George Osborne's withdrawal of child benefit from "higher income" families is front-page news today – with good reason. It will affect 1.2 million families. Its simplistic (rather than means-tested) design creates situations in which two-earner families making £86K a year will keep their benefits while a single earner making more than £44K will lose it. (It's based on an individual's income, not household income.) It also saves £1bn for the government coffers at a time when every penny counts.
Already the policy has prompted an immediate outcry that makes you wonder whether these changes will be implemented at all. The Conservative children's minister Tim Loughton has said the plan might need revising. A thinktank said the cuts could "seriously distort" work incentives. Osborne aides have stressed that no final decisions about the cuts had been taken. Even David Cameron has said he will "listen" to those urging a review of the cuts (although the Guardian coverage speculated that he was saying this only to be polite and has no intention of revising it).
Let's face it, in this economy there will have to be hard decisions and painful choices. Is this one of the ones we just need suck up? Or is it asking too much of a segment of society that's already seen their support vanish?
Polly Toynbee in today's Guardian writes:
"But how odd that families with children have taken every hit so far. Maternity allowances, child tax credits, the baby bond, the three-year freeze in child benefit – all thse cuts target children, points out Yvette Cooper, the shadow secretary for work and pensions. Now comes the end of the near-sacred universal child benefit: the old compact binding rich and poor alike into the welfare state."
The Times leader on the subject calls the move "brave" and declares it the "right decision". (Subscription required.)
What do you think? Post a comment or add a link to your blog post on the topic.
Picture: George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference (I would have gotten this image from Conservative Party headquarters but they couldn't supply one until Thursday. Hmmm.)
About Jennifer Howze
Jennifer Howze is the Creative Director and co-founder of BritMums. She blogs about family travel at Jenography.net, tweets at @JHowze and Instagrams at @JHowze. Previously, she wrote the Alpha Mummy blog at The Times and as a journalist has contributed to The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Wall Street Journal, Travel & Leisure, Budget Travel, CNN.com, Allure, SELF and Premiere, among others. She won The Maggie Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for a health article in Seventeen magazine.
angelsandurchinsblog
Tuesday 12th of October 2010
I'd like to see it more thoroughly means tested, and with a weighting depending on where you live. London, for example, is such an expensive place to bring up kids, but as it's where a lot of jobs are it's not always possible to transfer in order to live somewhere cheaper. What really bugs me is people being penalised when they have savings and/or contribute towards a pension. And what really bugs me is families being targeted - can anyone explain why you can get tax relief for a chauffeur but not for a nanny? Off topic, but the steam is starting to pour out my ears...
deluded woman
Thursday 7th of October 2010
I earn 42k a year and this may sound like a lot...however, I pay a grand a month for the mortgage, and around another £500 for electricity, gas, council tax, car etc... I am a single mum with two kids, aged 16 and 11. I get a bit of maintenance for the kids. And I live in London. I get no other state help, apart from the child benefit and believe you me, that goes pretty quick. I shop in Tesco and wear second hand clothes...vintage I like to call it! We don't have a computer save for my work laptop. I also work in the public sector so pay a whopping £250 per month into a pension. So I will miss the money Mr Osbourne. I'm already thinking about what to save but unless I move out of London, we will just have to start eating more beans on toast!! Oh and I'm dropping to 4 days per week from Feb so I can get a qualification to support my work with families on the edge....just like the tories want as part of the big society. I thought about putting a funny slant on the situation in this post, but I've run out of jokes.
Jude
Wednesday 6th of October 2010
If the general feeling is that no family with a single earner who is a higher rate taxpayer should get child benefit, then why on earth is it considered right and proper that a household with an income almost double the threshold from two lower rate earners, should receive the benefit? I think that's what really sticks in the throat. The only fair way of doing it is to means test total household income and expenditure. I can only suppose that would be expensive, but by ensuring the benefit only went to households with a total income under the higher rate threshold they'd save even more money. It'll be the state pension next.
Crystal Jigsaw
Wednesday 6th of October 2010
I think that any cuts made to anyone will be unpopular and when a referendum is never offered and we are expected to just say, "okay" then people need to speak up. I have no faith in the government; they give benefits to those who don't need it and penilise the ones who do. It's a constant battle to raise a disabled child and even though benefits are given in some circumstances, the way they are worked out is absolutely ludicrous. No one seems to understand the system, every one seems to disagree with it (barr some of course) yet the voices of the general public, the people who are keeping this country afloat, are being ignored and in most cases, laughed at. The government need to start living in the real world and see what's going on in this country; remembering that we aren't all privately educated and not every one comes from a privileged background. There are many intelligent people and unfortunately, not a lot of them have common sense. But I often wonder how a politian gets through life at all. My other argument would be this: If someone wants to raise a big family then they should make sure they are in a position financially to do that and not rely on state benefits to bail them out; and if someone wants to sit on their arse and not work then, as much as it is their choice, they should accept that the tax payers aren't a banking institution.
Iota
Wednesday 6th of October 2010
It's not been thought out at all, has it? The example given, where a dual-income family earning 86K will still get the benefit, while a single-income family earning more than 44k won't, shows how little anyone has looked at the detail of the idea. If the benefit isn't going to be given across the board, then it should be calculated on the need of the child.