And to think that only came into being in the late 1700s in order to help fund a war against France.

Any chance we could just stop going to war with places so we don't have to keep paying more taxes?

I don't know, but it's good. Pay less income tax, too.

I think that leaders do it to show that they are tough to the electorate. Unnecessary really.

One thing - is it really fair to call Child Benefit 'universal' anyway? It's not given to everyone.

While the backlash increases against Government plans to stop child benefit payments to high earners, it has occupied much of the conversation that I have had with my colleague over the last two days.

He has a rental property- his former home, not one he purchased to rent. He just (by the skin of his teeth apparently) enters the higher tax bracket. His wife, although in a well-paid job- has gone part time so that she can look after their two children. They are about to have a third. They will not get ANY child benefit under these new rules.

My wife and I work full time and although neither of us is in the higher tax bracket, between us we earn more than our colleague and his wife. We have two children and will NOT be having any more. We will continue to get child benefit.

And the Government think that they are being fair!!!

If you are in the higher tax bracket you're earning about £900 per week.

If you've arranged your finances so stupidly that you'll miss £20 per week from £900 then you're an idiot.

+1

I think a lot of people seem to be missing the point that it's unfair because one family could be bringing in 86k and still receiving it and another could be bringing in 45k and not receiving it.

And those people making that point need to realise that if you are on £45k and £20 a week makes a difference you have bigger issues that child benefit, like a completely [LIFTED] up set of finances.

That's not the issue. They're not saying they need it, simply that it has not been done fairly.

I seem to remember a government minister (Philip Hammond IIRC) stating that yes it would be unfair in some cases, but this was by far the easiest way to carry out the change and to administer it in another way would be more expensive and wipe out much of the savings to be made.

were they never told as a child life is not fair? The current sytem as it stands is a mess and frankly there should be a cut off whereby you can no longer get benefits. The money needs to be spent in better places than subsidising well off affluent parents.
The reason, I believe, the cut has been structured like this is to avoid the complex and costly changed required to assess seperate incomes. Until they phase in the universal benefit claim and get rid of all the other systems required to claim the myriad of benefits available there are always going to losers and winners. But as others have pointed out if your going to miss £20 a week and your income is above £45K there are other issues.

A couple of points.

1. 900 is pre tax. Take home is 600 ish.

2/ £20.30 a week for the eldest child and £13.40 for subsequent children. A family with 3 children receive £47.10 per week. Multiply that by 52 makes £2449.20. NET. About £200 a month.

I think ANYONE would miss 2.5k a year .. even if you are making the fortune that is 45K a year.

Now, I can understand the NEED to reduce spending. It makes sense, the country can not go on over spending, however rather than simply hit us harder & harder (do you think VAT will EVER go down again?) the government needs to look at the ridiculous excess that is a banking sector paying an AVERAGE bonus on 70K a year, nuclear weapons, unnecessary wars, overspends on all military procurement, selling of all government assets etc etc. The list goes on and on.

Now, I am sure most higher rate tax payers can soak up this reduction in income. But if you took a 6% reduction in income would you feel happy.?

I especially feel annoyed that there are other households who have a far higher combined income who will not be affected. I don't see it as just.

It will also create the ludicrous situation where for some people a small pay rise will tip them over a threshold and actually make them worse off.

I have made the point already, in many families a single income is divided between 4 or 5 people. For those of you who are single, and without kids (I suspect many of whom are arguing this is totally right) , if you did that to your income would you still feel it was adequate.

Didge.

The main group that seem to be moaning are the families that have one parent earning £45k+ and a stay at home parent.
With the new scheme they lose the benefit.
I don't see why the other parent can't go out to work to earn money as well.
If my wife decided to stay at home and not work, she's not paying any tax so why should we get paid for her choosing not to work, after all it'd be her choice not to work.

SAS, do you have any kids?

My wife works (she is a lawyer) but for many lower paid jobs it is simply more expensive to provide child care than monies earned.

Didge.