High Income Families Losing Child Benefits 'Fair', Insists Osborne

Child Benefits

First Posted: 6/03/2012 19:30 Updated: 6/03/2012 19:42   PA

Chancellor George Osborne has insisted that it is "fair" to ask high-income families to share the burden of cutting Britain's debt by removing their child benefit.

The Chancellor was challenged in the Commons by his Labour shadow Ed Balls, who said the plan would create a situation where a two-income family earning £84,000 will receive the benefit while a single-earner family on £43,000 will not.

The exchange came as speculation raged over whether Osborne will use his Budget to water down the child benefit plan or to reduce the 50p income tax rate on earnings over £150,000.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said there was an "understanding" within Government that if the 50p rate was scrapped, it would be replaced with a levy on wealth, such as the mansion tax favoured by Liberal Democrats.

But Labour leader Ed Miliband said that, while the Government should look at proposals for a tax on valuable homes, scrapping the 50p rate would be "absolutely the wrong thing to do".

Osborne declined to reveal details of his Budget in his final appearance at Treasury questions in the Commons before the March 21 statement, telling MPs only that there would be no "unfunded giveaways".

Challenged over his plan - announced in 2010 - to remove child benefit from those earning over £42,745 a year from January 2013, Mr Osborne responded: "I think it is fair to ask those in the top 15% of the income distribution to make a contribution to the fiscal consolidation."

But the shadow chancellor told him that he could not "do the right thing" on child benefit because his economic policies had failed to deliver the growth he had been hoping for.

"The Chancellor's policy on child benefit seems to be that a two-earner family on £84,000 can keep all their child benefit, but a one earner family on £43,000 - whether a single-parent or where mum or dad stays home to look after the kids - will lose all their benefit," said Mr Balls. "What's fair about that?"

