FAIRNESS IN CHILD BENEFIT

Posted in: MAHM Blog
Tags:

Sample letter to your MP

 

…………………..

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA                                                                           Date………………………..

 

 

Dear …………….

 

FAIRNESS IN CHILD BENEFIT

 

 

When the Chancellor George Osborne announced at the Conservative Party Conference in October 2010 that Child Benefit would be withdrawn from households where one earner’s salary exceeds the higher rate tax threshold as from April 2013, his statement was met with incredulity. The unfairness of the measure was obvious to every family in this situation.

 

“Working families” may count one or two “working” parents. In the case of one earner on a salary of £42,476 + (the level at which the higher rate takes effect), Child Benefit payments to the mother will cease. However, where both parents are earners and receive individual salaries below this level (potentially a combined income of, say, £84,500), Child Benefit payments are set to continue. May I also add to this that the 1-earner family is already at a tax disadvantage to the tune of £1,621 p.a. (at 2013 tax rates) because it may claim only one Personal Allowance.

 

By no stretch of the imagination can a 1-earner family at the lower end of the 40% tax band, often with several young children, be classified as “rich”. Nor, by the same token, does the word “poor” apply to a 2-earner family with a combined income of £84,500.

 

In spite of the initial fury, it would appear that so far there has been no re-appraisal of this proposal which will hit young families on middle incomes extremely hard. What I would like to see is the following:-

 

  1. A parliamentary debate
  2. Alternative proposals based on family income (as is the case where Family Tax Credits are concerned) that recognise that all families with financially dependent children have costs and responsibilities not borne by the childless and those whose children have grown up

 

I appreciate that we live in difficult times, but feel that the financial restrictions should not fall unfairly on parents who live on 1 income because they have either lost a job or feel that a parental presence in the home is important.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Your address:

……………………………………..

……………………………………..

…………………………………….

 

Change this in Theme Options
Change this in Theme Options