Almost 18,000 families in the North-East and North Yorkshire hit by child benefit changes

The Northern Echo: CONTROVERSIAL: The deadline for registering for selfassessment is October 5 CONTROVERSIAL: The deadline for registering for selfassessment is October 5

ALMOST 18,000 families in the region have been hit by child benefit changes - swiping up to £2,450-a-year from a couple with three children.

They are households where someone earns more than £50,000 a year, under the controversial shake-up that came into force today (Monday, January 7).

Any family where one parent earns over £60,000 loses all child benefit, currently worth £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 a week for each additional child.

Those earning between £50,000 and £60,000 will lose some of the money, after the government staged a partial climbdown.

Now the figures, released to MPs, have revealed that 17,710 families in parliamentary constituencies in this region were sent letters, informing them they would be affected.

The highest totals were in North Yorkshire, in Harrogate and Knaresborough (1,920), York Outer (1,530), Skipton and Ripon (1,440) and Richmond (1,350).

In the North-East, most letters went to the seat of Stockton South (1,180), followed by City of Durham (840) and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (800).

In stark contrast, only 270 households contain someone earning more than £50,000 in Middlesbrough - and just 280 in Easington.

More than 250,000 high earners across Britain have opted out of the new High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) altogether, to avoid having to fill in self-assessment tax forms.

That deadline has now expired, which means anyone earning more than £50,000 - who failed to opt out - will have some child benefit clawed back in higher tax.

The deadline for registering for self-assessment is October 5 - or families affected will be fined.

David Cameron has defended the policy as ”fundamentally fair”, adding: ”I'm not saying those people are rich, but I think it is right that they make a contribution.

”If we don't raise that from that group of people - the better off 15 per cent in the country - we would have to find someone else to take it from.”

The Northern Echo: child benefit

But the change has been attacked for ending the universal principle of child benefit and for the Treasury’s apparent failure to inform 300,000 affected families.

Most controversially, a family where two parents work and both earn £49,000 a year will keep their benefits - while a family with a single earner on £50,000-plus will lose part of theirs.

Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, attacked the “complete shambles“, saying: “If you are a one-earner family on £60,000 you lose it, if you are a two-earner family on £75,000 you keep it – what’s fair about that?“ Meanwhile, tax experts have put forward suggestions for avoiding the cut, by lowering “adjusted net income” on self-assessment forms.

Those tips include paying more into a company pension scheme, giving more money to charity - or even buying a holiday from an employer, through “salary sacrifice”.

 

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:24pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Skallywagg says...

Cuts needed to be made, of course they do, however they should be fair and equitable and they are simply not.
It beggars belief these decisions are made by so called intelligent people entrusted to run the economy and they have dropped another almighty clanger!
Cuts needed to be made, of course they do, however they should be fair and equitable and they are simply not. It beggars belief these decisions are made by so called intelligent people entrusted to run the economy and they have dropped another almighty clanger! Skallywagg

3:15pm Mon 7 Jan 13

David Lacey says...

It is reasonably fair. Two people earning £35K = £70k in total will keep their entitlement, but will probably incure substantial child care costs. A single earner on £70K with a wife at home will not incure any child care costs, but will also lose the benefit entirely. Some people will lose out, but overall it is a fair policy.
.
What concerns me is the way that Red Rob has once again written this article. Yet again we have pure Labour Party hatred on view. How the Echo can continue to employ this champagne socialist, living in London and pretending to understand life up here is a complete mystery to me.
It is reasonably fair. Two people earning £35K = £70k in total will keep their entitlement, but will probably incure substantial child care costs. A single earner on £70K with a wife at home will not incure any child care costs, but will also lose the benefit entirely. Some people will lose out, but overall it is a fair policy. . What concerns me is the way that Red Rob has once again written this article. Yet again we have pure Labour Party hatred on view. How the Echo can continue to employ this champagne socialist, living in London and pretending to understand life up here is a complete mystery to me. David Lacey

3:18pm Mon 7 Jan 13

David Lacey says...

Incur - sorry.
Incur - sorry. David Lacey

4:25pm Mon 7 Jan 13

frankyboy says...

'most letters went to the seat of Stockton South'.

Enjoy the next two years, Mr Wharton, 'cos it's bye bye in 2015.
'most letters went to the seat of Stockton South'. Enjoy the next two years, Mr Wharton, 'cos it's bye bye in 2015. frankyboy

5:14pm Mon 7 Jan 13

greenfinger says...

i'm on a four day week at Thorn lighting taking home £220 a week and dont get jack of the state. these people are living in cuckoo land. try living on the real bread line.
i'm on a four day week at Thorn lighting taking home £220 a week and dont get jack of the state. these people are living in cuckoo land. try living on the real bread line. greenfinger

6:15pm Mon 7 Jan 13

spragger says...

We are now beginning to see the stupidity of taking peoples money in tax and then giving some of it back as benefits, or credits.
The classic Labour trick of creating the 'client state'.
In among all this we are being charged millions of pounds for this to be administered, by legions of public servants.
The answer is reduce benefits and credits and allow people to keep more of THEIR earned income. Then they can decide what to do with it.

Reduce taxation and therefore Government interference.
We are now beginning to see the stupidity of taking peoples money in tax and then giving some of it back as benefits, or credits. The classic Labour trick of creating the 'client state'. In among all this we are being charged millions of pounds for this to be administered, by legions of public servants. The answer is reduce benefits and credits and allow people to keep more of THEIR earned income. Then they can decide what to do with it. Reduce taxation and therefore Government interference. spragger

6:41pm Mon 7 Jan 13

stevegg says...

Its a pity the gvernment werent as aggressive against all the legal tax dodges that cost billions in lost reveue. Our benefits system is in chaos and bordering on meltdown thanks to decades of dithering, incompetance, fraud and ignorance, in its present form its unsustainable as those taking out of the system contributing little or nothing outstrip those who put in and get zero back. There is a growing call from politicians and observors to move to a contribution based system whereby a basic safety net is provided but payments out are based on what you have put in. The current system is far to generous to those who contribute nothing whilst penalsing those who are the contributors. The current restrictions being imposed are only the vanguard of some very painful cuts to come in the future, benefits should never be a lifestyle option whereby recipients are better off than those working which has proven to be a kick in the teeth for hardworking taxpayers.
Its a pity the gvernment werent as aggressive against all the legal tax dodges that cost billions in lost reveue. Our benefits system is in chaos and bordering on meltdown thanks to decades of dithering, incompetance, fraud and ignorance, in its present form its unsustainable as those taking out of the system contributing little or nothing outstrip those who put in and get zero back. There is a growing call from politicians and observors to move to a contribution based system whereby a basic safety net is provided but payments out are based on what you have put in. The current system is far to generous to those who contribute nothing whilst penalsing those who are the contributors. The current restrictions being imposed are only the vanguard of some very painful cuts to come in the future, benefits should never be a lifestyle option whereby recipients are better off than those working which has proven to be a kick in the teeth for hardworking taxpayers. stevegg

8:14pm Mon 7 Jan 13

victorjames says...

spragger wrote:
We are now beginning to see the stupidity of taking peoples money in tax and then giving some of it back as benefits, or credits. The classic Labour trick of creating the 'client state'. In among all this we are being charged millions of pounds for this to be administered, by legions of public servants. The answer is reduce benefits and credits and allow people to keep more of THEIR earned income. Then they can decide what to do with it. Reduce taxation and therefore Government interference.
Exactly thats the reason this was a universal credit and, of course, was origianally paid to the mother (whichever sex that might be now). Means testing benefits are for more expensive to administer. Its another of Osbornes **** ups. The intention is perhaps fair but it has not been thought through. What about those households where neither partner knows what the other earns or one where the one who thinks they're the main earner find they are not. Some interesting family discussions will take place. On top of this I worked for the Revenue before I retired and I can guarantee that it will be an administrative **** up (much like the upcoming Universal Credit which IDS suddenly seems to have stopped talking about). Osborne should not have cut income tax for the very rich in the first place and should have given the Revenue a kick up the backside to get some of the tax that companies are evading.
[quote][p][bold]spragger[/bold] wrote: We are now beginning to see the stupidity of taking peoples money in tax and then giving some of it back as benefits, or credits. The classic Labour trick of creating the 'client state'. In among all this we are being charged millions of pounds for this to be administered, by legions of public servants. The answer is reduce benefits and credits and allow people to keep more of THEIR earned income. Then they can decide what to do with it. Reduce taxation and therefore Government interference.[/p][/quote]Exactly thats the reason this was a universal credit and, of course, was origianally paid to the mother (whichever sex that might be now). Means testing benefits are for more expensive to administer. Its another of Osbornes **** ups. The intention is perhaps fair but it has not been thought through. What about those households where neither partner knows what the other earns or one where the one who thinks they're the main earner find they are not. Some interesting family discussions will take place. On top of this I worked for the Revenue before I retired and I can guarantee that it will be an administrative **** up (much like the upcoming Universal Credit which IDS suddenly seems to have stopped talking about). Osborne should not have cut income tax for the very rich in the first place and should have given the Revenue a kick up the backside to get some of the tax that companies are evading. victorjames

8:30pm Mon 7 Jan 13

David Lacey says...

spragger wrote:
We are now beginning to see the stupidity of taking peoples money in tax and then giving some of it back as benefits, or credits.
The classic Labour trick of creating the 'client state'.
In among all this we are being charged millions of pounds for this to be administered, by legions of public servants.
The answer is reduce benefits and credits and allow people to keep more of THEIR earned income. Then they can decide what to do with it.

Reduce taxation and therefore Government interference.
100% right
[quote][p][bold]spragger[/bold] wrote: We are now beginning to see the stupidity of taking peoples money in tax and then giving some of it back as benefits, or credits. The classic Labour trick of creating the 'client state'. In among all this we are being charged millions of pounds for this to be administered, by legions of public servants. The answer is reduce benefits and credits and allow people to keep more of THEIR earned income. Then they can decide what to do with it. Reduce taxation and therefore Government interference.[/p][/quote]100% right David Lacey

8:32pm Mon 7 Jan 13

David Lacey says...

stevegg wrote:
Its a pity the gvernment werent as aggressive against all the legal tax dodges that cost billions in lost reveue. Our benefits system is in chaos and bordering on meltdown thanks to decades of dithering, incompetance, fraud and ignorance, in its present form its unsustainable as those taking out of the system contributing little or nothing outstrip those who put in and get zero back. There is a growing call from politicians and observors to move to a contribution based system whereby a basic safety net is provided but payments out are based on what you have put in. The current system is far to generous to those who contribute nothing whilst penalsing those who are the contributors. The current restrictions being imposed are only the vanguard of some very painful cuts to come in the future, benefits should never be a lifestyle option whereby recipients are better off than those working which has proven to be a kick in the teeth for hardworking taxpayers.
100% right
[quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: Its a pity the gvernment werent as aggressive against all the legal tax dodges that cost billions in lost reveue. Our benefits system is in chaos and bordering on meltdown thanks to decades of dithering, incompetance, fraud and ignorance, in its present form its unsustainable as those taking out of the system contributing little or nothing outstrip those who put in and get zero back. There is a growing call from politicians and observors to move to a contribution based system whereby a basic safety net is provided but payments out are based on what you have put in. The current system is far to generous to those who contribute nothing whilst penalsing those who are the contributors. The current restrictions being imposed are only the vanguard of some very painful cuts to come in the future, benefits should never be a lifestyle option whereby recipients are better off than those working which has proven to be a kick in the teeth for hardworking taxpayers.[/p][/quote]100% right David Lacey

10:52am Tue 8 Jan 13

Ally F says...

Agree is Spragger. The tax and benefits system is horrifically complicated, costing the country a fortune each year to administer and keeping an army of paper pushers in work. Whatever you think that costs the tax payer to administer, you're probably out by a factor of 10. It all needs simplifying back to basics - who really understands it all? The Government certainly doesn't.

If you earn it, you pay tax and then the rest is yours, you have a brain, you are educated, if you can afford 3+ children then that's your choice, you support them up to adult-hood. If you can't then don't procreate so often. Getting benefits on a salary of £50K a year is absurd when others are really on the bread-line and reliant on food-banks and charity.

We're a civilised country and we can't let people starve. Benefits for £50K earners seems unaffordable and inappropriate in the current economic climate.
Agree is Spragger. The tax and benefits system is horrifically complicated, costing the country a fortune each year to administer and keeping an army of paper pushers in work. Whatever you think that costs the tax payer to administer, you're probably out by a factor of 10. It all needs simplifying back to basics - who really understands it all? The Government certainly doesn't. If you earn it, you pay tax and then the rest is yours, you have a brain, you are educated, if you can afford 3+ children then that's your choice, you support them up to adult-hood. If you can't then don't procreate so often. Getting benefits on a salary of £50K a year is absurd when others are really on the bread-line and reliant on food-banks and charity. We're a civilised country and we can't let people starve. Benefits for £50K earners seems unaffordable and inappropriate in the current economic climate. Ally F

11:09am Tue 8 Jan 13

stevegg says...

Ally F wrote:
Agree is Spragger. The tax and benefits system is horrifically complicated, costing the country a fortune each year to administer and keeping an army of paper pushers in work. Whatever you think that costs the tax payer to administer, you're probably out by a factor of 10. It all needs simplifying back to basics - who really understands it all? The Government certainly doesn't.

If you earn it, you pay tax and then the rest is yours, you have a brain, you are educated, if you can afford 3+ children then that's your choice, you support them up to adult-hood. If you can't then don't procreate so often. Getting benefits on a salary of £50K a year is absurd when others are really on the bread-line and reliant on food-banks and charity.

We're a civilised country and we can't let people starve. Benefits for £50K earners seems unaffordable and inappropriate in the current economic climate.
But what about the 2 high earners on £49k each with a joint income of £98k who escape this cut but a family with a low earner say on £10k with their partner on £51k are penalised. Another pastie/caravan tax. I agree higher earners shouldnt get it but the way they have gone about it is inept.
[quote][p][bold]Ally F[/bold] wrote: Agree is Spragger. The tax and benefits system is horrifically complicated, costing the country a fortune each year to administer and keeping an army of paper pushers in work. Whatever you think that costs the tax payer to administer, you're probably out by a factor of 10. It all needs simplifying back to basics - who really understands it all? The Government certainly doesn't. If you earn it, you pay tax and then the rest is yours, you have a brain, you are educated, if you can afford 3+ children then that's your choice, you support them up to adult-hood. If you can't then don't procreate so often. Getting benefits on a salary of £50K a year is absurd when others are really on the bread-line and reliant on food-banks and charity. We're a civilised country and we can't let people starve. Benefits for £50K earners seems unaffordable and inappropriate in the current economic climate.[/p][/quote]But what about the 2 high earners on £49k each with a joint income of £98k who escape this cut but a family with a low earner say on £10k with their partner on £51k are penalised. Another pastie/caravan tax. I agree higher earners shouldnt get it but the way they have gone about it is inept. stevegg

12:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

David Lacey says...

Ally F wrote:
Agree is Spragger. The tax and benefits system is horrifically complicated, costing the country a fortune each year to administer and keeping an army of paper pushers in work. Whatever you think that costs the tax payer to administer, you're probably out by a factor of 10. It all needs simplifying back to basics - who really understands it all? The Government certainly doesn't.

If you earn it, you pay tax and then the rest is yours, you have a brain, you are educated, if you can afford 3+ children then that's your choice, you support them up to adult-hood. If you can't then don't procreate so often. Getting benefits on a salary of £50K a year is absurd when others are really on the bread-line and reliant on food-banks and charity.

We're a civilised country and we can't let people starve. Benefits for £50K earners seems unaffordable and inappropriate in the current economic climate.
100% right.
[quote][p][bold]Ally F[/bold] wrote: Agree is Spragger. The tax and benefits system is horrifically complicated, costing the country a fortune each year to administer and keeping an army of paper pushers in work. Whatever you think that costs the tax payer to administer, you're probably out by a factor of 10. It all needs simplifying back to basics - who really understands it all? The Government certainly doesn't. If you earn it, you pay tax and then the rest is yours, you have a brain, you are educated, if you can afford 3+ children then that's your choice, you support them up to adult-hood. If you can't then don't procreate so often. Getting benefits on a salary of £50K a year is absurd when others are really on the bread-line and reliant on food-banks and charity. We're a civilised country and we can't let people starve. Benefits for £50K earners seems unaffordable and inappropriate in the current economic climate.[/p][/quote]100% right. David Lacey

12:54pm Tue 8 Jan 13

frankyboy says...

stevegg wrote:
Ally F wrote:
Agree is Spragger. The tax and benefits system is horrifically complicated, costing the country a fortune each year to administer and keeping an army of paper pushers in work. Whatever you think that costs the tax payer to administer, you're probably out by a factor of 10. It all needs simplifying back to basics - who really understands it all? The Government certainly doesn't.

If you earn it, you pay tax and then the rest is yours, you have a brain, you are educated, if you can afford 3+ children then that's your choice, you support them up to adult-hood. If you can't then don't procreate so often. Getting benefits on a salary of £50K a year is absurd when others are really on the bread-line and reliant on food-banks and charity.

We're a civilised country and we can't let people starve. Benefits for £50K earners seems unaffordable and inappropriate in the current economic climate.
But what about the 2 high earners on £49k each with a joint income of £98k who escape this cut but a family with a low earner say on £10k with their partner on £51k are penalised. Another pastie/caravan tax. I agree higher earners shouldnt get it but the way they have gone about it is inept.
I agree with you on both counts. A family on £100k a year can possibly still claim full child benefit, but another family on £60k a year get nothing - the same as someone on £160k a year. And yes, the highest earners should be targeted but these changes are unfair.

It's actually worse than the Tories initial proposal, which was to stop those on the 40% tax bracket from getting it. Then, a couple earning £80k equally between them could claim. Now it's £100k!

