HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » United Kingdom (Group) » Can here in the UK anyone...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:02 PM

Can here in the UK anyone figure this out ?

See :

Child benefit reforms under fire as parents fail to opt out.

Under the new system, families where one parent earns between 50,000 and 60,000 will see their benefit progressively reduced based on income, and households where one person earns more than 60,000 will lose the benefit altogether. People who do not give up their entitlement will have to declare it in a self-assessed tax return even if they currently do not file one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/05/child-benefit-reforms-opt-out

It makes different ref. to person and then household.

One of my ex-girlfriends has a 16 year old son. She and the father never married and ceased living together donkeys years. He eventually married another , earns over 50k and now has two children from the marriage - that bit is clear cut. He is however a parent of my friends son and as he earns over 50k does that mean that my friend loses her child allowance ? She's part time NHS and earns less than 30k.

8 replies, 1395 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can here in the UK anyone figure this out ? (Original post)
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 OP
MADem Jan 2013 #1
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 #2
MADem Jan 2013 #3
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #4
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 #5
dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #6
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #7
fedsron2us Jan 2013 #8

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:12 PM

1. Is the absent, not-in-the-home father considered part of the family unit?

It does not sound that way, per the article:

"The new rules will mean that married couples where one earns over 50,000 pa will be unable to avoid losing some or all of their child benefit. Meanwhile, similar couples who are co-habiting will face unenviable choices: a severe financial penalty if they marry or breaking the law if they deny their relationship status.

"This creates a potential 'marriage penalty', despite evidence showing how crucial marriage is to stable families and children. Research illustrates that breakup rates are three times higher for couples who co-habit compared with those who marry."



I'm supposing that if he's not in the home, he's not part of the equation, though the money he contributes towards the child's support may be factored into the earnings of the mother.

A call to the authorities for clarification would be in order, I'd say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:41 PM

2. A call to the authorities for clarification

Try that here sometime.

There are times it would be quicker to starve to death while waiting to actually speak to someone at HMRC. Oddities like this will compound that situation as we move toward the end of the tax year and they get busier and busier with queries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:55 PM

3. A letter to the editor of the newspaper, then. A question to a TV station that likes to respond to

these sorts of red tape questions. Or an e-mail to any of 'em--that might do it.

It sounds to me that families--i.e. mom and dad living as a couple under one roof have to deal with this change. Marriage has nothing to do with it--it's all about location, location, location. The babymomma or babydaddy who pops in for a bit of loving and family time, and then claims to be living with his mama when all his fishing gear is in the back hall closet, might get penalized as well.

Single mothers or fathers getting support from the other parent, living separately, will have to include that support as income and apply it against the credit.

That's what it smells like to me, anyway. Of course, logic does not always hold sway!

I never had trouble with the authorities when I lived in UK but then again, I didn't rely on them for much!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:10 PM

4. Try going through the questions here:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tools/hicbc/checker.htm

Since one is:
A partner is:

a person you are married to
a civil partner
a person you are living with as if you are married or a civil partner

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tools/hicbc/my-partner.htm


I think your friend won't lose her benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:15 PM

5. Thanks

it would seem that as she has no partner it wont affect her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:31 PM

6. Wonder if a gay relatinoship is recognized under that law.

As Muriel pointed out, there are catagories for:

a civil partner
a person you are living with as if you are married or a civil partner

And since we know gays often have both biological and adopted children......

but if British law is as biased as our laws, they would be losing a chunk of money by ignoring gay marrieage, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:38 PM

7. 'civil partner' means the legally recognised gay relationship

and so "living with as if you are ... a civil partner" means any gay couple living together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:24 PM

8. A truly atrocious piece of legislation

Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:35 AM - Edit history (1)

that has rightly been condemned for its incoherence. It also goes right to the heart of the fundamental flaw in the UK governments treatment of tax and benefits which is that it can not decide whether the individual or the household should be the unit of assessment. Generally people have been taxed as individuals on their incomes but means tested on total family earnings for benefits. This particular dogs breakfast reverses that principle by giving the benefit to one individual and then taxing it as if it was the income of another person. It does not even attempt to means test total household income so we know have the nonsensical situation where a couple where only one person works and earns over 50000 is taxed on the child benefit while another couple where both people earn 40000 (ie a combined household income of 80000) pay no tax on the benefit. To my untutored mind that violates the basic means of assessing both taxes and benefits. It also essentially means one couple is being taxed as a unit while the other is taxed as two individuals. Only George Osborne, the worst Chancellor in my lifetime, could have come up with such a pile of shit. I actually wonder if the legislation would stand up to a legal challenge in the Courts.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6527

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread