Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Politics and Finance

How to keep your Child Benefit

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 29 October 2012  |  Comments 72 comments

Using these three tricks, top taxpayers can keep the tax-free Child Benefit payment after April 2013!

How to keep your Child Benefit

This week around one million households will receive letters from HM Revenue & Customs about possibly losing Child Benefit.

From 7th January 2013 Child Benefit will be adapted so that households where one adult's income is more than £50,000 in a tax year will face a Child Benefit Charge. For those earning above £60,000, the tax charge is 100% of the amount of Child Benefit. For those earning between £50,000 and £60,000, the charge is 1% of the Child Benefit paid for every £100 of income earned between £50,000 and £60,000.

Here are the current rates of Child Benefit, which have been frozen until April 2014:

Child

Per

week

Per

year

First or eldest

£20.30

£1,055.60

Other child

£13.40

£696.80

Three ways to beat the system

Here are three ways that top taxpayers can legally beat the system and retain this tax-free support for their families in future:

1. Pump up your pension

The simplest way to avoid losing your Child Benefit is to avoid earning more than £50,000 in the first place.

Anyone who can get their income just £1 below whatever that threshold will keep all of their Child Benefit, which could be worth thousands of pounds a year, free of tax.

The easiest way to sneak below the threshold is to pay more into your pension. For example, paying an extra £2,000 a year into a pension could cut your take-home pay by just £1,200, thanks to 40% tax relief on this contribution if you're a higher-rate taxpayer.

What's more, if this additional pension contribution safeguards your Child Benefit, then it could mean thousands of pounds a year in extra income. One other way of achieving this would be to sacrifice part of your salary, in return for higher yearly pension contributions from your employer.

2. Collect childcare vouchers

A second way for higher-rate taxpayers to slip below the threshold is to collect childcare vouchers from employers. By surrendering some of your pay for these tax-free vouchers, you can reduce your taxable income by up to £243 a month, or £2,916 a year.

Alas, since last April, this allowance has been cut to £28 a week for 40% taxpayers and £22 a week for 50% taxpayers (those earning over £150,000 a year). The good news is that existing members of childcare schemes still get the previous tax-free allowance in place before April 2011. So this change affects only new joiners since 6th April 2011.

Grabbing your full allowance of childcare vouchers could drop your pay below the £50,000 threshold.

3. Become a company

My third -- and most radical -- solution to this Child Benefit problem is to start your own private limited company. This can be a highly tax-efficient way to earn a good income while paying minimal amounts of tax.

For example, you could decide to pay yourself a minimal wage (below the thresholds for income tax and National Insurance), all of which would be tax-free. Then, instead of paying yourself any more in salary, you declare and pocket dividends from your company shareholding.

As long as your total income doesn't exceed the £50,000 threshold, then no extra tax is due on these dividends. However, your company will have to pay corporation tax at the 'small profits' rate of 20% on these dividends.

What's more, any dividends above this level attract higher-rate tax at 32.5%, less a notional tax credit of 10%. In effect, this translates to an effective tax rate of 22.5% of the declared dividend or a quarter (25%) of the net dividend in your hand.

Then again, incorporating as a company isn't an option for most employees, as an anti-avoidance rule known as IR35 requires that you prove you are not simply "an employee at arm's length."

In addition, there is a great deal of paperwork required to be a company director, so you may need to pay an accountant to administer your payroll and tax affairs. Even so, this is a very attractive tax route for high-earning consultants, the self-employed and freelancers like me!

This is a lovemoney.com classic article that has been updated

More on tax:

How to copy Starbucks and pay no tax

Beware this tax scam

Eight top tax return tips

Tax havens and tax hells

The true cost of having a company car

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (72)

  • purplespoon
    Love rating 1
    purplespoon said

    Does your pension have to be taken at source by your employer or are contributions into private pensions allowed to count?

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • LiamT
    Love rating 45
    LiamT said

    wow. im staggered.

    average earners like me (sole income from my salary) have had so many things removed. we had to pay for our own anti natal classes, no £500 child bonus etc yet you top earners are always finding ways to screw more cash arent you.

    why should a family taking in more than £40k get child benefits anyway?

    im sick of propping up people who are better off than me.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  15 loves
  • dazzaar
    Love rating 1
    dazzaar said

    Is this based on the mother's income or the fathers income where the parents are not married but living together?

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jl63
    Love rating 6
    jl63 said

    I'm losing this benefit but have always considered it crazy that it is paid in the first place. Not just for middle earners like me but to anyone - why should people get paid a regular income for having chidren.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • russbiker
    Love rating 57
    russbiker said

    Ways to Beat the System item 3: AKA fiddling the system at the expense of employees who can't do this.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • Tumbleweeed
    Love rating 22
    Tumbleweeed said

    LiamT "why should a family taking in more than £40k get child benefits anyway?".

    I totally agree with you, people who earn over £40,000 a year dont need an extra hand out for their children, even more so if there are two incomes. I am a single parent earning £20,000 a year if CB was taken away from me I nor my son would starve or be that much worse off to be honest.

    Seems to me its always the more well off who complain the most about these things!!!

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    As you're no doubt aware, our Government has one huge financial problem

    Exactly, Cliff, and one of the main reasons for this is tax dodging by top earners. Legal or not, and it's often not, it stinks.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  9 loves
  • suet27
    Love rating 0
    suet27 said

    So a stay at home Mum, who has no income, but with a father paying the 40% tax, will I still lose my benefit. Can anyone answer this.

    It's a difficult situation, as we are used to receiving this money, one lives with ones means, but then is this money is then taken away, it could put any family beyond their budgets.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    Can we look forward to future articles by Cliff Limited or will it be Cliff Plc? No, I don't want to buy shares!

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • paulld18
    Love rating 5
    paulld18 said

    Sorry but I've got to agree with the bulk of the comments so far. Legal it might be, but ethically or morally right? Overall a rather hypocritical article, although the 'tricks' suggested are not open to all - thankfully

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • xland
    Love rating 12
    xland said

    Cliff you seem to be EXACTLY the wormy type of self serving individual that got the nation into this scenario whereby we feel the to need start taking Child Benefit away from genuine cases. Your advice is possibly useable but morally repugnant. I wonder how much you earn by Freelancing/freeloading?

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  7 loves
  • kast63
    Love rating 5
    kast63 said

    I agree with LiamT and Tumbleweed! I'm a divorced, single, working mum and without Child Benefit I wouldn't be able to save for holidays, especially now as the cost of living is even higher! When I was with my husband we were in the higher bracket and the child benefit money was really insignificant. Some people can be a bit greedy I think.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • vorwerk
    Love rating 2
    vorwerk said

    Its your own children and grand children you are takeing this money from in the end.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • bubu2000
    Love rating 14
    bubu2000 said

    I wonder, in Cliff's worldview, how wealthy someone needs to be before they lose their sense of entitlement? Is this how the rich carry on?

    I thought Child benefit was invented to help those who were struggling to feed their children, not pay for holidays, etc. Cliff, are you struggling to feed your children? Thought not. Shame on you.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  9 loves
  • legstra
    Love rating 3
    legstra said

    Your wife does not stand to lose more than 3k a year. She stands to lose 1.7k a year. She would need to earn an additional 3k a year to "break even" and cover the loss of benefit.

    Not only have you misrepresented the facts to stress how hard done by the D'Arcy family are, you have clearly misjudged the mood of most readers here for whom child benefit makes a real difference to their standard of living. While the "income manipulation" you suggest is obviously entirely legal, I think an apology is in order for this article.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • dazzaar
    Love rating 1
    dazzaar said

    blimey this is an emotional subject. I personally sit on the cusp of getting or not getting the benefit. but the benefit is not for me it is for my children. I save it in child trust funds for them,. adding a little to the younger ones to keep things even. I hope that they will use it sensibly when they are old enough to take charge of their funds.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bengilda
    Love rating 80
    bengilda said

    This shows how a welfare payment introduced to help provide for a family to keep a child from poverty has turned into an inalienable right, regardless of need. A matter of greed not need!!!

    While those at present in receipt of this welfare handout will doubtless demand they keep the taxpayers largesse, it is very obvious to me that other welfare handouts and benefits have since been introduced and have overtaken the need for a universal Child Benefit.

    As the average working person's wage is under £20k and Child Allowance could well be integrated into working tax credits for those that actually have a financial need.

    But the demand for tax payer handouts should be very tempered by "NEED NOT GREED" - in other words, if you have Sky movies and Sky Sports you don't need welfare benefits.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  7 loves
  • xland
    Love rating 12
    xland said

    Perfectly put bengilda!

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 274
    oldhenry said

    I notice in this week's Private Eye that the HMRC has paid amounts to 'employees' that use the offshore company route to avoid taxation. So if it good for them it is good for all of us.

    But of course in the hypocritical world of our governmnet you do as you are told not do as they do.

    So good luck to all that create companies to avoid our punitive tax system. After all the tax you would have paid would only have been given to some tin pot dictator that has a bigger armey than ours, but might get Cameran another friend

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • xland
    Love rating 12
    xland said

    dazzar-

    And thats (and youre) the problem!! Its not a freebie trust fund for your kids, its only to help you totter on without going under financially because children cost money, youre meant to either need it enough to use it or lose it if you dont. No ifs or buts, its not free money youre the in same boat as Cliff. You clearly dont NEED it because as you openly state here- you top the younger ones up! Give it back.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 130
    nosbort said

    Just to set the record straight, the child benefit was introduced for second and subsequent children as an encouragement to breed in the years after the war, it was later (in the 70s) extended to include first children at a time when breeding extra people was already a stupid idea. It is no longer necessary to encourage people to fill up our overcrowded islands and CB should be scrapped altogether. If you can't afford to pay for the children spend a small amount on condoms (or get them free).

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • kitwedigger
    Love rating 4
    kitwedigger said

    The whole system is a scandal.

    People should be paying for the privilege of having children, not being paid to overcrowd the infrastructure even further. This thing the Govt. have about there not being sufficient numbers in the future workforce just does not stack up with reality.

    If you must be greedy with a large salary and wanting more then I suggest you keep quiet about it as others might not see your point.

    The child benefit fiasco is another bodge by the Treasury and their pals who haven't been able to suss out a simple solution on their abacus & rely on complex models that they scarcely understand.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 373
    CuNNaXXa said

    It would probably be a better idea to do away with child benefit, then use the money saved to increase the personal allowance, which will help the poorest of the poor.

    Also, I don't see why the state should reward someone for getting pregnant. Having children should be a personal choice, and not a financial one. Too many single mothers, often in their teens, see getting pregnant as a way to easy street, what with social housing and benefits that often exceed what working parents can get.

    The social system was set up to help those who needed help the most, but it has become so corrupt that it actually helps those who do not need help, or those who play the system, more than it does to help the original intended audience.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • laplennerie
    Love rating 20
    laplennerie said

    I thought child allowance was bought in after the war to boost population by giving mothers a helping hand. As the UK is now over populated the benefit is now defunct - scrap it.

    TB

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    @suet27, yes, you will lose it. That's been the biggest criticism of this proposed measure, ie a couple could have a joint income of £80K and still get it but a family like yours will lose it. Not exactly encouraging mothers to be full time is it? The reason for this is also a money-saving one, ie anything needing extra administration would cost a lot more than simply taking it from people in the higher tax bracket.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • philipwalduck
    Love rating 3
    philipwalduck said

    one thing about the removal of child benefit for high earners that i dont think has been considered is what happens if the current recipient is in receipt of child maintenance and as the payment of child benefit is one of the criteria for a Child Maintenance case remaining open?

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • blueeyes
    Love rating 1
    blueeyes said

    Shame on you,Cliff D'arcy! How wealthy someone needs to be before they lose their sense of entitlement? I really hope that child benefit money would not bring your family any happiness as well as extra expensess for all the MP's in this country!

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • pocketmoney
    Love rating 2
    pocketmoney said

    Really good point philipwalduck, not seen any comment on this anywhere, not even on the various mum sites. Can anyone enlighten us on this issue?

    We are currently being crucified by those delightful people at the CSA which fortunately ends this summer but only because the teenager we pay for will start claiming her own child benefit (the perpetual cycle of children learning that the 'handouts' system offered by pregnancy beats working or getting an education)

    Anyway, had her (useless) mother been a high tax earner (instead of a waster) I wonder where this would have left us if the cuts had been brought in earlier. We are currently fighting ( a losing battle) to prove she has already dropped out of college and that 'mum' shouldn't be receiving child benefit, more taxpayers money down the drain!

    Rant over

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • chrisfez
    Love rating 7
    chrisfez said

    Hang on a sec, there’s a load of lefty nonsense being peddled in some of the comments on this article. Not all families with one 40% tax payer are loaded by any stretch of the imagination.

    If it is to be scrapped for higher earners it needs to apply across joint incomes, it isn't fair that a single income parent on say 43k loses this, but a joint income family of 80k (40 each) keep it, it's grossly unfair in fact.

    I'm a 40% tax payer with a young child, I earn good money but I worked like a dog to get there. I worked in some dire jobs to fund & gain A levels, I worked even more dire jobs & took on a huge debt to get a degree. I did a vocational degree and got a job. I worked 60+ hr weeks to climb the ranks & get a decent salary. I have paid back my debt, saved a deposit for a tiny 2 bed house, with a huge mortgage because housing is insanely priced. The interest rate on my mortgage is outrageous because my deposit was 'only' 10 percent. Whilst I was trying to sort a good start in life, mismanagement ruined the economy & sent house prices soaring and then mortgages became insanely overpriced for first time buyers like me, high salary or not.

    I contribute a decent amount of tax, I have never claimed any benefits until having a child, I’m lucky to have private health cover for my family from my employer (paying extra tax for the privilege) so use the NHS as little as possible. I am far from being 'well off', as an example I don’t have sky or other similar luxuries.

    My partner works for the NHS helping to save lives, people that save lives are very damn important but most get paid peanuts. She earns less than the cost of the childcare that enables us to go to work, but she loves what she does so in effect I subsidise that job as well.

    So, why the f*ck shouldn't I be able to claim 80 quid a month from the tax pot to help look after my child, when the couple next door earning collectively more than we do will carry on receiving it? This smarts even more when I look at my payslip to see I pay over 2k a month in tax.

    If its going to become a 'Poverty' benefit again then it needs to be made just so, no one with a collective income over 25k gets it. That’s absolutely right & fair

    Anything else is a joke and I for one will put more cash into a pension as Cliff suggests, so that I am still entitled to claim. If the system isn't fair then why shouldn't I find a perfectly legitimate way of avoiding this loss?

    Heres an idea. I understand that a 'full sky package' costs over 80 quid a month, maybe anyone with kids that has Sky should lose the benefit, they clearly have money to burn, or you could conclude that they are paying for Sky TV with their child benefit. Im sure there are plenty of lower rate taxpayers out there with Sky TV..... Maybe they shoudn't be penalised for having & wanting this luxury , maybe 40% earners shouldnt be penalised for earning higher salaries?

    There’s having a balanced society where the higher earners pay more to help lower earners & then there's discouraging high achievers because the state gives jack all back or taxes the hell out of you.

    Might as well quit and go on one of the myriad of state benefits available I think....

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  7 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 310
    Iamcoldsteve said

    I am also one of those who will lose out on child benefit. I couldn't put enough into my pension to get below the threshold, and don't need childcare vouchers. My wife has a very part time job, that she loves. We don't need the money she earns, but she really does love doing it, and it keeps her sane.

    As has been the main criticism of this idea, I completely agree that it should be based on joint income. Even if we still fail this test, at least it is fair.

    BUT, yet again, the decently paid pay more as a percentage of their pay and lose other benefits too.

    I have no problem paying my fair share, but resent paying more than it. Maybe we should introduce a properly flat tax system and abolish benefits. The more you earn, the more you pay, but the same percentage is paid. The more you earn, the more you have. Simple. This encourages hard work, self betterment and improvement.

    Report on 08 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • dacamper
    Love rating 1
    dacamper said

    You can also buy shares in your company in a government-approved tax free scheme, which comes out of your pre-tax salary. Then keep them for 5 years and sell them and potentially pay Capital Gains Tax on the increase in their value, rather than income tax. Thus such shares won't mess with your tax code (if I am right). Thus also using the tax dodge that CGT is charged on shares rather than income tax, lovely (for the rich that is).

    Of course you risk the share value going down, but such is life with shares.

    Do you actually know that the government will just look at who pays 40% tax, or do a gross salary comparison, so whoever is paid above 42k will lose CB, irrespective of deductions?

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sqnldrjimbo
    Love rating 3
    sqnldrjimbo said

    I am just sick to death of unnecessary handouts, fullstop. If you want to have children then you should be able to afford them, if not then use a condom!

    We are happy to always blame the bankers, etc for the financial wreck that this country is in; does no one else take any responsibility? No one over-borrowed, or had too much credit on half-a-dozen credit cards? No one remortgaged their house to buy a flash car or a holiday?

    Let's stop expecting the country to keep on providing endless handouts - let's take some responsibility ourselves. In my opinion child benefit is wrong and should not exist, but whilst it's there with certain rules we should not be looking for ways to beat the system. It just means less money for something else and the country in debt for longer.

    I lost my job through a disability and get a small pension. I could almost double that with state handouts - but I don't; because I have enough money to live off and would feel wrong claiming more. What would I spend it on? Flash flat screen TV's in every bedroom, a second holiday every year or a new car every few years? No, I couldn't sleep at night; I'd rather that money went into the NHS so that in years to come if I really need care the country will be able to afford to help.

    It's time for people to stop wanting handouts - they should be there for the truly needy who cannot get by without help. Handouts should not be there so that families can have designer clothes and bigger houses, they should be there to improve the lives of those who have fallen on bad times through no fault of their own.

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • moneyworried
    Love rating 4
    moneyworried said

    My husbands income is just into the 40% bracket however around £4,000 of this is not real money; it is a company car which he has to have due to the nature of his work.

    I have a very part time job, low paid job

    We will lose the child benefitfor our 4 children which is worth just over £3K tax free. This is going to bring huge hardship to our family. We re seriously considering that my husband should reduce his hours to 4 days a week to bring him under the 40% tax bracket and we would be no worse off because we keep the child benefit. In addition the goverment would lose out on the tax he is paying on the earnings he no longer earns.

    How mad is this policy that penalises families unfairly. I know the country needs to make savings but it needs to be done fairly and encourage people to work!

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • richm
    Love rating 4
    richm said

    why does anyone who pays 40% tax need child benefit??

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • kittzy
    Love rating 32
    kittzy said

    I am gob smacked, to even suggest edging down your salary just so you can cash in and keep the benefit which in my opinion should never be paid in the first place is just beyond me.

    I had an accident and can't work, my husband earns a mere 33K before tax, i receive the benefit, and would miss it but still dont think anyone should be paid to have kids.

    No wonder the world is in such a mess. No wonder we have a few generations of professional baby hatchers.

    All benefits should be paid to the people who are in dire need, not the people who would have to decide if they can afford the caribbean or spain for gods sake.

    Am i a grouch, possibly.

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • cloo
    Love rating 2
    cloo said

    Hang on - I thought child benefit was being taken away if either one of a couple was a higher rate taxpayer? Hence we would lose it, even though my husband's not that high above the threshold. I'm sure that's what I've heard and I've seen lots of complaints about unfairness because a couple with one member just over the 40% threshold would lose it, whereas a couple earning more collectively but both under that would keep it. Child benefit is paid to me and I'm under the threshold - it would be great if we could keep it in 2013, but I assumed we couldn't. Can someone clarify?

    And for those people asking why anyone on 40% might need it - uhm, mortgage and childcare costs in London, for example? I'd have liked to have had my kids closer together, but didn't because two lots of childcare concurrently would amount to about 150% of my net salary.

    I'd be totally, utterly happy to lose child benefit once my kids start school - a lot of households that you'd assume are in clover could actually really do with it for the years when childcare may eat 30% or even more of their net income. I reckon the govt would do better to make it universal until 5 years and then drop it for households like ours.

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • jhdore
    Love rating 0
    jhdore said

    Cloo -

    Yes, it's being taken away if only one partner is a higer-rate taxpayer, hence the ridiculous situation of a family on around £40k income losing it, but one with two partners earning just under that keeping it. Ridiculous. I think your proposal about it being universal until aged 5 and then means testing is a great one. Child care certainly accounts for about a third of our monthly income at the moment, and that's with only one child at nursery. Before our eldest went to school it was over half.

    People might argue that childcare is a luxury, and that one person should stay at home to look after the kids... Yeah, way to bring everyone down to the same level and disadvantage the kids. My partner needs to work for sanity and to feel like something other than a parent (actually a teacher, so contributing rather more than just taxes too) but if we lose the Child Benefit, that may have to be curtailed, losing the country another very well qualified and committed teacher, tax income and paying out in whatever the dole is called nowadays. All because I earn slightly over the higher rate tax threshold. Dumb.

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    @jhdore, could you explain how staying at home to look after your children disadvantages them? Genuine question, not in any way facetious.

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • greasly23
    Love rating 0
    greasly23 said

    I would just like to advise that people take proper finacial advice before following any of the recommendations in this article, as there is several errors.

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • lexipops
    Love rating 3
    lexipops said

    I am not affected by this thankfully . Yes I live on benefits and rely on the child benefit I receive . The situation i'm in was in no way my fault . Ex husband had affair disappeared to Dubai (outside agreement for csa so cannot chase him for maintenance) . Have disabled son . I live on income support , carers allowance receive contribution to mortgage interest and the child benefit for my 2 children . 10 years ago I had a fantastic job in London and a good lifestyle . I worked hard studied hard travelled the world and had never claimed benefits until the last 2 years . We were mortgage free 2 decent salaries coming in etc etc . I am disgusted with this article . I agree child benefit should be means tested although I think they should take only joint income above £55K . Its a tricky area as the cost of living is so variable based on where you live and work . I am trying my best to improve our family income i'm studying an OU course part time . I hate relying on the state for my income but that's the way it is for now . Anyone who tries to fiddle the system by adding to their pension pot is just plain GREEDY !! Maybe its time to cut the tax benefits in personal pensions . I'm sure my expat ex husband is still claiming his (I wonder if HMRC know ???)....

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • goodguyuk1uk
    Love rating 1
    goodguyuk1uk said

    bitter?

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • jilly duck
    Love rating 6
    jilly duck said

    it never ceases to amaze me how this country manages to blur morality lines between the haves and the the have nots. Is there such a difference as legal, educated and monied fiddling and any other kind?

    Well yes, the difference in perception for one thing. If you are disadvantaged you are a cheat and a scrounger but if you are well off you are a damned clever fellow.

    no axe to grind one way or the other by the way, not well off but not on benefits either.

    Oh, and I'm not bitter.

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Karen1980
    Love rating 5
    Karen1980 said

    I have to say that many people and I have experience of this first hand as a 'friend' that was benefits had sky on demand, free rent not in council but private rent, home phone, newish car and even had the cheek to complain that they didn't get the kitchen decorated when they moved in- how did she get all this by having a child and the dad not being there. Do I have a newish car? No. Do I have a home phone or broadband No. I work my backside off for less than she has so where is the incentive?

    I think like peoples complaints of 'Rich' people being greedy there are too many 'Poor' people on benefits that work the system. She went back to work when she was about to lose her benefits yet if I want children I'll have to rely on my husband to suppirt us. I'm sick of paying taxes for people that are irresponsible and get to live a better life than me.

    Report on 09 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • jhdore
    Love rating 0
    jhdore said

    @isobelsgrandma - we (principally my partner, but I'm in complete agreement) think that our kids get more opportunities to socialise with lots of different kids, and learn more about structure in a different environment than they would staying at home. Since we're both fairly geeky and have a smaller circle of friends than perhaps others do, we're aware of the limiting nature of this and don't want to saddle our kids with being nerdy outcasts from the start!

    It's reaped dividends with the eldest, as she's jumped into primary school with both feet and is doing really well, and also knows that some people she'll be friends with, some she won't, some people will be nice, some won't - and that that's ok, becuase she's got a good grasp of how to deal with that. I don't think skills like that would have been learned so well if she'd been at home 24/7. Neither of us have parents close by that can lend a hand, so we're basically on our own - no free childcare for us at all!

    It's paying double dividends with our youngest, as she's learning all that from going to Nursery /and/ from big sister too.

    Also, they're not solely in my partner's company all week which would reduce them all to screaming angry monsters by Tuesday afternoon. They all have separate space to go into, and come back home from, which I think is very very important for sanity development.

    We look likely to lose that when our CB is cut. I'm not sure where we can trim trim the "fat" otherwise.

    Report on 10 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • erin2010
    Love rating 4
    erin2010 said

    Wow, a lot of feelings running high about this......so for my 2 penneth worth!

    I am £50 per annum into the 40% band. Am a single mother to a beautiful 18 month old who has to, to allow me to work, go to nursery full time which costs over £1000 per month. I get nothing from teh father etc etc....so I am stretched and would be better off if I didn't work and would certainly have more disposable income...

    Anyway, enough of my background. Have a child was my CHOICE! I work bloody hard to support her, expect nothing from anyone to help me, she is my responsibility and I am very proud that I can do this for her, single handedly.

    I do recieve child benefit, which comes very much in handy, not for nice stuff or a new car, but to assist with her nursery fees. BTW I do not have sky, I don't have home broadband, I don't have holidays, I buy NOTHING for myself except for suits for work....it's all for her!

    Cut the child benefit. It is a benefit, but cut it for everyone.....why should anybody have it?

    Why should anyone have money for their children that they brought into the world. Surely you should earn it?

    I have worked since my daughter was 2 days old, full time. It's what I had to do, couldnt afford not too. Yes I feel like a bad mum, but I chose to work and not claim benefits.

    Why is it ok for 2 people to work earning average salaries of £20k each to get it (plus the bonus of having 2 personal tax allowances), but not me?

    So if it's going to be cut, stop it all! There should be no discrimination and you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to raise them without being supported by benefits......they are a benefit, not an entitlement, or at least they should be!

    Report on 10 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 310
    Iamcoldsteve said

    erin2010

    Simply a tiny more into your pension, the you will below the 40% band and not have CB removed. - item 1 in the main article.

    Report on 10 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • erin2010
    Love rating 4
    erin2010 said

    Thanks lamcoldsteve

    There are ways for me, which I intend doing but just making a point I guess, and incidentally haven't set up pension previously as I couldn't afford it, but at least this will force me to do that!

    Report on 10 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    @jhdore, thanks for the explanation but I was a stay-at-home mum and so are the two of my three daughters who have children so they obviously don't feel that they were disadvantaged by having a stay-at-home mum. My daughters went to mother and toddler club with me and playgroup on their own as have my grandchildren. The difference is that they have their mum on hand full-time, caring for them, seeing their first steps etc. Both my daughters will admit that being a full-time mum is much harder than they had imagined but it was a conscious choice that they both made and, of course, they were fortunate to be in a position to do so. Neither is well off, both are educated beyond 18 and are prepared to accept a lower standard of living in order to look after their pre-school offspring, as I did. I am in no way making a judgment about working mothers and I applaud your partner for admitting that she needs to work to maintain her sanity as so many suggest that it's for economical reasons alone, however I must take issue with your suggestion that children of stay-at-home mothers are in any way disadvantaged. They are hugely advantaged and it infuriates me that successive governments seem intent on making that ideal situation as difficult as possible. I feel really sorry for today's young women who are made to feel that being a mother in itself is not enough. If you are a mother, especially of young children, who has to run a home and hold down a full-time job something has to go. You simply can't do all of those things properly.

    Report on 10 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • chaz123
    Love rating 3
    chaz123 said

    Cliff, thank you for this article. I just about hit the 40K mark on my earnings. I have never been out of work and thankfully never had to lean on the tax payer to support me. The one one and only thing I have ever received from the government by way of a benefit has been child benefit. I have 3 children and work full time. We pay 300 pound a month for child care . The child benefit we currently receive helps a little towards our huge childcare costs to enable me to go out to work thus supporting those less fortunate by way of my taxes and helping generate employment by using a child care provider. For all those who believe anyone earning 40k+ should not be entitled to a small benefit from the government which aids them to go out to work to pay for all those who can't be bothered.. Shame on you

    Report on 10 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • colcass
    Love rating 1
    colcass said

    Jealous lefties most of the posters on here. Why do people always think if you earn more than the average wage then you are loaded? I nip into the 40% tax bracket due to performance bonuses. But what you don't see is the £100 a day cost of nursery fees for 2 kids. A significant spend on fuel each month to get to work, a large mortgage as I choose to live in an area of workers, rather than benefit dependant households. I could go on, but your blinkers would have narrowed too much already.

    Report on 11 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    @colcass, you don't have to be jealous or left of centre to imagine that someone earning twice as much as you doesn't need child benefit. We all have outgoings.

    Report on 11 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • chaz123
    Love rating 3
    chaz123 said

    Even if almost half ot that money goes out on childcare to enable you to work in the first place? Why do you believe I do not need child benefit ? P

    Report on 12 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 373
    CuNNaXXa said

    I should point out to those not paying the 40% tax, and those who do, that every single person who earns will live to the standard that their earning allow them.

    The old adage, 'You can never earn enough!', is so true. I have known people who have received a hefty pay rise to complain that, 'It's not enough!', while on the flip side, I had a friend who's husband lost his job, and they managed on her measly pay packet.

    It doesn't matter how little or how much you earn, you get by. Obviously there is a point where earnings drop so low that it actually becomes impossible to live properly, but that aside, people live to their means.

    Report on 12 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    @CuNNaXXa has it in a nutshell.

    I'm not sure, @chaz123, if you are addressing your comment to me so I'm assuming that you are as it comes immediately after my post. I haven't suggested that you don't need CB. I was merely addressing the outrageous suggestion (not yours) that just because someone thinks you don't they must be jealous or a "leftie". However while I'm on the subject, I should think that any of the many people out there who are desperately seeking work would find your own suggestion that they can't be bothered pretty outrageous and how is £300 per month half your earnings if you just about hit the £40K mark?

    Report on 12 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Karen1980
    Love rating 5
    Karen1980 said

    isobelsgrandma My point was generally unless you are on benefits you cannot afford to be a stay at home mum.

    I'd love to be a stay at home mum and have so far put of of having children as financially we cannot afford it but how is it fair that my 'friend' has a 5 year old that the government paid for her to stay at home with when i have to put it off or hope my parents can look after my child while I work.. before anyone assumes I have a wild extravagant life I dont I just happen to live inside the M25 not even london but things are expensive and no I didnt move here out of choice ive been here all my life and its where i can get work

    Report on 12 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • aldont
    Love rating 0
    aldont said

    Not managed to read all comments, however has anyone thought about the position where you have the local tradesman (or any other cash jobber) who we all know is earning a packet but declaring nothing. So we all know these people who have huge houses huge cars etc etc but everything is paid in cash so the taxman is only told they earn very little. Guess what, these people have in fact retained the family tax credit, which to be honest was a windfall to most of us, but they are still getting it and surprise surprise they will now also retain the Child benefit while most middle income earners will lose it. One of the biggest blights on this society these days are those people who make a living in cash and declare nothing but are the first to complain about roads, tax, immigrants etc etc but pay absolutely nothing themselves. So while we all pay these guys in cash to save us a couple of quid we should be thinking, is this right??

    This does not even go on to mention those who are in the same boat above but who also dont register for VAT and therefore undercut the legitimate tradesman by 20% every time they decorate a house or instal a kitchen. By the way I am not talking about the hard working guys who do the odd bit on the side, I am talking about the large numbers out there who are very wealthy but laugh at all the others who pay their share of tax. They are as bad as the super rich who seem to think they should not contribute to society, the world really is becoming an unfair place, but it is up to us all to stop these people who are taking us all for a ride!!!!

    Report on 12 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    @Karen1980, you have my sympathy but most people afford children somehow even if it means working part-time. There are one or two posts on here suggesting that you shouldn't have children unless you can afford them but life's rarely that simple. As I said in an earlier post, you have to accept a lower standard of living and most people can cut down in certain areas if they really try. Don't forget that, unless your husband is in the 40% tax bracket, you will get child benefit!

    Report on 13 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • chaz123
    Love rating 3
    chaz123 said

    @isobelsgrandma. 300pound per week my apologies. 1200 per month this is just over half my earnings.

    Report on 13 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jennyf
    Love rating 1
    jennyf said

    My husband and myself have worked very hard for years and I used my child benefit for my children's shoes, clothes etc. Why isn't the Government tackling the lazy people of the UK. We have in our family (to my shame) a male who is 26 and does absolutely nothing (along with his lazy girlfriend) except go and collect his jobseeker's allowance and save it up to go on little holidays together (usually Germany) and delight in telling everybody how good their holiday was. If he was my son I wouldn't even feed him unless he bucked his ideas up. People like him should at the very least be made to volunteer and do something useful for the community not get paid for doing nothing.

    Report on 13 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    @jennyf, presumably he's living rent-free at home. When my daughter's fiance was made redundant and claimed jobseeker's allowance (of around £60 per week) he was required to provide evidence of application for at least 3 jobs a week. As you say, his parents ought to expect more but his jobcentre must be a lot laxer than others. We can't go back to a society where people become destitute for lack of a job but there will always be the few who abuse the system.

    Report on 14 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 373
    CuNNaXXa said

    Contrary to what the government says about benefit cheats, they are not interested in the slightest about catching them.

    While the government love spending millions on advertising campaigns telling us how much they are clamping down on these cheats, the reality of the situation is that they just cannot be bothered.

    To state my claim, my uncle and aunt have been cheating the system for the last 25 years. They have pulled every stunt possible, and have managed to pay off their mortgage, and purchased numerous brand new cars. They even managed to raise a significant deposit for their eldest son to purchase his own house. All this was done on Social...

    My mother has repeatedly reported them to the Benefits Fraud people, but they just aren't interested, writing it off as sibling rivalry, even though my mother is in her 60's.

    In fact, I honestly believe the more dishonest you are, the more you get away with. Why is it that someone who tries their luck once gets caught red handed, yet there are die-hard people who cheat their prescription charges, claim for everything possible, including things that they are not entitled to, and never get challenged?

    When I signed on the Dole, after working for 29 years non stop, the official tried to make me feel guilty for being a burden on the state. How dare I even claim benefit! I mean, why pay NI contributions and Tax, if I am not allowed to claim when I need to... After all, if I make a genuine claim, it deprives some scum-bag who hasn't worked, and who doesn't want to work, and who thinks that they entitled to live the life of Riley.

    In this life, I have discovered that the hardest hit are always the most honest, with the most dishonest thriving regardless.

    After all, watching Cowboy Builders is a real eye opener. Why is it that genuine tradesmen are suffering because of this recession, yet the cowboys are still charging £60,000 for a job, then walking away with a pocket full of notes?

    Report on 14 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Mubs
    Love rating 0
    Mubs said

    CuNNaXXa. I am sure that those that cheat the system lose out elsewhere, whether its their family, job, house, etc. If they are not caught out in this world they will most certainly get caught in the next world.

    Honest people although may seem to be hardest hit, but in reality will be more satisfied, content and guilt free.

    Rather then envy people that have made their wealth by abusing the system, we should pity them.

    Report on 14 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jaynek
    Love rating 0
    jaynek said

    There are some inaccuracies in your article. Child Benefit will not be withdrawn from anyone, and it is not becoming a means tested benefit. Means tested benefits carry capital rules (e.g. income support and housing benefit), and child benefit will continue to have no capital rule. It is not higher rate tax payers per se who will be affected, only those who have a taxable income of above £50,000. It is not child benefit which will be reduced; instead, there will be an income tax charge levied on the higher earner, which will partly or wholly negate the effect of receiving child benefit. The total negation happens when the taxable income hits £60k. Parents will have the option of continuing to receive child benefit and taking the tax consequences, or giving up child benefit. If there is one working parent and one non-working parent, it's often better for the non-working parent to continue to receive child benefit, as they then are assured of receiving a Class 3 NI credit towards their pension etc.

    I think it's essential that people do not start to think that their CB is going to be removed, and that all higher rate taxpayers will be affected, as this is simply not true.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • John Fitzsimons
    Love rating 30
    John Fitzsimons said

    Hi Jaynek

    Those mistakes were mine - I didn't update the original article properly

    John

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mosicle
    Love rating 19
    mosicle said

    My son in law earns over the limit for Child Benefit. My daughter does not work at all, as she looks after the children. They are going to lose the CB one way or another. If my daughter worked as his housekeeper/childminder, as a business and he paid her, would she still be able to receive CB legitimately??

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • muira
    Love rating 30
    muira said

    good old goverment!!..leaving loopholes to be exploited,causing mayhem..confusion..

    these are the ones in the 40% tax bracket,making the rules,complicating matters..

    university was certainly wasted on them..

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • pants
    Love rating 1
    pants said

    I don't actually have a problem this benefit being removed as I understand the country needs to make savings. I am actually due to loose it but my neighbour with a joint income of £80k will retain as both are under the threshold. This is the massive unfairness and why this approach is really targeting single income families. They would be best to simply remove the benefit in totality and then perhaps allow the poorest in society to claim additional benefits instead

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • ronosborne1955
    Love rating 0
    ronosborne1955 said

    Hi,

    As this is in the news I would like to ask about child benefit and living overseas. I am a British citizen and moved to Chile 18 months ago with my wife and kids and of course our child benfit stopped immediately, and I mean immediately.

    My initial question is why can I not still receive it, I have 2 children 4 and 7 years old who are British.

    Reason for asking is I am still taxed on my income by the Inland Revenue back in the UK, this is fine for me because my income is paid from the UK, makes sense, cannot alter that because I am still a recognised earner in the UK despite living in Chile.

    So what I am saying is why do I have to pay tax if I am not intitled to Child benefit and on top of that Child Tax Credits.

    And before anyone asks I am not employed by the British Embassy or any other company related to the UK, I receive a Civil Service Pension as I was made redundant.

    We moved to Chile to be near my wifes parents who are very old now and need caring for.

    One thing I have thought of doing is going to the Human Rights Organisation or the European Court of Law to see what they think and whether I should take it any further.

    I would like peoples thoughts on this.

    One other thing is that it is a lot different over here in Chile, you have to pay for schooling, doctors,dentists and any other health department especially for the children.

    That includes appointments which on average is about 20 pounds per child, prescriptions,vaccines which are very expensive.

    So for me this all adds up very quickly and very expensive.

    Look forward to your thoughts and hopefully some helpful advice.

    Thanks in advance

    Ronald

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tes
    Love rating 5
    Tes said

    So we can afford to give a BENEFIT to couples on joint earnings of £80K, but the first £2500 of an earnings drop for a couple earning £15K BETWEEN THEM, gets ignored when it comes to Working Tax Credit.

    Still I guess the poor have always been poor so what does even less for them to manage on matter, especially when votes have to be bought off couples, who in comparison, are comfortably off. Of course they need to be allowed to continue living in the way they've become accustomed to.

    I await the howls of derision.

    Report on 30 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • monicagunn
    Love rating 1
    monicagunn said

    Government welfare programs created to buy the votes of those who want someone to take care of them?

    Japan does not have a welfare system.

    Work for it or do without. If you cannot afford then don't have.

    These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

    Report on 05 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • peter48
    Love rating 4
    peter48 said

    A trouble with a lot of comments here & the last one is a classic fallacy- is that the population is divisible into two groups. It is not. Stop reading the Daily Mail Tory propaganda anyone from bankers to council cleaners can be made redundant at any time, can suffer serious car accidents , can loose their wealthier partner, can get a serious severe illness , can not keep up the mortgage payments because the firm goes bust or live in area of very few jobs. Welfare and benefits are there to assist citizens when they hit serious hardship and often for most of us we have paid years and years and years of NI contributions and Income tax. We want the welfare state there like other Europeans- if you do not like our system bog off try America and food stamps , or the far East without any social help or South America or India. The Tory party are trying to make you forget this so they can the kick poor without protests.

    Report on 05 December 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ajrr1
    Love rating 11
    ajrr1 said

    LiamT: you may wish to reword your comments. It is rather insulting & ignorant to suggest everyone earning over £40k a year is being "propped up" by those earning less.

    I earn over £40k. I am the sole earner in household because my wife cannot earn enough to pay the additional childcare costs if she goes to work. Child benefit is the only benefit we receive, and we would gladly hand it back if we could find a way to make it pay for my wife to go back to work.

    I am required by my employer to live within a certain distance of work, meaning our costs are high. I can assure you we are not being "propped up".

    I cannot remember the last time we went on holiday and we have no luxuries (no Sky TV - strange how lower earners who you allege are "propping me up" can afford this).

    Please don't assume everyone's circumstances are the same. In our circumstances £40k a year barely even pays our bills (and we are very frugal and careful with money, our mortgage is our only debt).

    You probably don't believe this, but our situation is extremely common.

    I also know plenty of couples who earn less than £40k a year but are significantly better off than us because of the benefits they receive. In what way are they propping me up?

    Don't get me wrong. I am not expecting handouts or to be "propped up" more than I am already with the fabulous amount of money we receive in child benefit. I merely want you to recognise that £40k a year does not make necessarily make someone wealthy, and that you should never tar everyone with the same brush.

    Report on 04 January 2013  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (2.98% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.9% to 2.98% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (2.47% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.5% to 2.47% (T&Cs apply)

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2