For many families in that 15%, Child Benefit represents the last visible, tangible thing they receive from the state. If they do not send their children to state school, if they use private healthcare, if they pay for their lawyers, drive a car, own their property, and have never claimed welfare, then this may be the only state benefit they have ever received. And put in these terms, they may well feel entitled to it. Of course, it can be argued that they are privileged not to have to rely on state infrastructure not to have to sit on NHS waiting lists or suffer a post-code lottery education.
While it may seem obvious on many levels that of course the government should take money from higher earners in a difficult economic environment - in particular when one of the other political debates raging at the moment is about introducing real-terms benefit cuts for those on the lowest incomes, a move likely to plunge even more children into poverty - it has always struck me as singularly unfair that the only higher earners being asked to pay more are those with children.
ICAEW is worried we are going to see the same operational problems arising that we saw for tax credits - especially for those with fluctuating incomes. We want a simplified tax system that is as clear and efficient as possible. However as you can see from the issues raised, this charge will add considerable complications.
Mum-of-six Sara Agintas weighs a hefty 33 stone, thanks to years of gorging on junk food. But now the 43-year-old, who spends up to £200 a week ...
Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and I have set two tests for George Osborne's budget today. First, will it get our economy moving - delivering the jobs and growth we need to get the deficit down? And second, will it be fair to families on low and middle incomes now bearing the heaviest burden of Osborne's spending cuts and tax rises?