Child benefit cut has hit more than 1,200 St Helens families

MORE than 1,200 St Helens families are believed to have lost child benefit payments following the introduction of a controversial Government policy that hits “high earners”.

Taxpayers in a family where one parent’s net income exceeds £50,000 will be affected by the new child benefit charge started on Monday.

The HMRC says it has written to 1,240 families in St Helens to advise them about the changes.

Critics have labelled the policy a “raid on families” by Chancellor George Osborne.

The move has been highly controversial because parents with a joint income of more than £50,000 retain the benefit.

For instance, a couple who both individually earn £49,000 a year (giving them a combined annual income of £98,000) would not be affected.

However a couple, in which one person earns £60,000 while the other stays at home, will lose all of their benefit under the changes.

If the highest earner’s income is between £50,000 and £60,000 the benefit will be reduced gradually.

Recipients of letters from the HMRC were asked to reply before Monday, stating whether they wanted to stop receiving the benefit or to pay a tax charge on it by completing a self assessment form.

Child benefit, which in most cases is paid to the mother, is worth £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 for an additional child.

It means families with a “high earner” could be stripped of more than £1,500 a year.

Mr Osborne’s original plan was to take child benefits from families where one parent earns £42,000 or more, however, this was revised after a public outcry.

Nationally, the changes are expected to affect more than one million families, saving the Government £1.3bn a year.

However, it has been criticised for being complex to understand and labelled a disincentive for some workers to seek promotion.

Comments(7)

And Justice For All says...
7:46am Fri 11 Jan 13

This change to benefits is SO flawed it could have been thought up by St Helens council itself! It's simple maths surely? As usual, those who work hardest to make a good career for themselves are the ones that are punished. Personally I think if you're earning these amounts then you shouldnt really need benefits, but that isn't the point here. It's crazy that those earning nearly double what another family make would keep their benefits where the other family would lose it due to one persons income breaching the levels set out in this change. It's time to REWARD those making a contribution to the country, not beat them with a stick.

smith&weston says...
9:29am Fri 11 Jan 13

Why should any one have to subsidise other peoples desire to have kids ? I'd love a big shiny range Rover but I don't expect the tax payer to chip in and help me realise my ambition .

jumper says...
10:26am Fri 11 Jan 13

I am quite sure that a large number of people in St Helens could have their benefit cut for the reasons reported.

jumper says...
10:29am Fri 11 Jan 13

Could should be would

jumper says...
10:29am Fri 11 Jan 13

Could should be would

kjd161 says...
1:42pm Thu 17 Jan 13

smith&weston wrote:
Why should any one have to subsidise other peoples desire to have kids ? I'd love a big shiny range Rover but I don't expect the tax payer to chip in and help me realise my ambition .
Aye aye. Sounds suspiciously like no-one would let you make a baby with them.

Sankey says...
1:42pm Thu 17 Jan 13

I can understand giving benefits to parents in poverty but can anyone explain why we give benefits to someone on £60000 a year? Even with one partner not working and mortgage surely someone can exist comfortably on that?

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