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg fuelled speculation that the child benefit cut-off could be raised to £50,000 or more, by admitting that the current plan created "anomalies" because it applies if one parent enters the 40% tax band, regardless of what the total household income is.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Chancellor George Osborne has insisted that it is "fair" to ask high-income families to share the burden of cutting Britain's debt by removing their child benefit. The Chancellor was challenged in ...
Chancellor George Osborne has insisted that it is "fair" to ask high-income families to share the burden of cutting Britain's debt by removing their child benefit. The Chancellor was challenged in ...
Filed by Lucy Sherriff  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 268
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
11:11 PM on 03/07/2012
No one should get child benefits. Giving these kind of benefits is a false economy as it keeps wages down and prevent genuine people from getting help when they need it. There should only be benefits paid for those that need it due to a genuine reason for not being able to work. The benefit should be paid according to their need and If the need is a genuine one there should not be a cap put on it. We have far too many different benefits and taxes, if the system was simplified then the tax dodgers and benefit cheats would find it more difficult to cheat the system. It is the cheats and tax dodgers that are preventing the genuine people from getting the help they really need.
02:49 PM on 03/07/2012
Fair would be scrapping it all together. What share of the burden do lower threshold ta payers have? Not a lot from what I can see. More to the point, how many teenagers will get pregnant this year? If they really want to change something stop payments to any children not yet conceived. May be the teenage pregnancy rates will fall when they realise they won't just given everything for free if they keep breeding. Sorry but having spent a short spell in the maternity ward next to a woman who said she wasn't a slapper even though at 22, she had 4 kids, the last one of which she thought had the same father as another one, it makes my blood boil. She bragged how she would now qualify for a bigger house when her latest kid appeared and how she had saved all her child benefit payments for the kids, as well as how she wouldn't let a man live with her because she would lose her benefits.She has NEVER worked but she has a better lifestyle than many parents who do. We have the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe and many of these new mums sponge of the system for years. Stopping their child benefit would be a deterrent against breeeding and reduce the benefits they receive. Simple.
11:48 AM on 03/07/2012
If the chancellor thinks that his change to child benefit is fair he must have an IQ of 50 . He needs to go back to school to learn his maths properly, even a 10 year old child can see why his plans are unfair.
11:10 AM on 03/07/2012
I think to make savings on child benefit should be payable for 2 children only, can you imagine the savings, majority of families have 4 plus.......
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philduck
11:08 AM on 03/07/2012
Ah! the politics of envy.
Child benefit was set up as a universal benefit for the CHILD!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
11:08 AM on 03/07/2012
We fall within this £43k and as a result we get no help whatsoever from the state even though only one of us works while the other stays at home with child. We pay all our council tax, £1700 of it each year, we pay all our bills, we live in the country so need a car and petrol alone to get to work is over £300 per month. Our tax is over £500 per month (not including national insurance) so after we have paid all our bills we are lucky if we can afford one takeaway a month as a treat for not actually having a social life. Our disposable income at the end of each month is less than £100 - to buy any clothes, shoes, prescriptions - we have just gone 3 months with lukewarm water as the boiler was playing up and we couldn't afford the call out charge for the local plumber. We, on a household income of £43k would be better off giving up work and claiming benefits!!
02:56 PM on 03/07/2012
£43 is about £2400 a month - I agree that doesn't go far if you don't get any additional help. We need 2 cars because I have to be able to get about with the babies - We have triplets and buses just can't accomodate the pushchair. My husband travels around all over for work and needs the car most days. The total household bills before food, clothes and other usual goods comes to just under £2000 a month. If they stop the child benefit payments, half our disposable income dissappears. I think we might be better off on benefits or my husband cutting back on his hours. I work in the evenings because we simply couldn't afford childcare - especially since they only pay 70% for up to 2 children. I realise that's what it means to choose to have a family but I certainly don't think it fair for 'the less well off' to NOT to have to share the burden!
11:05 AM on 03/07/2012
A household with a joint income of 43K should be able to make ends meet with ease.
10:57 AM on 03/07/2012
It should be capped on household income, not individual income.
Yes it should be capped, people on super-high wages of 43 k do not NEED the benefit
People on minimum wage DO need it.
10:52 AM on 03/07/2012
grossly unfair why should high income families share the burden of the nations debt.they pay enough taxes already.if they pay like every one else its morally wrong to stop child benefit for these families.its only a %of these high earners bankers etc that created this debt not the ordinary person who strove to work hard for their children only to be penalized now that their income has risen.be like china 2kids anymore you support them.again housing for a family if you have 2 kids anymore you have to look for larger accom;and you pay not demand you be rehoused by the government because you chose to have 6 children;immigrants whether economic/or illegal/llegal from the day they arrive must be told that only if they pay into the system for the 3years will they get child benefit for 2 children.up to the age of 5.and lets see how many will want to stay here or decide not to come over women over here doing unskilled work if they decide to bring their spouces over must be told he must work from day one and declare a salary/tax.not to arrive here,while the wife goes out cleaning and she gets him jobs cash in hand and the next thing you know they building a palace in teir own country.so many things can be done to ease the burden of debt not the way the present government is going about it.
03:09 AM on 03/09/2012
well it might be worth noting that it was some of the richest people that caused the finical problems that we are all paying for! government and bankers
i earn near 17,000 and my gf 10.000 a year thats taxed to hell like every one else andI'm expected to pay all the same bills as every one else, (we had to move back with her parents as we couldnt aford to rent close to work), idon't have kids, but feel low income familiess may deserve this!, but those on on 43,000 each why should i pay them, to have the nice house cat dog car and 4x4, in a posh area, and pension fund?, now i respect that people earnt it, but do they really need my money more than me, but if a low income family is working and needs help i dont mind doing my share! (and i agree that benifits should be only for the british, there are a lot of people using loop holes to get others to pay for it, but its the genuin people that get pushed of the ladder or dont even get a look-in,
10:35 AM on 03/07/2012
Why should anyone on £43,000 get any benefit at all is beyond me. when OAP's sod all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
11:01 AM on 03/07/2012
LOL - my mother is an oap and she is better off now than she has ever been with a disposable income that far outweighs mine!
02:58 PM on 03/07/2012
Mine is better off than me too because she doesn't have a mortgage and gets her fuel subsidy as well as 2 pensions!
03:14 PM on 03/07/2012
Agree ,not all pensioners are as well off as some comments have stated,what some of these people dont realise that pensioners of today did not have flashy houses or cars or holidays,yes they had family allowance this was a means of putting food onthe table and clothes on the backs of children.There were not other benefits that could be claimed.Yes times have moved on but i think people have got greedier today.I Know a couple near me both working still get umpteen benefits.
10:28 AM on 03/07/2012
Incomes of 43000 and moaning,wow,like a lot of people on here with both parents working these high incomes are not reached.There seems to be benefits for this ,that and the other these days.Benefits were not made to be able to pay for child care,paying morgages,holidays or anything else.
Makalha
Opinions are not facts.
10:18 AM on 03/07/2012
It is blatantly unfair to cap the limit per person rather than per household whatever the limit is. A single parent still has many costs that are much the same as two parents. Heating and lighting and probably motgage or rent will be much the same. My daughter, as a single parent who has never claimed any benefits, still has all the basic costs as two parents. She chose to buy a bigger house than she would have needed to be able to have an au-pair live in as that was cheaper in the long run than paying out on other forms of child care as she often is away overnight or for a couple of days . . Yes she has earned good money but has worked extremely hard for it . Her child benefit was always put aside for her son for xmas and holidays and treats . She pays a lot of tax so why should she have to lose the child benefit when a couple can earn nearly double before they lose theirs ?
10:53 AM on 03/07/2012
I agree with you regarding the capping sytem,it should be total income comming into the house.I think again regarding your comment,buying a bigger house and having live in au-pair, that would mean loads of luxury to some people that work just as hard for a lot less.Cannot mums and dads or grandparents help regarding kids,we help out and enjoy it looking after child so as wife next door can work part time and we are only neighbours.
Makalha
Opinions are not facts.
11:29 AM on 03/07/2012
My daughter went without a lot of other things to be able to buy a house etc. A home is not a luxury and an au-pair is actually cheaper in the long term than paying out childminders etc . and it means that my grandson was able to be in his own home and sleep in his own bed if she was away overnight . often grandparents are still working themselves so cannot commit to looking after a child full time ! Now my grandson is older and I am free often do look after him . Hid dad doesn't live near enough to help out on a daily basis but they do see each other regularly and are very close .
03:25 AM on 03/09/2012
not every one has family to be able to Raleigh on! and its sad to say but the community attitude that you seem to have has died in most areas, :-( think the joint cap should used
exsaple 40,000 single and 55000 joint,
10:01 AM on 03/07/2012
I think this is evil and unjustified by making middle class not to pay to charity? Anyone earn this income, they already paying huge amount on tax and these middle class people paying lot to charity already so politicians do not need to tell whole world that they now taking over charity? For centuries it is working class and middle class who been paying to all the known charity in UK so by not paying child benefit to this middle class earners, government taking charity fund away and making poor very poor and under class so there would be more poverty in UK? This is sad.

