Should the child benefit cap be watered down? (Poll Closed)

  • Yes - It has an unfair and arbitrary cut off point
    40%
    1,558 votes

     
  • Yes - Child benefit should be available to everyone
    34%
    1,321 votes

     
  • No - The money saved is vital to the economic recovery
    5%
    181 votes

     
  • No - It is fundamentally wrong for the State to pay parents and the entire system should be abolished
    21%
    815 votes

     

Posted 7 years.

7 Comments

  • Tim Mullis - 7 years ago

    This change to child benefit makes it hard to be a stay at home Mum. It forces both parents out to work. I believe that parents should be able to choose to have one wage earner and one child carer.

  • Ciara - 7 years ago

    I think it should be means tested. Why should a single parent earning over the threshold have it taken away when a couple can still have it while being over the threshold. It would actually save more money by means testing than just barring high rate tax payers from receiving it. I think it's totally unjust.

  • Oscar - 7 years ago

    Child benefit should be based on total household income (income of both parents, if both are working).

  • Nicky Heppenstall - 7 years ago

    Whoever thought up the current suggested criteria for implementing removal of CB needs a slap - even my nearly 8 year old daughter said WHAT?? when I explained that we would lose it, but so-and-so's mummy would not because both parents work. I am almost lost for words at such a ridiculous idea. I think Philip above has a pretty good plan.
    And I volunteer to pop down to London and slap said idiot, at my own expense!

  • Andrew the SITCOM - 7 years ago

    As currently proposed this is going to hit me hard; I have 2 children (6 and 9) and a wife working PT just below 5k pa. I earn 47k pa and so would be hit hard by this. I commute 350 mile per week and diesel isn't getting any cheaper. My next pay review is not scheduled until Mar 2013.

    All the other tinkering with thresholds/joint incomes/age of child solutions seem destined to add more complexity and scope for fraud as well as unintended hard-luck cases like me.

    I don't see why the state should pay to raise children. If Osborne wants to save some money, cancel ALL child-related benefits for new claims wef 10 months from today. Nobody knowingly (or unkowingly) pregnant right now would miss out. Anyone planning on having a first (or subsequent) child would have to think if they could afford it. Simples! The only people that would complain would be those who view it as their 'right' to have a child that they can't support.

  • Adam Watts - 7 years ago

    Either everyone should receive Child Benefit or no one should receive Child Benefit, it's that simple really. Either keep it or scrap it, the Government going to decide their next move based on what will win the most votes and that's the truth. If they really wanted to raise money they'd scrap the hand outs and up the duty on Tobacco and Alcohol.

  • Philip McEachen - 7 years ago

    Cancel the planned Child Benefit changes and instead raise the 40% tax threshold by 1 or 2 percentage points so that the planned cost savings from the change are replaced instead by increased income tax revenue. Why?
    1. It’s fair – families with 1 or 2 parents earning in the 40% tax region will be paying a contribution to the costs proportional to their income(s).

    2. It’s fair – people with no children earning in the 40% tax region will also be contributing. After all it will be other people’s children who will be the doctors, nurses, firemen, police, army, house builders, and tax payers who provide services for them when they retire. Also the cost of bringing up a child is far greater than the small amount paid in child benefit.

    3. It’s very easy to implement – just a single change to a single tax threshold. No means testing.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment