CHILD BENEFIT SCRAPPED

So Chancellor George Osborne has announced that child benefit will be axed for either parents if their earnings reach the threshold for 40% income tax.  Iain Duncan Smith has described it as 'bonkers' for those earning more than £50,000 a year to be in receipt of it.  DC has suggested an overhaul of a system that has remained unchanged through successive administrations. 

The debate has swept across the political agenda with a similar affect to that of the crazed reaction to the vuvuzela, or popularity of the intensely annoying 'crazy frog' tune.  So whilst the topic seems to be current, lets have a look at what these announcements mean exactly.

For those parents who come into the 40% bracket, and earn £44,000 a year, they will lose their entitlement to child benefit: on the surface of it, it is a superfluous concept to be paying this out anyway.  It has always been seen as just an entitlement, and does not carry the same stigma as other benefits, so perhaps is viewed as 'fair game'.

What we should understand, is that nothing can be interpreted within context from the surface, and that there are a plethora of more variable and intricate cases whereby, yes, a couple may be beyond the threshold.  What if they are supporting older children through university, but also have much younger children: and lets say for instance, only the one parent is working, and at this threshold.  Does it become proportionately fair to assume that there isn't a validity or necessity to this entitlement?

We are of course in an age where the reverberations of movement has fallen upon us, and there is general opinion and disdain towards the quite unacceptable culture of those who are in receipt of benefits through some sort of lifestyle choice: economic times such as these, provoke a renewed interest in value for money, and resentment towards the stereotype we have in mind.  For that reason, it is essential that we shake up the system, and for those who are not in financial need of child benefit, to be separated from those who are in need.

There needs to be a proper financial assessment carried out on an individual basis, commensurate to the varied circumstances that may exist between claimants.  There cannot be an assumption based on the premise that there is a stereotype.  It should be irrespective of salary, but applied sensibly.  It makes no sense to provide child benefit for a couple earning £60,000 between them.  That seems obvious, but to save contradicting myself, unless each claim is assessed accordingly, then a particular claimants application cannot be fairly assessed.

The very idea that we can simplify the system with a one-for-all universal payout needs to be thoughtfully conceived.