Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 As some of you know, the missus and I recently had our first child, and as such we're claiming Child Benefit. This is a payment of £20.30 a week that has been around for years and years and that everyone is entitled to...until January. Now, I probably shouldn't be in a position to need this money, but what with the other half only getting Maternity Allowance due to her finding out she was pregnant 4 weeks into her new job, I'm pretty ******ed off that we will no longer receive this. Is anyone else in the same position?
Clapham Saint Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Yep. Mrs CS gets up the duff, 2 seconds later Georgie boy announces withdrawal of Child Benefit.
bridge too far Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 As some of you know, the missus and I recently had our first child, and as such we're claiming Child Benefit. This is a payment of £20.30 a week that has been around for years and years and that everyone is entitled to...until January. Now, I probably shouldn't be in a position to need this money, but what with the other half only getting Maternity Allowance due to her finding out she was pregnant 4 weeks into her new job, I'm pretty ******ed off that we will no longer receive this. Is anyone else in the same position? Would you qualify for Working Families Tax Credit since your combined incomes will have reduced due to her being on Statutory Maternity Pay only? Or has that changed too?
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 4 December, 2012 Author Posted 4 December, 2012 Would you qualify for Working Families Tax Credit since your combined incomes will have reduced due to her being on Statutory Maternity Pay only? Or has that changed too? I wouldn't have thought so, the missus worked for 4 full months this financial year, and I've been working full time as well.
bridge too far Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 I wouldn't have thought so, the missus worked for 4 full months this financial year, and I've been working full time as well. Obviously I don't know your circumstances, but apparently it's important that you register for Child Benefit even if you choose not to take it for tax reasons: [h=2]You or your partner have an individual income of more than £50,000[/h] If you or your partner have an individual income of more than £50,000, you can still qualify for Child Benefit. But you'll need to decide whether to actually receive the payments. This is because from 7 January 2013 you may be liable to a new tax charge called the 'High Income Child Benefit charge'. It's important to still fill in a Child Benefit claim form, even if you don’t want to get the payments. This is because if you are entitled to receive Child Benefit it can: help you qualify for National Insurance credits that can protect your entitlement to State Pension help protect your entitlement to other benefits such as Guardian's Allowance ensure your child is automatically issued with a National Insurance number before their 16th birthday High Income Child Benefit charge
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 4 December, 2012 Author Posted 4 December, 2012 Obviously I don't know your circumstances, but apparently it's important that you register for Child Benefit even if you choose not to take it for tax reasons: [h=2]You or your partner have an individual income of more than £50,000[/h] If you or your partner have an individual income of more than £50,000, you can still qualify for Child Benefit. But you'll need to decide whether to actually receive the payments. This is because from 7 January 2013 you may be liable to a new tax charge called the 'High Income Child Benefit charge'. It's important to still fill in a Child Benefit claim form, even if you don’t want to get the payments. This is because if you are entitled to receive Child Benefit it can: help you qualify for National Insurance credits that can protect your entitlement to State Pension help protect your entitlement to other benefits such as Guardian's Allowance ensure your child is automatically issued with a National Insurance number before their 16th birthday High Income Child Benefit charge This is a really strange one. We already receive so I guess we are already registered. It looks like if either of you have a wage of over £60k then there is no point in receiving it: The person with the highest income has to pay the full amount of Child Benefit as a tax charge if their adjusted net income is more than £60,000 a year.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 4 December, 2012 Author Posted 4 December, 2012 Check if you're affected by the High Income Child Benefit charge Based on the information you have given, you will be affected by the High Income Child Benefit charge. You have the following options. Option 1: KEEP getting Child Benefit payments Choosing this option means you: would have to pay a tax charge on the Child Benefit you or your partner get will have to declare the Child Benefit by completing a tax return If your income is between £50,000 and £60,000 you may want to choose this option. This is because the tax charge will always be less than the amount of Child Benefit. You can always change your mind, for example if your circumstances change. You can use an online calculator to get an estimate of your likely tax charge. The calculator doesn't store any of the information you enter: HM Revenue & Customs cannot access the data. Option 2: STOP getting Child Benefit payments Choosing this option means that: you will not have to pay the tax charge you will not have to complete a tax return - unless you need to for other reasons any entitlement to Child Benefit will still carry on - providing you or your partner still qualify for it If your income is more than £60,000 you may want to choose this option. This is because the tax charge will always be the same as the amount of Child Benefit. There are some income adjustments that may apply which could bring your income level down to below £60,000, such as pension contributions. This could reduce your tax charge.
rooney Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 I would suggest everybody still continues to receive the Benefit despite the fact they they will suffer an equivilent Tax Charge if their income is between £50K and £60K. This is not only because of the Home Responsibility Protection mentioned above but circumstances may change in the future: Salary Sacrifice thus reducing taxable income, Working abroad and not liable to UK Tax Change of Government Out of work or out of work between jobs. You can bet that if anybody forgoes Child Benefit, it will be a beaurocratic nightmare to get it re-installed.
Jonnyboy Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Anyone earning over 50k should stop whinging.
buctootim Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Try paying 20% of your earnings to your ex despite the fact that you have the kids more than 50% of the time, buy their clothes, pay for their clubs and she still gets child benefit and tax credits for them.
Dimond Geezer Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Anyone earning over 50k should stop whinging. Exactly. Child benefit was originally designed to ensure that kids had resonable clothing & were fed, not to fund pony club outings or a holiday abroad, Anyone earning over 50 grand should be ashamed if they are claiming this.
mcjwills Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Try paying 20% of your earnings to your ex despite the fact that you have the kids more than 50% of the time, buy their clothes, pay for their clubs and she still gets child benefit and tax credits for them. Go back to the equivalent of the CSA and claim against the ex wife.
trousers Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 For every £3 of child allowance I'm losing I intend buying a cup of coffee in Starbucks
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Exactly. Child benefit was originally designed to ensure that kids had resonable clothing & were fed, not to fund pony club outings or a holiday abroad, Anyone earning over 50 grand should be ashamed if they are claiming this. cobblers. what about dual income households both earning £49k - should they be ashamed? People earning over £50k are already paying for the benefits of countless others so I think they have nothing to be ashamed about at all. Child Benefit for anyone above the poverty line is effectively a form of tax relief. There are loads of different reliefs in the current system, some designed purely to raise money and others designed to encourage different behaviour.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 4 December, 2012 Author Posted 4 December, 2012 Exactly. Child benefit was originally designed to ensure that kids had resonable clothing & were fed, not to fund pony club outings or a holiday abroad, Anyone earning over 50 grand should be ashamed if they are claiming this. Bull****, we already pay more tax to help others, why shouldn't we claim child benefits that have always been available to ALL people. It's never been means tested before, so why now?
bridge too far Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Bull****, we already pay more tax to help others, why shouldn't we claim child benefits that have always been available to ALL people. It's never been means tested before, so why now? Well according to the government information you and I have both posted, it seems that if you are a highish earner and claim Child Benefit, you will either pay slightly less in additional tax than you claim in benefit or, at worst, you will pay the same in extra tax as you gain in benefit. But I imagine if you are a supra high earner you won't qualify for Child Benefit.
Jonnyboy Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 cobblers. what about dual income households both earning £49k - should they be ashamed? People earning over £50k are already paying for the benefits of countless others so I think they have nothing to be ashamed about at all. Child Benefit for anyone above the poverty line is effectively a form of tax relief. There are loads of different reliefs in the current system, some designed purely to raise money and others designed to encourage different behaviour. Yes.
Jonnyboy Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Bull****, we already pay more tax to help others, why shouldn't we claim child benefits that have always been available to ALL people. It's never been means tested before, so why now? We're all in this together, tough times for everyone. Edit: apart from ex-chairman (or whatever) of HBOS.
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Exactly. Child benefit was originally designed to ensure that kids had resonable clothing & were fed, not to fund pony club outings or a holiday abroad, Anyone earning over 50 grand should be ashamed if they are claiming this. It's all part of the ridiculously complicated tax system. This may come as a surprise to you but the more people earn, the more tax they pay, and it goes up disproportionately.
Jonnyboy Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 It's all part of the ridiculously complicated tax system. This may come as a surprise to you but the more people earn, the more tax they pay, and it goes up disproportionately. We're all in this together
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 People who earn less than £35k should be ashamed of themselves. They don't pay enough tax and yet can claim tax credits and child benefits.
Jonnyboy Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 People who earn less than £35k should be ashamed of themselves. They don't pay enough tax and yet can claim tax credits and child benefits. we're all in this together.
Islander Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 Money has to be saved somewhere and while I understand that some families will find the rules unfair as they have budgeted to receive the benefit, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Other payments such as the winter fuel payment for the elderly are also unfair (in my opinion). Over 50% of pensioners in this country do not need it. Many of the remainder are in desperate need. I know means testing costs a lot but surely this would be fairer than paying people money they just don't need, while others clearly suffer.
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 You hit upon an interesting point there. Many many pensioners (generally 60-75) did very well out of a generous welfare state, final salary pensions, rising house prices etc and have faced very little in the way of cuts. They're almost untouchable because they vote in big numbers and cuts against them make very poor PR - people think of frail and cash poor old biddies like my nan (93) rather than solvent 60 somethings. In general I think an extra penny on the top rate to 41p would have been a lot fairer and more effective. Cutting child benefit won't actually save that much, increases bureaucracy and importantly takes a slew of people out of the welfare state altogether. This will give rise to less "we're all in this together" and more "I get **** all why should others".
JackFrost Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 People who earn less than £35k should be ashamed of themselves. They don't pay enough tax and yet can claim tax credits and child benefits. Depends what you think is worse. Poorer people not paying as much tax due to having less money/lower income and needing to live or richer people claiming benefits they don't need because they have more financial flexibility to budget for an expense, say for a child's upbringing more easily. Regardless of a couple's overall wealth, if they can't afford/don't have the cash flow/money set aside in an emergency/don't have the willing to make necessary sacrifices to bring up kids then they shouldn't have them in the first place.
RonManager Posted 4 December, 2012 Posted 4 December, 2012 There's plenty of chimneys needing swept and coal to be mined.
pap Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 I couldn't afford kids when my first came along. If I'd taken some of the sterling advice on here, I'd have a lifelong regret instead of a 17 year old daughter.
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 Depends what you think is worse. Poorer people not paying as much tax due to having less money/lower income and needing to live or richer people claiming benefits they don't need because they have more financial flexibility to budget for an expense, say for a child's upbringing more easily. Regardless of a couple's overall wealth, if they can't afford/don't have the cash flow/money set aside in an emergency/don't have the willing to make necessary sacrifices to bring up kids then they shouldn't have them in the first place. I was only being facaetious. The UK already has a problem with an ageing population. We should be making it easier for working people at all income levels to have kids - you can be sure that the feckless who never have worked and never will are breeding like rabbits in any case.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 5 December, 2012 Author Posted 5 December, 2012 We were planning on using the money towards sending my daughter to private school. I feel we're being penalised twice, once for losing the benefits and second for paying for a state school system we won't use... I am joking by the way...
bridge too far Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 I was only being facaetious. The UK already has a problem with an ageing population. We should be making it easier for working people at all income levels to have kids - you can be sure that the feckless who never have worked and never will are breeding like rabbits in any case. It was reported on the news this morning that most northern European countries, including the UK, have birth rates lower than death rates - in other words we're not replacing the population. That's a worry for the future.
pap Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 It was reported on the news this morning that most northern European countries, including the UK, have birth rates lower than death rates - in other words we're not replacing the population. That's a worry for the future. If you want an extreme example of that, you need look no further than China's one child per family edict. Leaving aside the horrors visited upon some female children for a second, the long term consequences mean that grandparents have fewer descendants to support them. Ok, we work slightly differently in the sense that a lot more of the "care" the young provide to the old goes through the abstraction of the tax system. Your point holds though, irrespective of the directness of funding. Immigrants to the rescue?
Dimond Geezer Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 you can be sure that the feckless who never have worked and never will are breeding like rabbits in any case I entirely agree, there is nothing more galling than the work-shy "playing the system", then complaining that they can't feed their kids, but can afford a Sky subscription etc. It's equally galling to hear the middle classes moaning on that they can't afford a second holiday, or put fuel in the wifes 4x4 because CB has been cut. Both of these groups need to cut their cloth accordingly. The benefit system is supposed to be a safety net, not to pay for luxuries. A household bring in over 50k, should be able to survive quite adequately purely on that income, without expecting to get government handouts.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 5 December, 2012 Author Posted 5 December, 2012 I entirely agree, there is nothing more galling than the work-shy "playing the system", then complaining that they can't feed their kids, but can afford a Sky subscription etc. It's equally galling to hear the middle classes moaning on that they can't afford a second holiday, or put fuel in the wifes 4x4 because CB has been cut. Both of these groups need to cut their cloth accordingly. The benefit system is supposed to be a safety net, not to pay for luxuries. A household bring in over 50k, should be able to survive quite adequately purely on that income, without expecting to get government handouts. In the area that I am in you would find it pretty difficult to live a decent life with a houshold income of £50k. We have grown out of our current place (a small 2 bed maisonette), and to upgrade to a 3 bed terrace will cost us £400k+. On £50k you couldn't do that. There are all these stories about people not working and on benefits not being moved to cheaper areas, so why should those who earn their money do it? Following those examples should we not be subsidised? It also depends what you class as 'luxuries'. Are you saying anything but the bare essentials?
derry Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 Maybe a fairer way would be to do away with it altogether and revert to the original scheme where a tax allowance was put on the tax code for every child so the amount of tax paid was reduced. That way those that paid nothing got nothing.
bridge too far Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 Maybe a fairer way would be to do away with it altogether and revert to the original scheme where a tax allowance was put on the tax code for every child so the amount of tax paid was reduced. That way those that paid nothing got nothing. And what about those who earn so little that they don't pay tax anyway? A tax allowance to replace CB wouldn't help them one iota.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 5 December, 2012 Author Posted 5 December, 2012 And what about those who earn so little that they don't pay tax anyway? A tax allowance to replace CB wouldn't help them one iota. They could always bring the tax threshold down so that they do pay tax...
