George Osbourne Abolishes Child Benefits for High Earners
We had three chidren and when we were hard up, the small amount of child benefit we got helped C make ends meet. But as we could afford to send all of our children to private schools, I don’t think we’d have missed the child benefit, when I became a high earner.
So I think George Osbourne has got it absolutely right. If you have three children, the benefit works out at about £180 per month. In the grand scheme of things if you are earning over £44,000 and living well, it’s just a case of good wine a month or a meal down the pub for two, once a week!
What really gets me is the sight of young and sometimes not-so-young mothers, wheezing as they push the baby around, whilst smoking their ciggies. After all 20 a day is about £180 a month! So if you have three children, you can use your child benefit for the fags!
The Anonymous Widower 
There have been times when child benefit was a vital part of our income, but I have to say, by the time the youngest daughter reached 18 we didnt notice not getting it, because we were much better off financially.
I certainly agree with the decision to stop CB for higher earners, although I do think this needs thinking through – it is traditionally paid to the mother, so is the threshold going to be on the mother’s earning, when the father could be earning £200,000? If it also based on father’s income, what about absentee fathers? Who could have half a dozen children by different women, and be just into the higher tax threshold, yet be paying virtually no child support due to the number of children he has. I do know of situations where that happens, and because he moved around a lot, some of the mothers/wives had no idea he had any other children until he left them!
Comment by Liz P | October 4, 2010 |
C used to despair of the absent father problem, when she sorted out the kids and money after a divorce. She always felt it was better when judges decided, before the CSA. Certainly, in East Anglia, she’d got some absent fathers sent to jail for not paying after they’d told the court they would. Courts have got to soft on fathers and mother too, who don’t obey what they are told for the good of their children.
Comment by AnonW | October 4, 2010 |
I agree, often even couples who start out amicable enough turn nasty eventually over the children, and the number of fathers who stop seeing their own children when they have step children is awful.
On the other hand, mothers can be really nasty. I have known mothers who have deliberately kept their children away from their fathers and really poisoned their children against the fathers, when in reality it was the mother who was fairly poisonous.
Comment by Liz P | October 4, 2010 |
I think though that statistics show a good proportion of divorces are fasirly amicable and never end up in Court. C’s real hate was to be given a case where it had been going on for years and they’d burned most of their money on incompetent solictors. She then had to sort it out by ashing heads together, usuaklly with the help of a judge.
Comment by AnonW | October 4, 2010 |
Often the issue is with young parents who havent married, and then split up. The very young women become very bitchy and nasty about their ex boyfriend seeing the child. And the dads, also usually young, end up very hurt because they had tried to stand by the girl and their child. Usually it is the child who comes off worse
Comment by Liz P | October 4, 2010 |