Tax break for married couples could ease child benefit cuts

It's appalling that the tax system is being used to encourage or discourage ANY type of family. How patronising & unfair! Families come in all shapes & sizes these days, and it's just plain wrong to favour one group of people over another because you somehow see their marital status as being "better" than someone elses. What about if a woman divorces from an abusive husband? Is she somehow wrong to have got that divorce? Of course not!

Not sure I agree with the transferable tax allowance proposal either. Sure, it would be better for kids if there were more stay-at-home Mums (or Dads), but does it really hurt a family for one of the parents to work full-time, and one to work part-time, thereby using both Personal Allowances? My Mum worked part-time, and was always there for us when we left for school, and when we got home from school.

Coalition Govt - stop trying to make clumsy attempts at social engineering through the tax system please, and just treat us all equally & therefore fairly.

PS. I'm a staunch Tory usually, but they've annoyed me on this point.

It now seems that this Child Benefit cut is designed to squeeze single parents who work hard to bring up children well, claiming no additional benefits over married couples while paying tax at the higher rate, possibly to make up financially for the lack of child maintenance from an absent partner.

Why not do something much simpler which would be to stop child benefit when a child leaves compulsory schooling at 16, but ensure that the Educational Maintenance Allowance which is paid directly to young people in full time education or training past compulsory education remains payable when the household income is below a certain level, currently £30,819. This could be set at the higher rate tax threshold to partially compensate middle income families for the loss of Child Benefit.

This would make no reference to family structure and would be a way of treating families with one or two income earners more equitable.

I'm even more confused. So now David and George (and Nick) are saying:

- raising children doesn't deserve any kind of financial assistance

- marriage *does* deserve financial assistance, even for higher rate taxpayers

How on *earth* does that make sense? If there's such a serious financial crisis that we can't afford to pay child benefit to certain families, how on earth can we afford to give an allowance to married couples (who may well be childless)?

When they (the Tories) got back into power, I thought, "Well, maybe it'll work. Maybe they've learned a few lessons. Maybe they've changed." How wrong I was. This beats the pants off anything Labour did in 13 years, and they've only been there for a few months.

Spot on Paul.

The coalition seem to be trying to get a lot of the bad news out of the way as quickly as possible, quite understand, but no excuse for not thinking things through properly. It is also a Very bad idea to introduce a cut, then, when there is uproar to claim you 'always intended to mitigate it'. Leaves all the critics unmoved and simply turns the suporters of the policy hostile as well, sort of double negative for popularity.

This proposal only accentuates the unfairness of the measures announced. That is a single parent on 45K will not only loose child benefit but gain nothing from an extra married couples allowance, whereas a married couple earning approx 40k each stand to benefit. It should be based on a familys' total income. Child tax credit is already means tested, so why not role the child benefit into this scheme? The costs would therefore be minimised and we would truly have a fairer system.

£150 pa? Wow as much as that!!!

whoopee bleedin' doo!

Well done Kenny.

- raising children doesn't deserve any kind of financial assistance

Think it does personally BUT LIMITED TO 2 CHILDREN.

The state which is effect the tax collector should not be responsible for more than this. The financial implications should be addressed by the 'couple'.

It should also be restricted to UK nationals.

They may have annoyed some on this occasion, but anomalies inevitably occur in any such reorganisation of taxation methods. Most people must surely agree, in principle, that fairness for the normal family structure should be of paramount importance. It's good that we have a government that seems to be aiming at such a target. Let's give them the support they need at this difficult time, if this is truly their aim, even if minor amendments subsequently need to be made. Such special cases can always be considered later. However, the basic principle of support for the normal family structure should have our enthusiastic support!!

The problem with politicians are that they are a majority of men (usually supported by a woman) and single women.

Thankyou David Cameron and George Osborne for telling me that I don't count and am invisible. My husband falls into the higher rate tax payer bracket and manages over 300 people, a job which he would find impossible without my help and support. I have raised over £30,000 for charity since I have been at home with children (way more than we ever got in child benefit). I have worked for free for countless hours in my children's schools, propping up the education system. Yes, Mr Cameron, we invented the Big Society before you.

I have well balanced, polite, bright children and I often have elderly people come up and comment on how lovely they are. I am now completely alienated from the society that I have helped.

Kenny, nice to see that reducing benefits to a few of the more privileged amongst us remuneration wise is considered to be worse than anything Labour did in the last 13 years....hmm, how about an illegal war costing billions and killing thousands, yes, this is much worse!

As a tax payer I am glad that my money will no longer be used to subsidise the children of people who earn more than me anyway. I am quite sure they will find a way to manage to raise the children without this benefit (shop at Aldi / put them up for adoption)

Compulsury school leaving age has been raised to 18 Karen, and EMA wont get paid to students if the family earn over about £35k/yr. Free school buses are a thing of the past or soon will be, lessons such as Music tuition cost £169 a term (local comp) but for GCSE music they expect them to play an instrument! No grants for the older kids now in Uni over £38k/yr total income, parents still have to pay either rent or living expenses even with all the loans £4,000/year each. It is not as easy as it seems to raise a family, just glad 2 of mine are 1-2 years from a degree then they can get a job? Go on the dole?? Start a family??? Buy a house????

I've never understood why there is such a thing as child benefit.

But as there is, then I think it should be limited to 1st two children. Nor do I see sense in all and sundry getting it so I'm glad they are setting a limit.

What total Pratts , you could not make it up, single parents loose but married

couples can still get the money--this is another Poll Tax Blunder, and now they trip over each other digging bigger holes to fall in. Tory supporter I am, but

get a bloody grip guy's is this blue sky thinking ? Coalition - fudge and mudge.

Shouldnt society help those who help others through tax breaks, so whether you support children, adults (eg ageing parents), charities etc it is in society's interst to support you. That is why there is child benefit and tax breaks for parents. Those who only earn money to help themselves, never giving to charity or time for other causes dont need tax breaks, but the stay at home mums/dads, carers and charity workers should get recognition and help from the goverment/tax payer society dont you think? Is this not the model for the big society?

I have been under the impression that child benefit belonged to the child, regardless of the circumstances of those that claimed it, and who was responsible for spending it.

So to be fair to every child, none of which have any say in the matter, the same allowance should apply to all.

From an administration point of view I think the proposed change will involve increased costs which will negate savings.

The circumstances of claimants may change several times during the children's upbringing. e.g. A married couple may be higher rate tax payers one year but lower rate taxpayers the next. And then there are all the complexities of who can be deemed to be a co-habiting couple and what constitutes a single parent family.

It looks like Ozzi has opened a can of worms, and as someone once said, the only way you can put the worms back is to find a bigger can.

After World War II, bringing up several children was encouraged to restore the birth rate. And in 1945 the Family Allowance was introduced provide benefit for second and subsequent children. In 1975, then Labour social affairs secretary Barbara Castle put forward the Child Benefit Act proposing additional benefit for the first child. And between 1977 and 1979, child benefit replaced the Family Allowance and Child Tax Allowance.

Times have changed, so maybe it's time to scap it altogether. Don't have children unless you can afford them.

What a load of whingers,what a shame having to bring children up on only £45K.I am 3rd generation Tory,I thought it was only the socialists that whinged like this.It is another yes the country needs to make economies but only if it does not cost me me me anything syndrome.

Get a life,I have worked hard all my life brought up two sons both with good jobs, saved for retirement,what as that got me,low interest rates and G Brown esq.stealing out of my pension+selling the gold cheap+spending money like water to make the Labour Party look good.

Excuse me while I go and find the bathroom to have a good vomit.

Good luck bringing your kids up on such a poultry sum.

'Poultry' sum? it may chicken feed to you but why should I pay it?

This is beginning to look like a farce. They announce that some wealthy people will no longer be given child benefit. They are criticised because a husband and wife both earning £43,000 each will still bet it. To deflect their critics they announce that they will introduce transferable tax allowances. The critics fail to point out that the couple both earning £43,000 will still get child benefit.

End the farce, scrap child benefit altogether and raise the personal allowance to a level equal to the minimum wage.

There are few more glaring examples of what a whinging nation we have become. It is inevitable at every budget that there are winners and losers.

We are supposed to be in a very parlous debt state, and yes the child benefit changes have not been thought through properly. This new system was supposed to save the State £1billion. The new Taxable benefits for married couples will cost £500million. Half of your saving have gone, and in the end you will not have done what you wanted, but reacted to public outcry!

Knee jerk reactions usually cause even more problems.

Please Government think things through! If you have done he same with the other changes which will be announced soon then we will all have something to worry about. I am thinking about Defence of the Realm which is the first priority of any Government. Check your cuts again before you announce them or you could have an even greater public outcry, when you make these announcements, and many of these will come from your own Party!

Well said BLUE. No one has ever given me a rational reason why we pay people to have children whether they be lower middle or upper class. Raising children is a personal choice ....... why should I have to pick up any child - rearing bill ?

There are four elements which need to be addressed.

(1) A need to contain or reduce welfare payments.

(2) The Govt.s responsibility to ensure that childrens upbringing will be adequately provided for.

(3) Fairness.

(4) A cost effective way in which the above can be achieved.

When trying to devise a system that is reasonably fair a stumbling block emerges because of the fact that tax is collected, and welfare payments made to individuals, not couples, and not family groups.

I appreciate that many feel that a married couple earning a single salary of £44,000 per anum should be able to adequately provide for their children. After all many couples are bringing up families on joint incomes of £30,000 or less.

However it cannot be right for a couple earning joint incomes in exess of £80,000 to still be entitled to child benefit.

If my memory serves me right, the spouse of the primary wage earner was not taxed as an individual in earlier legislation. It may be too complex to go back to those rules, but it seems to me it would be worth digging out the old parchments for further study.

Just a note to Barrie Marsh:

Poultry is a class of birds, which include: Flightless, domesticated, sea, shore, song,wading, and water-wildfowl. There is one confusable. Wildfowl reared for sporting purposes are game.

The adjective paltry means: Of inconsequential importance.

Why is it the role of the Govt to provide for the upbringing of a child ?.

I always thought that this was the responsibilty of the parent. Furthermore spare all the Q.I.type trite. I think we can all acknowledge the degree of your intelligence without the need for sarcasm and plain " showing off ".

Part of my manifesto, devised today. I have removed the rest for sake of brevity:

D. Minimum wage £12k full time or £8 per hour part time.

E. Scrap child benefits.

F. Scrap age benefits.

G. Full VAT on fuel

H. Grants for insulation for all houses and commercial property.

I. Unemployment benefit flat rate £10k over 20 yrs. of age.

J. Child care allowance (per mother) £12k instead of UB

K. State pension £12k per fully contributed person.

L. All income taxable for everyone. Tax allowance £12k per person, transferable to partner on electoral roll, same address.

M. Massive investment for return to social housing but all with an equity stake.

Pip

As BlueH20 recalls, Family allowance was introduced to encourage childbearing. In the same way that State Pensions are being re-thought, so should child benefit. The fundamental principles should be addressed: Should the state provide incentives to increase the population?

No! the place is already bursting at the seams.

There are enough people in the UK, people do not need to be paid to breed.

Well said Blue H2O--child benefit needs to be scrapped altogether and the resulting revenue saved given to pensioners.

People wrecklessly having babies and depending on handouts from the state to bring them up are spongers, if you can't afford them, don't have them !

A lot of these comments miss a basic point. However unpalatable research continually shows that single parent families are not as good for society as stable dual relationships-ie married couples.

There has always been social engineering through the tax and benefits system - most of it in the last 25 years has been completely undesirable- single parenthood is in some cases an unfortunate happenstance - in other many cases it is just drifted into lazily. If you suport it on an equal footing to more desirable social unions -you'll get more of it when what we want is less of it.

it is right to prefer married couples- that shows commitment - and any tax social engineering should show a bias in that direction

We seem to be arrogant in this day and age and just dismiss what generations of our ancestors knew- because we think we know better.

Children need two committed parents- you don't always get that in a marriage but you sure as heck do not get it in a single parent family.

The difficulty in achieving an equitable child allowance system is the cost of managing it,

therefore it cannot be one that is 'means tested',which often wastes more money than it saves. Cutting costs however brutal it might appear, is the government's number one objective.That said, paying child allowance to parents jointly earning £80k p.a. and not to a single parent earning £43-44k, would seem to be a nonsense. However, is it not a reasonable assumption that an unmarried, or divorced mother earning that amount of money, is also getting significant alimony/child support from the childrens'father; which could go someway to redress the imbalance? All that aside,I think the government have signifcantly erred in not limiting child allowance to just two children and make it effective April 2011. no unmarried mother seeking child allowance should be allowed to hold back the name of the father and the latter should be pursued to the ends of the earth to pay support. Where apppropriate, this should include any and all of the following- deportation, seizure of goods, confiscation of passport and driving licence. All school children should not be taught how to manage their sexual relationshis, but instead the consequnces of producing a child before having the ability and financial means to support it.

When a woman's tax arrangements began being treated separately to their spouse to meet the equality lobby squealing and legislate for the brutal male starving his wife and children , the rot started and stay at home mothers/fathers were punished for taking a decision, maybe for 4-5 years, to stay at home and look after family and yet we know that this is probably the ideal family environment, and I don't include same sex adoption another very minority hobby horse,

The key issue is that the personal allowance should be regarded as the ultimate in universality allowances which can be used by legally committede couples as they wish for children or otherwise, and I include same sex civil partnersips in this.

Cameron has ignored this fundamental principle after hinting in his manifesto that he would follow this line and he has risked alienating his voter base. The cock up with double and single incomes in so totally reminsicent of Labour's botched attempts any all social engineering legislation it is very disturbing. It is not fair and will never be fair. Save on child benefit by limiting it to two children and let the child bearing women who use it for income generation solve their own problems.

Let's hope 'they' listen to you, Anthony English, and that such common sense finally prevails!. It's clearly a hot topic that tends to produce rather a lot of hot air!

The airwaves have been buzzing today with indignant mums ( some single parents) paying higher rate tax and complaining bitterly that the withdrawal of child benefit is'not fair' . What is not fair ? Apparently it is that a couple next door both earning just below the tax threshhold retain the child benefit. No other examples of unfairness are forthcoming. This is not 'unfair' it is a patent anomaly.

The welfare system is full of anomalies of this kind but I suspect that high earners have no knowledge or experience of this. Do they care?

Oh yes ,everyone agrees we have to deal with the deficit and tighten our belts- providing it doesn't affect them.

This is 'not in my back yard' in monetary form . It is self interest, as always, and this is why the concept of the big society is flawed : the volunteers , the charities, the churches have been quietly operating as the small society

for generations and make an important contribution to the life of the nation. Anyone who has given of their time in these areas will know that helpers are very few and are special people.

Please stop all fuss.

Remove child benefit at a stroke totally

It is parents who ought to think for their children.

If they can't support, they should limit themselves.

Child benifit should be restricted to 2 only and paid to ALL married couples regardless of earnings, but should only be paid on application from them,

a good number would not bother to claim for various reasons .

Unmarried parents should be meanstested

Tax relief should be reintroduced to help purchase a house (one only) this would help support the family unit

All IVF treatment should be stopped natures trying hard to control population growth the times I wish infertillity had been my problem are many

Mothers should be at home to look after the children maybe a part time job , but should always be at home when they return from school.

Perhaps I am a tad old fashioned .

Fact is even a bird builds its nest before laying eggs and supports its young until they are able to support themselves with little or no help.

To Bill Lawson

I like your ideas.

You ought to be with Mr. Osbourne or with Mr.Ian Duncan Smith.

You have spelled out very clearly; congratulations.........

Paying people to have children, which is what child benefit amounts to, is bound to lead to unfairness in one way or another. Perhaps the whole thing should be scrapped in its present form and a 'Childbearing Allowance' paid to all females in a reasonable childbearing age bracket, regardless of whether or not they have any children. My view is that encouraging people to have more chidren, especialy at a time when overpopulation is probably the biggest threat to us all, is just plain stupid. Paying a Childbearing allowance to all qualifing women, married or otherwise, would at least help them when the had children, without financialy encouraging them to have more and more. If we cannot afford this this idea I think we should perhaps go ahead and just scrap the whole thing, in twelve months time say so that nobody pregnant is caught out by the change in baby financing!