Child Benefit in UK to be cut.

[OkToBeTakei]

The government will start to withdraw, or cut altogether, child benefit from families where an adult earns more than £50,000 a year.

The benefit clawback will start on 7 January 2013 and will affect about one million families.

This is not new news but is about to kick in.

Child benefit is currently paid at the rate of £20.30 a week for the first child, and then £13.40 a week for each child after that.

It lasts until each child reaches 16, or 18 if they are still in full-time education, and in some cases until they are 20.

This has never been means tested before and as you can imagine is causing quite a diverse reaction.

Carol, a mother of three from Southampton, told the BBC News website that she was shocked at how the sums involved would add up over the years.

"We currently receive £2,260 a year, we are not on the breadline but it is the equivalent of paying for a family holiday," she said.

"The change is grossly unfair. We decided that one of us should stay at home to look after the family, but we are being penalised," she added.

There goes Carol's holiday.

My own thoughts are that it should always have been means tested. But it is hard to lose something that was taken for granted.

My opinion is if you can afford to save it for a holiday it is not being used for the intention it was originally conceived. I believe IF and a big IF the the savings made are used and the money is distributed to other areas a biggie being say..Palliative care for children which is not Government funded. Facilities for disabled children which have recently been cut. I'm good with it. But I do hope it is not lost in other assorted Government deficits.

[Arete]

So this was essentially like the tax benefits Americans get for each "dependent" on their income tax? I think the amount of tax you save for each dependent is different based on income here (not sure as I have no kids), but this sort of sounds like another way of doing it. I am quite sure the fundies would go apeshit here if they couldn't deduct their blessings.

[BravaAmica]

So this was essentially like the tax benefits Americans get for each "dependent" on their income tax? I think the amount of tax you save for each dependent is different based on income here (not sure as I have no kids), but this sort of sounds like another way of doing it. I am quite sure the fundies would go apeshit here if they couldn't deduct their blessings.

Here's the rundown.

The child tax credit, like other credits, is gradually reduced based on a person's income for the year. The child tax credit starts to be reduced when income reaches the following levels:

$55,000 for married couples filing separately,

$75,000 for single, head of household, and qualifying widow(er) filers, and

$110,000 for married couples filing jointly

In the phaseout range, the child tax credit is reduced by $50 for each $1,000 of income above these threshold amounts. These phaseout ranges are set by statute and not indexed annually for inflation.

[Guest Anonymous]

Child benefit is a separate weekly cash payment. It used to be payable weekly at the post office and, for example, in my low-income family in the 80s, it literally put food on the table from the Tuesday payment day til my dad's Friday payday.

As it is not means-tested, many higher-income families I knew then and now will now have it paid directly to their children's pocket money account or the family holiday account. But as the cuts represent a loss to the net family income, the new rules are resented by many.

[Arete]

OK, got it. It's a weekly payment that acts as a supplement to the weekly paycheck for poorer families, and an income supplement for richer ones.

[Aisling]

Although I concur that families earning a certain amount probably don't need it the way I do, I still don't think it should be means tested when there are far more ways for the government to try and claw back money. Like less money on so called 'defence' and not giving the banks a shitload of cash for being useless wankers. Or first of all, sorting out the tax dodgers who manage to squirrel away millions of quid in their little offshore accounts. So on balance I don't agree with it

[OkToBeTakei]

Although I concur that families earning a certain amount probably don't need it the way I do, I still don't think it should be means tested when there are far more ways for the government to try and claw back money. Like less money on so called 'defence' and not giving the banks a shitload of cash for being useless wankers. Or first of all, sorting out the tax dodgers who manage to squirrel away millions of quid in their little offshore accounts. So on balance I don't agree with it

So if a family earn £350,000 per year and still get Child benefit for their 4 kids you think that is fair?

[OkToBeTakei]

Here's the rundown.

OH crap. Can someone simplify this for me. How much money per week per child are we talking here?

[Arete]

OH crap. Can someone simplify this for me. How much money per week per child are we talking here?

You would not be getting any money per week. The credits are deducted from your yearly tax bill. This means that you will either have less tax to pay by the yearly deadline, or if you overpayed, you will receive a refund after you file your yearly statement.

[OkToBeTakei]

Ah, complicated. We just get a set amount.

[Esther]

Although I concur that families earning a certain amount probably don't need it the way I do, I still don't think it should be means tested when there are far more ways for the government to try and claw back money. Like less money on so called 'defence' and not giving the banks a shitload of cash for being useless wankers. Or first of all, sorting out the tax dodgers who manage to squirrel away millions of quid in their little offshore accounts. So on balance I don't agree with it

I feel the same way. Sure, many families with higher incomes probably don't Need This to feed their kids, but frankly, ideally I think every family should be able to take a holiday once a year. There are other things that could be cut that would make more of an impact than this on the country's finances and less of an impact on the country's population. Tackle corruption and tax evasion. Cut down on military spending. This is to me on the same level as tripling university tuition fees: the wrong thing to cut funding for.

[Effie]

We have discussed this issue at social work school. Our teachers told us that we would not save any money by making the child benefit means tested.

-> More social workers would have to be hired (extra cost), new offices would have to be built for this new department at the social services (extra cost) and so on. Maybe our situation here is different than in UK though. All children here are granted 1050 SEK (157,90 US dollar) each month. Approx. 1 670 000 children received child benefits in 2009.

I'm surprised you would save money that way. I would be against making the child benefits means tested in my own country, but maybe it makes sense changing it in your country... Wait a minute, didn't you have way too few social workers in U.K. 2009? Our teachers basically told us: "Go to U.K. if you don't get a job here. They need social workers." How is it like today? From where will you get all those extra social workers, or will you hire other people than social workers? I would hate if social workers were taken from other more important social work areas (where they are absolutely needed) to work with this... :shock:

Another problem is stigma. Adult people who receive supplementary benefits have reported that they have experienced stigma. I don't like the idea of putting children in that position. I imagine children will now feel ashamed for receiving child benefits...

[Guest Anonymous]

We have discussed this issue at social work school. Our teachers told us that we would not save any money by making the child benefit means tested.

-> More social workers would have to be hired (extra cost), new offices would have to be built for this new department (child benefits) at the social services (extra cost) and so on. Maybe our situation here is different than in UK though. All children here are granted 1050 SEK (157,90 US dollar) each month. Approx. 1 670 000 children received child benefits in 2009.

I'm surprised you would save money that way. I would be against making the child benefits means tested in my own country, but maybe it makes sense changing it in your country... Wait a minute, didn't you have way too few social workers in U.K. 2009? Our teachers basically told us: "Go to U.K. if you don't get a job here. They need social workers." How is it like today? From where will you get all those extra social workers, or will you hire other people than social workers? I would hate if social workers were taken from other more important social work areas (where they are absolutely needed)... to work with this... :shock:

Another problem is stigma. Adult people who receive supplementary benefits have reported that they have experienced stigma. I don't like the idea of putting children in that position. I imagine children will now feel ashamed for receiving child benefits...

Why would more social workers be required? The means test is based on income.

[Effie]

Why would more social workers be required? The means test is based on income.

To work through the applications?

[Guest Anonymous]

delete double post

[Guest Anonymous]

To work through the applications?

In the UK the benefits are automatic. It would be a relatively simple admin/computer task for civil servants to implement the changes. The benefits will continue to be paid by bank transfer to eligible families and noone else will know.

Social workers are mostly field practitioners. They may work with individuals on benefits applications if needed but they are not employed solely or mainly for this purpose. And within social services, practitioners will work in specialised areas. They don't get drafted in and out of places when benefits rules change.

[Effie]

Oh, our systems are very different then... Hmm. I wonder if not the tax reduction-thing could work here as well. So if I understand correctly you will receive the child benefits in the end of the year, if you paid too much taxes in relation to your salary? I feel confused now - I wonder why we have to make things so complicated here - in comparision to such easy computer systems you seem to have there. I really don't know why we couldn't do the same as you.

[OkToBeTakei]

I seriously doubt in any way cutting child benefit would in any way effect Social Services. Your teacher has a very limited view of social services. Our social service system as anniec said does very little if anything to do with financial systems except maybe advice and passing on to the appropriate service. Social workers are not limited in any way. Elderly, children, drug users, protection, justice system, special needs, immigration, race, ethnicity, health, sexuality, school. pre-school, nursery, pregnancy support/at risk.

Feel free to add to the diversity of our overstretched service but advise your teacher that benefits is not their remit.

[OkToBeTakei]

Oh, our systems are very different then... Hmm. I wonder if not the tax reduction-thing could work here as well. So if I understand correctly you will receive the money in the end of the year, if you paid too much taxes in relation to your salary?

No it just is there from the moment your child is born. You can either choose to pick it up from the Post Office (maybe not now) or nominate a a bank account. It is paid monthly. It has nothing to do with tax.

[OkToBeTakei]

To clarify. I have received £20.30 per week for the last 10 years this has nothing to do with earnings, it just is.

[Sola]

I do think it should be means tested and I always have. Believe it or not people on income support (poorest of the poor) with kids, don't technically get it. If you get IS your benefit is reduced by the equivalent amount because IS is means tested and CB is not. So you get CB but your IS is cut. Meanwhile millionaires get CB. When we were higher rate tax payers we didn't need it, but we got it automatically. Yet families on IS despattely need it but lose out. I'm glad they're changing the rules, but I would be happier if people on IS benefited instead.

[OkToBeTakei]

I do think it should be means tested and I always have. Believe it or not people on income support (poorest of the poor) with kids, don't technically get it. If you get IS your benefit is reduced by the equivalent amount because IS is means tested and CB is not. So you get CB but your IS is cut. Meanwhile millionaires get CB. When we were higher rate tax payers we didn't need it, but we got it automatically. Yet families on IS despattely need it but lose out. I'm glad they're changing the rules, but I would be happier if people on IS benefited instead.

I did not know that Sola.

But yes millionaires get it, there is no opt out, which is very strange.

i do think the threshold is harsh strangely. It sounds like it is a lot for a family income. But it is JUST above that income where any other benefit is not available. It is the typical income where a family can own their own home. Where with good skill and good choices an OK standard of life is possible. £5k+ more you move up a tax bracket. That is hard. The choice of staying at home, working versus paying for childcare,wanting to do either becomes actually mutually non-beneficial ether way.

Where should it be pitched? What part of society are being penalised?

[Sola]

Its true. I work with families everyday and the injustice is awful. They give with one hand and take with the other.

Personally I think 50k is a good cut off for much of the UK. Maybe not in London, and maybe only for one child with the limit being higher for 2 or more children. Income should be taken as a whole as under the new rules 2 parents each earning 49k would get it but a single earner family earning 50k would not. Hubby and I earn nowhere near that 50k and we're ok.

[snarkykitty]

I feel the same way. Sure, many families with higher incomes probably don't Need This to feed their kids, but frankly, ideally I think every family should be able to take a holiday once a year. There are other things that could be cut that would make more of an impact than this on the country's finances and less of an impact on the country's population. Tackle corruption and tax evasion. Cut down on military spending. This is to me on the same level as tripling university tuition fees: the wrong thing to cut funding for.

I'm sorry, but the government doesn't owe anyone a yearly "holiday". My husband works his a** off and receives great salary and benefits, but due to my health, we spend $4000-5000 a year out of pocket on prescription copays (that is in addition to the near $800 a month for health insurance and 20% doctor appt/surgical/hospital/test copays in the thousands). We haven't had a vacation in over five years.

For those who really need the help to feed and clothe their children, I'm sorry.

But boo freaking hoo for people losing their "free holiday" spending money.

[OkToBeTakei]

Its true. I work with families everyday and the injustice is awful. They give with one hand and take with the other.

Personally I think 50k is a good cut off for much of the UK. Maybe not in London, and maybe only for one child with the limit being higher for 2 or more children. Income should be taken as a whole as under the new rules 2 parents each earning 49k would get it but a single earner family earning 50k would not. Hubby and I earn nowhere near that 50k and we're ok.

It genuinely makes no sense. I do not want it stopped but I do wish it was more, I don't know. Less pitched at the level it is. Does that make sense?

I find it ludicrous that Nigella Lawson like myself gets this benefit. She has no choice.

I suppose they will always make a threshold but that one can be contentious. I know families where that 3 kid family child benefit will be lost because the main earner is just ..maybe by £50 over. When you have relied on that?