Sam, you honestly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I don't mean to be offensive, but what you are quoting there is not based on a proper knowledge of home responsibility protection and it's impact upon National Insurance status upon retirement.

Of course this change will predominantly affect single women who try their best to work hard and bring in a decent wage the most. This government is punishing women but giving a big ok to couples who seemingly can earn over 44K and still retain their Child Benefit. It's blatant discrimination; no less!

thats without the hike in VAT, potentially a hike in mortgage rates (remember 1990's), poor saving rates for few who can afford to save..... petrol prices - need i go on. also don't get tax credits because of childcare vouchers. how can they justify the 86k vs 44k - I just do not understand! even if i go back to work and our income reaches 86k we still wouldnt qualify (or hopefully need it) because he earns over 44k. Just hope those joint income families in the right balalnce of salaries realise how lucky they will be.... did i mention womens state pension credits....

As Alf Garnett would say, watch and shoot, watch and bleeding shoot,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKy4RHf5tQ

@Sam

"Sorry, but I am a social liberal who believes that state help should go to those desperately in need, and not spread out thinly amongst everyone."

Ghettoization of the welfare state as you propose inevitably leads to its total destruction. Higher rate tax payers pay their tax and NI stamp so it is their right to get those universal benefits. You can see from the bitterness aroused in people from the money given in tax credits to those most in need that your version of the welfare state wouldn't work. We would be back to the workhouse and Cathy Come Home before we could say "LibDems are proto-tories".

Apart from the principles, there are obvious problems with its practical implementation. The fact a family with both parents earning £43,000, thus a joint income of £86,000, would get CB. But a family with only one parent earning £45,000 would lose their CB. This glaring hole shots the "fair" argument down in flames and, along with Clegg's apparent ignorance of the policy, demonstrates how ill-conceived and badly thought through this policy is but the media grid said it was Osborne's day thus it most be so...

Also, taking the example of a housewife/husband whose husband/wife earns £45k. Him/Her only source of income other than him/her wife/husband is CB, even if the marriage is blissful it still gives the wife some independence from their partner. In the situation where the "primary carer" is wholly dependent on their partner it would be very hard for them to up sticks and "go to a shelter". Because for one, the LibCons are cutting all the money for them, but on topic they'd have no money. Your social liberalism may sound great in theory but in reality it won't work - why do you think our forebears decided to go down the route of solidarity and universality.

"Ideally we would live in a low tax society, and people would keep more of their money, but that's not an option because of the financial mess we're in, so people will have to suffer in order for us to have a brighter future."

Well, actually, its not an option because we want high quality public services; they cost money. Either society as a whole decides we want a good society or we go back to the old ways of social Darwinism.

The reaction of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph to this is one of the funniest things I have ever witnessed.
Absolute, stinking hypocrisy.

I don't believe in Universal Benefits; I am perfectly happy and proud to pay towards helping those in our society who face hardship, but I believe that giving everyone jam just to keep the selfish people happy is wrong, because the result is that those who most need the help get an inadequate amount because its spread out.

I've just read the stream above - aviong done a search tosee what people are thinking about this whole CB farce. I have to say I have really worried about this over the last two days - I am a single parent with two bright and able teens - definitely university material. I work hard in the NHS and I contribute enormously in my role there for a salary that does not reflect what I do. But I love my work. And it is likely that I would be able to, in the near future, apply for posts in the next band - the one that now will mean I will then be ineligible for CB - and here was me thinking if I work hard, dedicate myself and my skills not only to raising two lovley responsible young people but also to my work to be able to fund university (or at least try and keep the uni debt at a level where it doesn't feel completely horrific).
I feel worried - it is feels like a hideous situation whereby it will 'pay' me to not excell in my work, to not try and support my childrens education to the level that I was hoping to.
My exhusband is a decent man, pays some child maintenance, and is temarried to a woman with three children. He doesn't fall into this over 44K salary band but she does - and I know that they need the money - her ex doesn't pay maintenance.

This is just so badly thought through. I am not a Conservative supporter, but I was trying to be positive about what they might bring - this has killed it for me.

Whoever Sam is - please rethink your views, they are idealistic. Nick and Chris - thumbs up!!

I guess the kids will have to drop out of school and go to work, then. Or go on the game.

Sam; I heard Cameron on the television this morning; he was defending how it is right to take the Child Benefit off one higher rate tax payer rather than two at a lower rate. Cameron just can't see the lack of logic in this daft scheme, he's saying you'll still get the Child Benefit if you have two people earning 43K, a total of £86K; whereas one earning 44k won't!

It's madness and shows discrimination towards single claimants (mainly mums) who earn more. It's not an attack on the well off at all, only a targeted sector. They will end up doing a u turn on their first big policy!

Yvette. It is you who should get the thumbs up, it is high time that this 'Government' stopped condemning single parents, mainly mums, who work hard and strive to do the best for their children by sending them into education. They are one of the hardest workforce of all, both in work and at home. It is ridiculous, Yvette that you should have to rethink plans to improve your career prospects by the actions of this coalition and its obsession with happy families. I suspect these plans on Child Benefit will take longer to implement than this lot realise, I hope their plans and term of office turn to dust.

It is hightime this coalition stopped portraying its image of people upon others by its constant 'tar all with the same brush' approach. There are thousands of hard working, decent and good willing single parents, they are not all to be found pushing umpteen prams around local housing estates.

This coalition constantly bleats on about how we must pay back the deficit for the sake of tommorow's generation, seemingly only a generation that counts if it comes from a happily married family with a good few quid in their account.

This coalition is no good at all, it's time we said good riddance to their ways and had a proper rethink on how we will deal with our economy, this is not the way.

What I found staggering about yesterday was why the Tories disclosed this policy change? Why not wait until the spending review in a couple of weeks?

On face value it seems to be a an own goal because the media have got stuck into them in this mornings papers. But, [from my cynical point of view] I think they will use it as leverage to shine light on the 'fairness' of the cuts coming up. Anyone else think the same?

Because of the Tories child benefit policy my grandson will be paying tax of £20 a week from 2013. He is only three years of age.

Someone needs to come out with this, even if I am from the regions, that is able to buy a property still well under the £100,000 mark.

It'll hit families in the south-east of England regions most where mortgage payments for properties for young families are nuts.

Own goal?

Said this in another thread here, breadwinners on their second marriage? And paying maintenence to a first family? They may be earning near fifty grand, but not quite with maintenence payments.

SOooo! If the husband and wife each brings less than 44k, let's say they earn 43k each, that is 86k for the couple, they still get their child benefit???Or if one gets 45k and the other nothing or a pittance, they lose it?? I don't get it!
Surely that can't be right? if it is, then this government is seriously lacking in the common sense department and that is very bad news indeed.I hope the people affected raise hell.

maybe they released this info to create such a furore that other policies will slip through the net quietly..... seriously though i am appalled - i am taking a career break to bring up my young family and my husband just tips into the 44k+ bracket - so why should we be penalised over other families with joint income of 80k. ludicrous - and then to find the system for Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) has changed since april and not been told either, and in my case my pension credits would stop if this ridiculous policy is allowed to go through. how can they say they promote family support then do this. its a complete insult.

another point - why not pick on the even higher tax bracket of 50% - surely these families really don't need it - or those who earn singly over 100k. appreciate a lot of families do not earn 45k jointly but all in balance - in some areas mortgages/rents are much higher, and cost of living, so the actual disposable income for a family with a single earner of 44k+ is often lower than some people may appreciate, and losing CB will affect the family housekeeping budget quite significantly.

has anyone realised that us mums that have no choice to stay at home as child care costs are not affordable!our husbands who earn over 44k we will not only loose out on our CB but our husbands will have to pay our national insurance contribution or we will loose our pension!! double wham, even more worse off! all is forgiven labour come back.

I agree with Daniele, my family fall into the just above 44k catagory, we are far from well off ! Those families with 2 x 43k a year are !! This must be properly means tested to be fair !

Thank you for sharing this important information... this needs to be shared and distributed.

What about all the woman like me who live with partners who are not the fathers of their children (would be ok if CSA would collect money from ex husband I guess). I am in a minimum wage job and support my kids from that (did have better job made redundant), while my partner helps it's not his job to pay for kids and as it's his company car and pension that pushes him into higher tax band he doesn't have lots of money, we are very far from well off.

Child benefit pays for school lunches and shoes, I face real hardship without it and will probably have to take a second job or leave my partners house, nice job David hope you burn

I have 2 young children and my husband lost his job nearly a job. They all rely on heavily on my salary which is just over 45K. My monthly take home income is around £ 2,400, just about to pay off mortgage and foods.... How could we be rich and how this government take out the child benefit?

LOL I have to laugh at the NS finding a huge problem with this. Normally the NS has inverse snobbery towards the trials and tribulations of the middle class!

This is a very misleading article as a woman won't in practice lose out at all. If she is a stay at home mother and is married, then her husband is likely to be paying into a pension scheme. Presumely he is planning to carry on providing the finances for his wife when he retires, as he has done while he was working. If they divorce then she will be able to get provisions for her welfare from a divorce settlement.

If it's the same scenario, but the couple are not married, then I'm pretty sure she still gets the carers benefit, correct me if I'm wrong.

If a woman is single, and earns £44,000+ then she will lose out if she has children under 12 but that shouldn't cause her any great harm, unless of course, she hasn't been paying into a pension. I doubt there will be a single woman who is affected in the way this article suggests.

But yes, we need to take away child benefits from people who come under the threshold individually but jointly earn more than £44,000 a year. Perhaps we should change it to households earning more than £44,000 regardless of how many people are contributing financially.

Let's carry on the bonfire of universal benefits!