Child Benefit Cut For High Earners May Be Reconsidered, David Cameron Signals

David Cameron

First Posted: 12/01/12 21:52 GMT Updated: 12/01/12 22:45 GMT

David Cameron has indicated he may U-turn on plans to cut child benefits for higher earners, amid fears the policy is viewed as unfair by many voters.

The government had planned to take the benefit away from families where at least one parent earned more than around £44,000 a year. The prime minister has previously defended the measure, arguing the the better off had to contribute to helping cut the deficit.

"That does mean in a spending round you have to ask better off people to make a contribution so you can protect the most vulnerable and help them have a better life," he said when it was announced in October 2010.

But the measure has been attacked as unfair, as a family that has two parents earning below the threshold could have an overall income of around £80,000 and keep the benefit while a family where one parent earns slightly over the threshold would lose it.

However in an interview with the parliamentary House Magazine published on Friday, Cameron hinted that George Osborne may revisit the measure in this year's Budget.

"Some people say that's the unfairness of it, that you lose the child benefit if you have a higher rate taxpayer in the family. Two people below the level keep the benefit. So, there's a threshold, a cliff-edge issue," he said.

"We always said we would look at the steepness of the curve, we always said we would look at the way it's implemented and that remains the case, but again I don't want to impinge on the chancellor's Budget."

However Cameron went on to tell the magazine that he was not letting the more wealthy get away with not paying their fair share. "Now, I'm not saying for a minute that someone earning 40,000 pounds is rich," he said. "But the simple facts show that if you are earning 40,000 pounds you are earning twice as much as someone on the average wage of just over 20,000 pounds."

"If we want to make sure that everyone makes a contribution to dealing with the deficit, that's why we had to look at measures like taking child benefit away from higher rate tax payers," he added.

Labour has previously criticised the plan and said it showed the coalition was out of touch with "the squeezed middle" and "hard-working families".

Cameron's intervention is not the first time it has been suggested that the plans may be revisited, amid fears that the Conservative Party is losing support among women.

In September The Times reported that there was unhappiness among senior ministers at the measures.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

David Cameron has indicated he may U-turn on plans to cut child benefits for higher earners, amid fears the policy is viewed as unfair by many voters. The government had planned to take the benefit...
David Cameron has indicated he may U-turn on plans to cut child benefits for higher earners, amid fears the policy is viewed as unfair by many voters. The government had planned to take the benefit...
Filed by Ned Simons  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 69
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
02:14 PM on 01/14/2012
The simple solution is to abolish Child Benefit for any child born after 1st January 2013 - benefit to continue for existing children to age 18 as at present .

That way no existing child or family is penalised, the total bill goes down approximately 5% a year , future parents would know that they pay the full cost of the children they chose to have and limit their family size accordingly .

We have no shortage of children , rather the opposite as we add 1 million more every 5 years over and above the death rate - that's another 20 million by the end of the century taking the UK population to at least 90 million - we don't need more people - we need fewer - unborn children are rarely missed - it is absurd to finance extra births in a country already overrun with people - nobody thinks the UK will be a better place either socially or economically with more people - most know it will be worse .

And Child Benefit ( then called Family Allowance ) was intended to be a TEMPORARY subsidy with the very high immediate post war costs of unrationed food - the war ended nearly 70 years ago - well past time to kill it off humanely
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Compassionnotreligion
Be awed & humbled by nature & empathy -not Juju.
03:55 PM on 01/13/2012
Well DUH!

"... unfair, as a family that has two parents earning below the threshold could have an overall income of ar ound £80,000 and keep the benefit while a family where one parent earns slightly over the threshold would lose it"

Isn't that from the school of the bleedin' OBVIOUS?

These toffs with every privilege and education that their zillions can buy - and yet these half-baked knee-jerk policies that any intelligen­t 10-year old could pick holes in?! Labour are no better.

I despair at the state of politics and politician­s here (and America). (Do other countries put such MOR_ONS in power too?) And WHY arn't they accountabl­e?? They waste gazillions through sheer incompeten­ce, and then even more by using expensive parlimenta­ry time on imbecilic 'jokes' and posturing - especially when on TV - rather at least having the good grace to apologise for wasting our money!