When it comes it properly thought out, fair and targeted measures, this Tory lot are clueless.

They'll be imposing a minimum price of alcohol on the entire population next, just to tackle alleged 'teenage binge drinkers'! Oh, hang on...
[quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ally F[/bold] wrote: Agree is Spragger. The tax and benefits system is horrifically complicated, costing the country a fortune each year to administer and keeping an army of paper pushers in work. Whatever you think that costs the tax payer to administer, you're probably out by a factor of 10. It all needs simplifying back to basics - who really understands it all? The Government certainly doesn't. If you earn it, you pay tax and then the rest is yours, you have a brain, you are educated, if you can afford 3+ children then that's your choice, you support them up to adult-hood. If you can't then don't procreate so often. Getting benefits on a salary of £50K a year is absurd when others are really on the bread-line and reliant on food-banks and charity. We're a civilised country and we can't let people starve. Benefits for £50K earners seems unaffordable and inappropriate in the current economic climate.[/p][/quote]But what about the 2 high earners on £49k each with a joint income of £98k who escape this cut but a family with a low earner say on £10k with their partner on £51k are penalised. Another pastie/caravan tax. I agree higher earners shouldnt get it but the way they have gone about it is inept.[/p][/quote]I agree with you on both counts. A family on £100k a year can possibly still claim full child benefit, but another family on £60k a year get nothing - the same as someone on £160k a year. And yes, the highest earners should be targeted but these changes are unfair. It's actually worse than the Tories initial proposal, which was to stop those on the 40% tax bracket from getting it. Then, a couple earning £80k equally between them could claim. Now it's £100k! When it comes it properly thought out, fair and targeted measures, this Tory lot are clueless. They'll be imposing a minimum price of alcohol on the entire population next, just to tackle alleged 'teenage binge drinkers'! Oh, hang on... frankyboy

4:46pm Tue 8 Jan 13

loan_star says...

Where was Red Robs article on Labours plan to get people off benefits that was announced over the weekend? Did I miss it?
Where was Red Robs article on Labours plan to get people off benefits that was announced over the weekend? Did I miss it? loan_star

5:54pm Tue 8 Jan 13

chrisdoun says...

If you think Miguel`s story is really cool,, won weak-ago my uncles best friend earnt $4606 just sitting there an their house and they're classmate's sister-in-law`s neighbour was doing this for eight months and got more than $4606 part-time at Their laptop. applie the guidelines at this website... FAB33.COM
If you think Miguel`s story is really cool,, won weak-ago my uncles best friend earnt $4606 just sitting there an their house and they're classmate's sister-in-law`s neighbour was doing this for eight months and got more than $4606 part-time at Their laptop. applie the guidelines at this website... FAB33.COM chrisdoun

10:54am Wed 9 Jan 13

the-big-yin says...

greenfinger wrote:
i'm on a four day week at Thorn lighting taking home £220 a week and dont get jack of the state. these people are living in cuckoo land. try living on the real bread line.
I work 24 hours a week and will not work anymore hours due to this kind government. I receive working tax and child tax and can manage living on £300 a week for 5 of us. So why do people say they cannot survive. Shop around........
[quote][p][bold]greenfinger[/bold] wrote: i'm on a four day week at Thorn lighting taking home £220 a week and dont get jack of the state. these people are living in cuckoo land. try living on the real bread line.[/p][/quote]I work 24 hours a week and will not work anymore hours due to this kind government. I receive working tax and child tax and can manage living on £300 a week for 5 of us. So why do people say they cannot survive. Shop around........ the-big-yin

5:29pm Thu 10 Jan 13

greenfinger says...

the-big-yin so you openly admit to not wanting more work because the state will handout a slice of my tax in a benefit. i really look forward to the day it stops for you. 5 people living on £300 a week. i bet your quality of life is great. enjoy your summer holidays this year.
the-big-yin so you openly admit to not wanting more work because the state will handout a slice of my tax in a benefit. i really look forward to the day it stops for you. 5 people living on £300 a week. i bet your quality of life is great. enjoy your summer holidays this year. greenfinger

9:03pm Thu 10 Jan 13

gillod says...

"In stark contrast, only 270 households contain someone earning more than £50,000 in Middlesbrough - and just 280 in Easington."

Most likely because those earning more than £50k choose to live elsewhere!
"In stark contrast, only 270 households contain someone earning more than £50,000 in Middlesbrough - and just 280 in Easington." Most likely because those earning more than £50k choose to live elsewhere! gillod

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree