Is your Bath household one of more than 1,300 to lose children benefit?
More than 1,300 households in Bath will lose child benefit under controversial government cuts which have come into force.
Official figures reveal at least 1,380 families in the city will have the payment reduced or stopped.
-
David Cameron
In North East Somerset the number is 1,360, North Wiltshire 2,100, South West Wiltshire 1,030, and Chippenham 1,490.
And the numbers are likely to be higher as these are those households that HM Revenue and Customs had managed to identify and write to ahead of the changes.
Get 10% off your GAP insurance with ALA.co.uk using the promotional code LW10
Contact: 01653 916304
Valid until: Wednesday, June 18 2014
Under the reforms, families where one parent earns more than £50,000 will have their benefit reduced on a sliding scale, and will lose the payment completely once their salary hits £60,000.
The Prime Minister has defended the move insisting the reforms were “fundamentally fair”, and that the top 15 per cent of earners needed to make a contribution to cutting the deficit.
But Labour has warned many families, which have not opted out of claiming the benefit, now faced having cash clawed back through complicated self-assessment tax returns.
Critics also point to anomalies where two parents both earning £49,000 would keep the benefit, while a household with a single-earner on £60,000 would lose all of it.
Child benefit currently stands at £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 for each child after that.
The change will cost families with three children and at least one parent earning more than £60,000 about £2,450 a year.
But David Cameron has insisted: “It’s the right approach. If someone in a household is earning is earning more than £60,000 they should not be receiving child benefit.”
However Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne said: “It’s just another example of parents and working families being asked to pay for the Government’s failure to get Britain back to work.
“It’s a big con to suggest it’s the feckless and slackers being asked to foot the bill.”
It comes as the Tory-led coalition and Labour square up over plans to cap benefits.
The Government argue that increases in many working age benefits have outstripped rises in private sector pay, although this is disputed by opponents.
Plans have been put forward to break the traditional link between benefit rises and inflation.
Instead there will be a three-year cap of one per cent, well below the expected rise in the cost of living, on most working-age benefits and tax credits.
However, carer and disability benefits would continue to rise in line with inflation.
But critics say the squeeze will hit low and middle-income families and punish the poorest.
Labour have stressed it will hit working households receiving tax credits, rather than just the unemployed.
Official data shows there are 4,100 families in Bath in receipt of working tax credits, which provides financial support for those on low incomes.
Labour is opposing the benefits cap, and has instead proposed a new compulsory job scheme for anyone who has been looking for work for more than two years.
Comments
by Ilovespaniels
Friday, January 11 2013, 11:17AM
“Benefits are a safety net, not a way of life.”
by Imp-Act
Wednesday, January 09 2013, 10:27PM
“The government knows best. That's why the majority voted them in! Those that voted the other sides are the big "L"!
This will hopefully encougrage even MORE imagrants in to this wonderful country where it pays to breed if your on benifits or a low wage earner. Good for this government for extending this very welcome hand to these poor folk! Their own countries are just NOT interested in helping them in any way at all. Britain must take the lead in becoming the worlds number one 'melting pot'. Thankfully there are lots of single young white girls that are more than willing to help out in this cause by getting pregnant via men of other coloured skin AND therefore are entitiled to these benifits. Well done all of you!”
by jonquil
Wednesday, January 09 2013, 8:44AM
“To families living on £50,000+ a year, the £20 for first child and £14 for subsequent children, giving £1,000 a year extra income for one child, will hardly be noticed, its on a sliding scale anyway til you reach £60,000.”
by MoeXXX
Wednesday, January 09 2013, 1:44AM
“Sorry VV, I think you're mistaken. We voted for Don Foster as a member of the LIBERAL Democrats because we thought his centrist, LIBERAL policies would most represent us LIBERAL Bathonians. I can't possibly believe that a LIBERAL would advocate removing protection for the least fortunate in society.
You must be confusing him with someone else.”
by rogerh3
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 11:07PM
“We're all in this together, remember:
http://tinyurl.com/7n49lvv
.”
by Viscount_V
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 11:05PM
“Shocking!
And just heard, Don wasn't one of the 4 who voted against the government and he isn't Charles Kennedy who abstained. There's a surprise!”
by MoeXXX
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 10:44PM
“Oh right - the benefit cut that makes the news is the one that only affects the top 10% of earners. Bad Chron. Sick, sick society.”
by Viscount_V
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 10:26PM
“What are the numbers of working families in our region set to lose out by the benefit reform voted through today by the Nasties and their lap dogs?
How many children in region will fall into poverty because of the 1% benefit cap and by how much money will the low paid and destitute be worse off?
What are they gonna do about the neverending rise in private rents that are dragging families well below the breadline??? What do they want..Blood?
I think it kind of blasts the child benefit argument out of the water.”
by DaveBathwick
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 10:05PM
“Chronicle's online headline to this article ''Is your Bath household one of more than 1300 to lose children....'! Always got the most amusing typos but at least it might explain why there are so many kids on the street. Or it could be a brilliant demcon wheeze- if you could somehow 'lose' the children, then you wouldn't have to pay child (note the name ) benefit. Now where did I leave wee Angus?”
by UpInTheAir
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 1:53PM
“In principle I agree with this benefit (and others) not being available to people on higher incomes.
However the extra complexity this particular change has introduced to our tax system (and probably extra costs associated with dealing with administering it) makes me think this was a poorly executed choice.
In our tax system we don't really have 'household income' which this is effectively using to decide who gets this. If we're going to talk about household income, should we consider household personal allowances?”