The bald-faced lack of respect for the process and the people they are supposed to be SERVING (yes, we are their employers after all) amazes me.

But "we get the politician­s we deserve". We had a golden chance in several generation­s to stop their cosy, secure 2-party system where they know they will never really be accountabl­e - and we blew it. Well done us.

We could have given them a pretty good scare by Prop Rep - given ourselves a chance of honourable independen­ts. Like the excellent Martin Bell. Unfortunat­ely our system makes it virtually impossible­.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
halingei
01:44 PM on 01/13/2012
To sort out, who gets and who doesn't, would be an unecessary complication in an already hideously complicated system.
On higher earners it will be all taxed away.
This is just stirring the pot, politican's treacle.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark B Robertson
01:31 PM on 01/13/2012
A great relief, Tarquin will now be able to have his violin lessons. And we can also keeping going on winter skiing holidays, and not have to sacrifice the Fortnum's hamper!!
01:29 PM on 01/13/2012
It's disgusting if David Cameron decided the better off can carry on receiving child benefit. The government are taking more and more from the most vulnerabley in society, the easy targets, the elderly and genuine poor who have very little in the first place. When are the better off of us going to start pulling their weight. Yes Mr Cameron we are all in it together but some of us are more in it, than others. And when we are being told this is being cut and that will be stopping due to lack of money available to the government, please tell me how on earth can the country afford to give billions in aid away, for example, to countries that can afford to build a space programme....
01:20 PM on 01/13/2012
Child benefit abolish it. It is a part of everyone’s personal responsibility to support their children, perhaps it's not just big society, but also big responsibility which needs to be introduced.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
12:51 PM on 01/13/2012
He's probably just worked out that he can't even implement a way to ask the `are you on a higher tax rate?' question.
11:55 AM on 01/13/2012
When will he do a U -Turn on overseas aid for India and the likes and think of those in the UK that need help health wise?
lastpost
see biography
11:39 AM on 01/13/2012
"David Cameron has indicated he may U-turn on plans to cut child benefits for higher earners”
Where there is Big Society, let us create High End Society?

“the government had planned to take the benefit away from families where at least one parent earned more than around £44,000 a year.”
Hummm. Can’t help but feel, that someone who can’t recognize a difference between the sum of two individual incomes accruing to one household. Relative to a single income coming into a household. Shouldn’t be let loose anywhere near evaluating the costing of a project on the scale of HS2.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cynic123
11:39 AM on 01/13/2012
Story's like this always make me laugh. Most posts say the tory party always kick the poor and anyone who can't fight back. PRAY TELL ME THEN, WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THEM OR THE LIBS ???????
11:35 AM on 01/13/2012
He seems to be reconsidering quite a lot lately apart from the disabled, easy option again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cynic123
11:34 AM on 01/13/2012
It would have had some substence with me if all the tory mp's had said they will be the first to stop the payment they get for their children. This should be means tested for sure. Also everyone that can claim should only get the benifit for the first child. The world is overpoperlated this would slow it up for sure.
photo
the grange gorman
Rachel Corrie is the greatest person since Lennon
11:27 AM on 01/13/2012
Obviously any couples were one earns >44k should not be collecting child benefit , I also think this benefit should be restricted to a maximum of 2 children , some people are just scroungers.
02:24 PM on 01/13/2012
So how about a couple where they both earn £40K each...should they receive it?

That's what the current plan is.......

But then again this is a little like the 'wonderful' poll tax where everyone earning or not had to pay.......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
redsquad
Shootin' from the lip
11:21 AM on 01/13/2012
Hmmm, yes - MUST appease the folk who support him. Better to move the disabilty goalposts again and hammer those who already hate the Tories.
11:17 AM on 01/13/2012
On child benefit - probably best to go back to shortly after it was introduced and pay for the 1st child only. If there are enough funds after cutting out all the overseas people that claim when their children have never set a foot in the country, then maybe pay for 2nd child as well. In the interim, anyone with loads of children will have to be paid some sort of extra assistance.