Child Benefit in UK to be cut.

[Arete]

I just want to clarify that in the US we are also taxed at the source by our employers. The taxes taken out are based on your income and the number of deduction you claim (you can claim yourself and any children). However, because of the convoluted nature of our tax system, we also have to file federal and state income tax forms every year. You get a notice at the end of the year of the amount of federal and state taxes your employer has withheld. After this is where it gets complicated. You are entitled to a certain set deduction, in addition to other deductions you may qualify for in the federal code such as part of your mortgage interest, a certain dollar amount of your childcare expenses (not even close to all of them) etc. You add these amounts to the taxes your employer took out, then look in a table to see what you own in fed, if anything. If you owe more than you paid, you have to send the Fed a check. If you paid more than you owed, you get a refund. You may here us talk about using our tax refunds for purchases once a year in places like Chatter.

Your local taxes (seperate from federal and state) are calculated into your mortgage or rent payments.

If you own your own business, you are responsible for withholding your taxes and sending them to the Fed and state. A lot of business owners here do that quarterly so they don't get socked all at once at the end of the year.

This is an over simplified explaination of a fairly convoluted tax system, but it does hit most of the big points.

Thanks to all from the UK for explaining how you guys get taxed. Always cool to get information on other systems. :mrgreen:

[Muriel]

Here in France I get 416 € for 3 kids (11/15/17). This is the minimum "allocations familiales" that you get regardless of how much you earn.

When your child hit 11 you get a little more and a little more again after 16 (if your child still go to school of course). Depending of your income you can get other CB, but I don't get them. I agree that I don't really need this money, but I always use it for the children, never for me...

Recently, our government (socialist), talked about cutting the benefits for rich people too, I wouldn't care if I was sure the money would be use wisely, but I don't really trust politicians in using our money wisely, so :roll: and I wouldn't consider me being rich, we are middle class, nothing more...

[Dollypeeps]

I do not recall filling in any form. I did not ask for it. When my baby's NHS or CHI number arrived ie. this is your child's NHS number this is her Identity.,this is her GP. After I registered her birth the first Child benefit came as a kind of cheque/giro. I do not recall any form. I do remember forgetting about it. You have 4 weeks to declare where you want it paid or where to pick it up.

My sister in law did not claim hers. She got a letter. She had 3 years worth to pick up.

I really would like more evidence of what you are saying. For no other reason than i know a lot of people who would have liked this option.

I don't have proof as per say other than we had forms to fill in for it I did, friend didn't. I'm Scotland by the way. Eldest is 26 and youngest is 15 and I always had a form to fill in for CB.

[TheBoysNana]

Though I should add that if the gov. were making sensible cutbacks in other areas then I wouldn't object too much. it's just that IMO, austerity measures shouldn't involve clawing twenty quid a week off what is essentially children, whilst happily forking out for the Olympics and the Jubilee amongst others, which nobody outside of the south of England seems to actually to have benefited from.

Newbie here from Texas. Totally agree with this.

[Esther]

Thank you for posting the classic "well we have it tough so no one else should have anything nice" argument against social welfare programs. It's a strawman that tends to be elusive here.

This.

I am very sorry that your health bills are the reason you cannot have certain things - I firmly believe government healthcare is the way to go and I find it appalling that you pay such sums for healthcare. I am genuinely sorry to hear it. It makes me angry. Etc etc etc.

But we do get our healthcare covered here and therefore your point is mostly moot in the context of this discussion. I am simply saying that I think being able to take a brief family holiday to like, the seaside once a year is not some sort of Crazy Elusive Privilege of the Rich and Spoiled, and if this helps working class and middle class families pay for such a holiday, I consider that a good thing. Of course the need for food and shelter and healthcare is more important... but I value things like recreation as well in a human life, especially where children are concerned.

I also think that in a European context, annual holidays abroad or to the seaside or someplace "not home" are considered a much more "standard" part of life. A part of the reason behind that is perhaps that we do get more leave from work, so there's the time to go away from five days or a week or two weeks in summer.

ETA: I also think the income limit they picked is rather arbitrary (should be higher IMHO). And I agree with what others are saying - we can fork out a gazillion on the Olympics but parents can't have twenty quid for their kids now and then? Seriously?

[BlueChair]

This.

I am very sorry that your health bills are the reason you cannot have certain things - I firmly believe government healthcare is the way to go and I find it appalling that you pay such sums for healthcare. I am genuinely sorry to hear it. It makes me angry. Etc etc etc.

But we do get our healthcare covered here and therefore your point is mostly moot in the context of this discussion. I am simply saying that I think being able to take a brief family holiday to like, the seaside once a year is not some sort of Crazy Elusive Privilege of the Rich and Spoiled, and if this helps working class and middle class families pay for such a holiday, I consider that a good thing. Of course the need for food and shelter and healthcare is more important... but I value things like recreation as well in a human life, especially where children are concerned.

I also think that in a European context, annual holidays abroad or to the seaside or someplace "not home" are considered a much more "standard" part of life. A part of the reason behind that is perhaps that we do get more leave from work, so there's the time to go away from five days or a week or two weeks in summer.

ETA: I also think the income limit they picked is rather arbitrary (should be higher IMHO). And I agree with what others are saying - we can fork out a gazillion on the Olympics but parents can't have twenty quid for their kids now and then? Seriously?

Hmmm. I'm American and so far to the left I can't even align myself with the Democratic Party. I fully believe in universal healthcare, free higher education, and that it is the role of the government to take care of its citizens through taxes. I've heard the argument for paying for holidays for poorer families when living in Scandinavia, and as liberal as I am, it still seems completely ridiculous to me. I believe that one of the roles of government is to ensure the health and welfare of its citizens but going on vacation is not a need.

It's true that Americans have way less time off of work and most don't take annual vacations. When we're still fighting for healthcare and going into debt for the equivalent of what it would take to buy a new house just to finish university, the vacation thing is never going to seem anything but frivolous here.

[Guest Anonymous]

Hmmm. I'm American and so far to the left I can't even align myself with the Democratic Party. I fully believe in universal healthcare, free higher education, and that it is the role of the government to take care of its citizens through taxes. I've heard the argument for paying for holidays for poorer families when living in Scandinavia, and as liberal as I am, it still seems completely ridiculous to me. I believe that one of the roles of government is to ensure the health and welfare of its citizens but going on vacation is not a need.

It's true that Americans have way less time off of work and most don't take annual vacations. When we're still fighting for healthcare and going into debt for the equivalent of what it would take to buy a new house just to finish university, the vacation thing is never going to seem anything but frivolous here.

That isn't that far left.

[BlueChair]

That isn't that far left.

I'm left of Labour. Is that far enough left for you?

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm left of Labour. Is that far enough left for you?

You mean Labour in the UK? No. Are you kidding?

[Esther]

Left of the Democratic Party is definitely not crazy far to the left - I would argue a lot of European centrist parties are probably left of the Democratic Party on many issues. Left of Labour is more left-wing but still not shockingly so. Anyway, that doesn't matter, you've made the point that you're very left-wing but still opposed to vacations as a right. I agree with you. I don't think they're a right at all, or a basic need for living, or whatever. If I came across as such, I'm sorry, that's not what I think.

However, I do believe that it is good and healthy to be able to take a little time off and maybe go somewhere once a year. It's not a right and the government doesn't owe it to anyone, but I can still believe it to be generally beneficial if possible. Therefore I don't see it as a huge waste of money if these 20 quid worth of child benefits allow poorer families to do that. If this was the ONLY WAY to save money, I wouldn't mind so much though - obviously many things should take priority to vacations. But the fact is, the British government could cut other things that are not this. Middle class families (who are most likely to fall victim to the "JUST makes too much to get child benefits anymore" thing) shouldn't have to pay for the ludicrous costs of the Olympics, the Jubilee, etc etc.

I do know many Americans are struggling because of a lack of (adequate) health insurance or huge student loan payments. I understand that and I really really really really sympathize. I just meant, we're talking about a completely different society here and most people here are not struggling because of healthcare or even because of student loans. By which I don't mean there are no struggling people here, but just that the issues are entirely different.

[Arete]

Not to steer this off topic, but I just have to add that the modern Olympics really and truly disgusts me. Cities and even entire countries taking on ludicrous amounts of debt to host them is NOT an Olympic ideal. It just needs to stop.

Sorry about that. Carry on.

[julie paradox]

We're in the process of deciding whether to take Child Benefit - our gross income is over the threshold but apparently our net is not and nobody seems to know what that means (the Child Benefit people said they couldn't tell headship the answer because "it's a tax question"). We REALLY don't want to have to get into the whole filing a tax return thing...

We don't need Child Benefit, or the Child Tax Credit they stopped giving me last year. However: we have two children and live in a middle-class part of a poor region; and because we bought a house before the ridiculous price explosion we have no mortgage. These things probably make us atypical.

[Daisy4]

I think the 50K cutoff is a bit low and I think its wrong to be based on one earner instead of the combined earnings. Then again, I'm picturing more of an American tax system where you usually only take home about 60% of your "earnings" after taxes and insurance, I don't konw if its like that in the UK.

I'm not sure if this is still true in Ireland or if it is true in the UK, but I remember there being a lot of extra costs associated with sending kids to school in Ireland. You need to buy all their school books, which can get expensive. You also need to buy uniforms for each child once (or more) a year. Uniforms tend to be more expensive than play clothes. I also seem to remember having to bring money into school every now and then for things like art supplies. The child benefit pays for all of these and is a part of a budget that families have gotten used to. To say that "rich" people should give it up, is like saying that "rich" parents in the US should volunteer to buy their childrens' text books and donate more to the schools.

I'm not defending millionaires who accept the CB, I'm just trying to explain why it is viewed differently in Ireland and the UK than it would be here in the US.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think the 50K cutoff is a bit low and I think its wrong to be based on one earner instead of the combined earnings. Then again, I'm picturing more of an American tax system where you usually only take home about 60% of your "earnings" after taxes and insurance, I don't konw if its like that in the UK.

I'm not sure if this is still true in Ireland or if it is true in the UK, but I remember there being a lot of extra costs associated with sending kids to school in Ireland. You need to buy all their school books, which can get expensive. You also need to buy uniforms for each child once (or more) a year. Uniforms tend to be more expensive than play clothes. I also seem to remember having to bring money into school every now and then for things like art supplies. The child benefit pays for all of these and is a part of a budget that families have gotten used to. To say that "rich" people should give it up, is like saying that "rich" parents in the US should volunteer to buy their childrens' text books and donate more to the schools.

I'm not defending millionaires who accept the CB, I'm just trying to explain why it is viewed differently in Ireland and the UK than it would be here in the US.

Basic rate income tax is 20%, National Insurance is about 9%. Income over 40ishK is taxed at 40%. There are various allowances and credits depending on inividual/family circumstances. The average worker probably pays at least around 25% of their income in deductions.

School text books are covered by the schools and these days, uniforms for most state schools can be bought cheaply in supermarkets, so it is often actually cheaper to wear uniform than not. Many primary schools have an optional uniform, especially in poorer areas, but parents tend to buy it because, in the cheaper shops, you can get more or less a whole uniform including shoes and coat for about £20 all in for a little one, in the "Back to School" sales. Schools do have a reasonable number of 'hidden costs' in the form of school trips, swimming, lunches, clubs, etc. Technically the school cannot require payment for trips, but it can feel quite a pressure for families living on the breadline.

I'm not saying this to defend the removal of the child benefit; I don't really have a horse in that race, but child benefit isn't wholly, or mostly, intended to cover school costs. I'm sure it is a big help for many though.

[Irishy]

I think the 50K cutoff is a bit low and I think its wrong to be based on one earner instead of the combined earnings. Then again, I'm picturing more of an American tax system where you usually only take home about 60% of your "earnings" after taxes and insurance, I don't konw if its like that in the UK.

I'm not sure if this is still true in Ireland or if it is true in the UK, but I remember there being a lot of extra costs associated with sending kids to school in Ireland. You need to buy all their school books, which can get expensive. You also need to buy uniforms for each child once (or more) a year. Uniforms tend to be more expensive than play clothes. I also seem to remember having to bring money into school every now and then for things like art supplies. The child benefit pays for all of these and is a part of a budget that families have gotten used to. To say that "rich" people should give it up, is like saying that "rich" parents in the US should volunteer to buy their childrens' text books and donate more to the schools.

I'm not defending millionaires who accept the CB, I'm just trying to explain why it is viewed differently in Ireland and the UK than it would be here in the US.

Yes, we in Ireland have to pay for school books. Most schools (not mine) now run book rental schemes but new editions come out so often, it's basically a racket by the publishers. It can get bloody expensive. That's why someone like me, who has 3 schoolers and a preschooler really appreciates that cash. I buy books for September each may (roughly 200 but it gets more expensive as they get older), I buy uniforms in June (330 for my 3 roughly, 3 uniforms each and I will buy them v few other clothing items in the year), I buy school shoes and bags in July, I save in August because September is a bitch. I pay out 90 euro per child in school charges (art supplies etc), then non school related stuff like 70 each subs for rugby, 70 each subs for football, piano, etc and I usually run out before we get to swimming or drama or whatever. October I buy winter coats if needed. Then it's Christmas!