Jonnyboy Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 In the area that I am in you would find it pretty difficult to live a decent life with a houshold income of £50k. We have grown out of our current place (a small 2 bed maisonette), and to upgrade to a 3 bed terrace will cost us £400k+. On £50k you couldn't do that. There are all these stories about people not working and on benefits not being moved to cheaper areas, so why should those who earn their money do it? Following those examples should we not be subsidised? It also depends what you class as 'luxuries'. Are you saying anything but the bare essentials? Have you sold that flashy BMW yet?
Draino76 Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 All benefits should be cut to zero. The grand total of benefits I have claimed in my life? £65 jobseekers allowance about 15 years ago. My contribution to the the public purse? Over a quarter of a million quid and counting. If you have children; pay for your children. End of.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 5 December, 2012 Author Posted 5 December, 2012 Have you sold that flashy BMW yet? Nope, we're going to lose too much money on it in Winter, and with losing child benefit we can't afford to lose that money...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 5 December, 2012 Author Posted 5 December, 2012 All benefits should be cut to zero. The grand total of benefits I have claimed in my life? £65 jobseekers allowance about 15 years ago. My contribution to the the public purse? Over a quarter of a million quid and counting. If you have children; pay for your children. End of. Woah, you can't come on here being all high and mighty if you have claimed before, or we can just say: If you lose your job, pay for yourself whilst out of work. End of.
Barry Sanchez Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 (edited) Its a weird one, me and my wife are hoping to have kids and we fall into the category of being over the amount, if the money saved from us not claiming went to families who needed it I would have no issue with it, as it stands they will use it for some crap, anyone wanting more that two children should pay for the child fully though, its morally and socially irresponsible when there are children who need to be fostered, adopted and helped. Edited 5 December, 2012 by Barry Sanchez
Barry Sanchez Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 It was reported on the news this morning that most northern European countries, including the UK, have birth rates lower than death rates - in other words we're not replacing the population. That's a worry for the future. That does not neccessarily mean we will have a constantly dropping population, could be down to booming birth years 70-80 years ago, we are an old Country, most 1st World Nations are.
Dimond Geezer Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 Nope, we're going to lose too much money on it in Winter, and with losing child benefit we can't afford to lose that money... Ah, I can now see how things are tough for you. Give these guys a ring, they may be able to give you some food, or a blanket to see you through the cold nights: http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 5 December, 2012 Author Posted 5 December, 2012 Ah, I can now see how things are tough for you. Give these guys a ring, they may be able to give you some food, or a blanket to see you through the cold nights: http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/ I see you're being mature about this discussion. I also see you haven't responded to my rebuttal to your response earlier, so perhaps you could comment on that. Should those that work have to move from a more expensive area when those on benefits don't?
Dig Dig Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 Classic DPS, always the victim. Like most of us, lives in the top 5% of the worlds poverty ladder whilst complaining about losing a 20 quid a week "benefit", also throwing into the pot that he lives in a expensive area and swans around in a BMW.
the stain Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 Bull****, we already pay more tax to help others, why shouldn't we claim child benefits that have always been available to ALL people. It's never been means tested before, so why now? Typical Tory attitude.
Saint Charlie Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 Classic DPS, always the victim. Like most of us, lives in the top 5% of the worlds poverty ladder whilst complaining about losing a 20 quid a week "benefit", also throwing into the pot that he lives in a expensive area and swans around in a BMW. Did DPS beat you up in the school playground? Following him around on an internet mongboard is a sad state of affairs!
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 5 December, 2012 Author Posted 5 December, 2012 Classic DPS, always the victim. Like most of us, lives in the top 5% of the worlds poverty ladder whilst complaining about losing a 20 quid a week "benefit", also throwing into the pot that he lives in a expensive area and swans around in a BMW. I'm not bothered about it overly, but I think if everyone has been entitled to it for this long, I find it frustrating that at a time when myself and the missus are missing out on £27k after tax over a 9 month period we are actually in some need of the money. I have to currently live in the area I do for both mine and the other halves work, unless I want a 90 minute each way commute. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to get home to see my daughter is it? I was trying to have a sensible discussion, and also I don't see where I have even mentioned what car I have on this thread. It's a car we kind of need to get rid of, but funnily enough we can't afford to lose the amount of money on it that we would at the moment.
Dig Dig Posted 5 December, 2012 Posted 5 December, 2012 Did DPS beat you up in the school playground? Following him around on an internet mongboard is a sad state of affairs! He's everywhere. Don't need to look too far for mongy "look at me" threads and posts. You'll never far behind Saint Charlie.....are you following me around?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now