“Until now you didn`t `claim` child benefit, it was a universal benefit given to everyone with children including royalty.
This is what we used to call family allowance.”

“Should perhaps read, 'Why would anyone want child benefit if they're on this sort of money?"”

“You still don't claim it. It is given to everyone unless they request for it to not be.

If you earn over £50k you are expected to repay a proportion of it.

Sorry for being pendantic.

In answer to your question Sensational - People who earn that kind of money are often the sort of people who will take everything they can. If they weren't then they might not be driven to do that and would be working a job with less stress & less salary (although looking up from below, it looks like the biggest stress is worrying that someone will find out that they're useless and not worth £50K+)”

“Never pedantic A_G. I've never been on this sort of cash so didn't realise.”

“Most people on £50k+ jobs live in areas with much more expensive properties and so pay a much higher mortgage.

They may also spend a big chunk of money every week on traveling to work.

Add to that, they see (roughly) £6k of their last £15k go in taxes.

Personally, I have never claimed any sort of benefit in my life, but don't begrudge those who do, especially the ones that pay into the system.”

“One parent earns £60,000 pa, loses child benefit. Both parents earn £49,000 pa each, they get to keep it. You know it makes sense...”

“Benefits eh! Who'd have 'em!!”

“Benefits eh? Who'd have 'em??”

“Free_Spirit - It is because our tax system works on individual rather than household. To have it based on household income would be more complicated, which is what they're trying to avoid.

Same reason why the French recently had their 75% rate delayed, as it was erroneously based on individual rather than household so could not be passed into law.”

“Anon_Geoff - We might have had this conversation before (and I might be a bit dim on this) but it sounds a bit pants that "They" are prepared to stick with an unfair system because it would be too hard to make it fair. Isn't that sort of what "They" are there for?”

“Well yes, Jenoh, that's it exactly. It is a system that is very unfair. Almost all other benefits take the whole household into account, housing benefit etc, so I don't see why child benefit has to be any different.”

“Child benefit is also paid to over 40,000 children who are living overseas, if one parent is residing here and paying tax then their children are eligible for the benefit.”

“I don't think it is unfair.

If one parent works, the other is free to look after the kid(s). If both work there is probably a need for child care.

This seems to fit the £60k for one, £49k for both limits...”

“Seems to fit? Household income £98,000.00 a year, and the taxpayer paying their child benefit? I think you must be pulling my leg!”

“Nope.

It is nothing more than a rebate on the huge amount of tax they are paying anyway due to the unfair banding system that fines the hard working and successful.”

“What about childless hard working successful people?

Don't they get rebates too?”

“Why should they?”

“Any tax/benefits system will have oddities/loopholes once you move beyond flat rate or universal methods.

There are probably relatively few households 'gaining' from having both parents working and earning under £50k. Certainly compared with the amount of times it is mentioned in discussions like this.

A lot of people on over £60k will also declare that they pay their spouse a wage in order to use their personal allowance. Now they might increaes this 'payment' in order to avoid repaying child benefit.

reallyyoung_G - Unfortunately we are still stuck in the mindset of 60 years ago of thinking that we need more people. Hopefully this will be the first step towards changing that. Once the benefit is no longer universal it is open to being reduced and eventually abolished.

Little_Ole_G - There are better ways of delivering a rebate than giving people cash for producing children. The reduction in benefits might make a tax cut feasible in the future.”

“LOG

No answer then?”

“Ghostwriter69

Answer to what? Are there rebates for successful, childless people?

No. Why should there be?

Anon_Geoff

The only way a wage can be split between spouses is through a limited company, which is a totally different issue and assumes the other spouse is not working already.

And this country does need more children, more children from families with a work ethic before we are overrun with babies from the work shy.

Just to be clear; I am well off, I do have kids, but have never received child benefit because I did not need it. I do, however, think it is a good idea.”

“LOG

Then why should successful people with children get them then? If they are so successful then they should be proud of supporting themselves without the help of us poorer, less successful tax payers.

And just because parents are successful, doesn't mean that their children will follow in their footsteps. I have friends who built their own business up from scratch. Their daughter is a single mother and the son dabbles in financial scams because he couldn't provide the lifestyle for his family that his parents did for him.”

“G69

There will always be exceptions from both sides of the fence, but in general, a child is more likely to inherit their parents views and approach to life.

Which is why a tax break (which is what this really is) is fair enough in my opinion, it is the top ten percent of earners that pay fifty percent of the tax in this country. Let them have a few quid to help out with their children if they want it.

I did not take it for the reasons in your first paragraph.”

“Munk

Well sadly for these people the government (that most of them will have voted for) don't agree with you.

And they have lost it.”

“G69

Yeah, it is sad that child benefit has been taken away, but these are hard times and we all need to chip in and at least the lower paid well off (if that makes sense!) will still get it.”

“LOG -

The better off will still have children, regardless of the payment.

For me, the logical progression of your wanting to have the better off more incentivised to have children than those who rely on benefits would be the removal of child benefit entirely.

As you say, you would agree with a tax break. That is not quite the same as giving them a benefit, though there is a lot of crossover at times.

Sorry for not being specific about what can be allocated, but some income can be allocated to a spouse for those couples which are losing out because of a single high earner.”

“by Little_Ole_G Thursday, January 10 2013, 7:46AM
"G69

Firstly, I am not Munkeh Boy. "

No?. It's pure co-incidence then that you and he are the only two people on the forum - ever - who have bragged about being well off and successful?

And what was that 'hint' in your post on the not giving to animal charities about 'boy monkeys'?

No adult man would refer to 'boy' monkeys. Male monkeys maybe, but boy monkeys???????

Mmmmmmmmm”

“G69

I don't think I have bragged about being successful, but yes, the rest is a coincidence. I don't hate Hull people and return regularly, if that helps tell us apart.

The boy monkeys comment was meant to deliberately wind you up. You'd already guessed I was three or four other people before that and it seemed like it would be a fun thing to do.

It was.”

“Anon_Geoff

What you say makes a lot of sense and I think whatever solution is in place, there will be problems.

I think one thing that ruins most solutions is that while the dross will have kids they cannot afford, those working for a better life will wait until they can afford it. Which is why I think some financial incentive for people who are well off already still makes sense.

The husband and wife limited company trick is one that I am familiar with, but as those people will (on paper) only be earning minimum wage they will escape the new limits by a country mile. They may even get more 'help' due to being on a low wage. And that is wrong!”

“The very people who should be receiving child benefit are the ones having it taken away. We should be breeding from the strongest and most successful people. The feckless, idle, substance dependant wasters should be left with nothing and left to wither on the vine.

That's what happens in nature and has proved successful for millions of years.”

“Harry_offdock

Can you define 'strongest and most successful'?”

“Harry..... just... no.

Many people will be in a 'strong' and 'successful' position in this society because of where they are from and who they know. Others will be just as capable but held back by their environment.

Look at a lot of politicians or Royal family members over the centuries. Clearly idiots, deranged and occasionally suffering from genetic conditions, but they went to the right school and got the right education.

I assume you're just posting to get a reaction, well done you got one from me..... *sigh*”

“LOG

"Did you enjoy posting on here on xmas day when everyone else was with friends and family"

So if anyone does anything else apart from sitting in a room/pub with their friends and family for the full 24 hours of Christmas Day then they should be pitied should they?

We are not allowed even an hour away to pop home and walk the dog? LOL”