When politicians says we would help poor by taking income away from middle class earners, they really taking money from poor because it is the working class and middle class who earn this short of salary but they also running all the known charity and paying from their pokcets so from where this money coming from. They have spare and they believe they should do they bit to help the needy so they doing just that. I think politicians are living under ground not with people at all because of this they cannot see who running the country it is not them but the tax payers and those who believe in helping others?
10:11 AM on 03/07/2012
I guess that que at the english language lab was just too long for you, huh?
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
11:07 AM on 03/07/2012
Make a well known phrase or saying out of the following words;
Kettle the calling black pot.
I need say no more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
11:14 AM on 03/07/2012
Let's try that again carpelibertatem:

"I guess that queue at the English language lab was just too long.... etc". It is apparent to me that godchild probably speaks and types English as a second language, whereas with the content of your remark, I think I'm right in stating it is your first, but you would never know it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barbara Longstaff
09:50 AM on 03/07/2012
I agree with you Mr Osborne to a certain extent and I think that both wages should be taken into consideration not just the one, as it is totally unfair on a single person with a child or children to have her benefits stopped because she is just over the limit. Maybe if our Government stopped giving so much money to Overseas Aide then we could afford to support our own people in this country. Charity Mrs Osborne begins at home. Also stop migrant workers claiming benefits also until they have been in this country for 10 years at least.
10:14 AM on 03/07/2012
Politicians have nothing much to do except create scheme while they having tea party and they know they have to tell people we doing something and they like media to know they are in business. it is like this, Conservative government when they were in power they created poll tax and as soon as it came, there were riots, many young people over the age of 18, just disappeared? Later date they winthdraw it costing billions, which were wasted but few good years they spend to make voters happy.

At later date again they created child maintenance scheme by telling people we are chasing dads? God shack they were unemployed and few did try to get away but it costed billions and those who were runing this companies to collect the fund, were all belongs to the politicians where from back side their agents were runing them so many billions were made?

this is how they won few years of their election by making people fools? Again Labour came to power and they too created war game and spent voters money by manipilating their mind that they stopping terrorism so it is bad people game who has politicians as their agents and these agents are there to invent scheme and policies which only benefits to rich and those who are in business of making money?

Who loosing the fund? Tax payers, this is the only way they could robe us all and make country poor and poverty takes over people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barbara Longstaff
10:31 AM on 03/07/2012
It's the Tax Payer who loses every time. England now is classed as a third world country, can you imagine what those brave soldiers would say who died in World War I and II about the state of Britain today. I think most of them would weep and then declare "Was it worth it ".
Makalha
Opinions are not facts.
11:38 AM on 03/07/2012
You seem to have missed the point that it is George Osborne that is proposing that a single parent would have their child benefit stopped at £43K whilst two parents would be able to earn double before losing theirs .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barbara Longstaff
02:21 PM on 03/07/2012
No what I really meant was whoever earns the most in a two paid family then that one is taken and the family do not receive any child benefit.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mickey Mouse 1
There are no lies or deceit on a chess board.
09:06 AM on 03/07/2012
Politicians know that the easiest way of getting votes is to give out the money earned by hard-working people to those who do nothing all day long. They also get votes from giving our money to other countries. The also get votes from offering "free" NHS medical treatment to the rest of the world. They also get votes by opening the immigration floodgates. Etc
04:03 AM on 03/09/2012
im not sure if they do this for vote or just because its easy to give money away when its not yours,
a lot of it if done because they want to look good in Europe,
* so they keetradingng with us
*so they will help us in times of war
*so they will help us in times of finicaluial hard ship,
*or other disaster
but thaven't they noticed French, German europe, dont buy from us,
threat of war they dont want to help
and when it comes to money it costs us
we were the trading empire of the world now Europe says what we can do,
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mickey Mouse 1
There are no lies or deceit on a chess board.
08:23 PM on 03/09/2012
The main business of politicians is to get votes. The political parties want to look good in the eyes of voters so they have marketing departments to advise them on how to improve their image and how to improve the number of votes.