to sell the house to release what little equity we have in the house and move somewhere cheaper. We may have an income of 44K but we have a mortgage to match. My husband works in London so hence the higher wage but he spends most of that on train fares to get to work. We sat down and worked it out the other day we would actually be better off if he was unemployed. My son at uni would get a free grant and reduced uni fees my middle son would get EMA of £30 a week and have his fees reduced and trips free. My daughter would get nursery vouchers and we would qualify for tax credits, reduced poll tax and unemployment benefit So at the end of the day this is not much of an incentive to get your arse out of bed and go to work.

Rosie - posted on 10/04/2010

8,657

30

321

so i'm comletely clueless how these things work, but the last part caught my eye. i don't think it's fair that each parent can potentially earn just slightly less than 44,000, and potentially making 88,000 can earn it, and a family who has a total income of 50,000 doesn't get it cause one of the family members makes over 44,000 a year. that needs to change. the rest of it i won't comment on cause i don't know how it works. :)

This conversation has been closed to further comments

24 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

university or ketchup mmmm lol i can see the dilemma good job my oldest would rather drive jcbs than go to uni

[deleted account]

While i agree its hard for those who are earning just over the threshold who will lose child benefit i have to say those earning considerably less than that dont even have the opportunity to send their kids to university child benefit or not. Imagine earning £16,000 a year and then you will realise what struggling to raise a family is, £44,000 is over double what our household earns.

Tracey - posted on 10/06/2010

1,094

2

58

Although I agree with this I don't see how it will work as only one parent has to sign the child benefit form which will obviously be the one earning less,or do they want every family in the country to re-apply?

Caitlin - posted on 10/04/2010

1,915

5

172

I have no problem cutting out the people who earn too much.. right now I like the benefits I get for the girls. I get 430$ every month (for the 2) and I get a quarterly payment from the province which has recently become worthwhile because my olderr daughter is considered handicapped so I get a bit more from them because of that,,, If we made more, I wouldn't mind not getting them, because people need it sometimes to buy diapers and formula!

[deleted account]

I completely agree. It has always puzzled me how we keep giving assistance to the richer people of our society. IMO couples earning £45,000 or more between them should not be entitled to any child benefits because they really shouldn't need them, people live comfortably on much less.

Amie - posted on 10/04/2010

6,596

20

412

I agree with Dana. That is insane. However, I don't think the new set up should be based on income of one family member alone. =/

[deleted account]

That seems insane to me.....do you guys have an abundance of wealth you'd like to share with Canada? Help the people who NEED help and move on....my goodness.

Amie - posted on 10/04/2010

6,596

20

412

Oh right and Dana reminded me of something. While the CCTB is tax free. The UCTC is not. We file it with our taxes each year as income.

[deleted account]

I don't completely understand the ins and outs in the UK but it seems odd to me. I'm with Amie - In Canada EVERYONE gets 100$ Universal Child Benefit per child until the child turns 6 and then the CCTB (Canada Child Tax Benefit) is, "The Canada Child Tax Benefit is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help them with the cost of raising children under age 18." from our governments website.

The CCTB is dependent on your previous household income (tax return). It maxed out at 277$/mo for the most needy recipients, such as people on welfare or people with no income. When Roxanne was first born I was receiving the max amount but since doing our 2009 tax return, Chad made too much money and now I only receive 99$/month for the CCTB and another 100$/month for the universal benefit.

I'm not sure why I'm providing this information but I am so there it is. lmao.

ME - posted on 10/04/2010

2,978

18

193

I agree with Kati...that last bit doesn't make much sense to me...but otherwise...I think that sounds like it would work magnificently...wish that's how we did things here...

Amie - posted on 10/04/2010

6,596

20

412

So wait.. there's two?



Here we have two (or three, my province tacks on a little extra to the benefit).



The child tax benefit goes by family income and family size. Where you fall on the scale depicts what you get each month.



The universal child tax credit is for every family with children 6 years and under. $100 per child. It ends the month they turn 6.



Oh and what my province tacks on to each child tax benefit isn't much but is based on the same scale as the federal child tax benefit.

Amie - posted on 10/04/2010

6,596

20

412

So they're not basing it on the family income and family size? It's just based on one person's income?

That makes no sense!

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms