X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Briefing: Means-testing Child Benefit

4 January 2013

4:04 PM

4 January 2013

4:04 PM

George Osborne’s removal of child benefit from high-earners kicks in on Monday, but what exactly does it entail?

Who loses what?

Initially, Osborne’s plan was ‘to remove child benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer’, as he announced in the Spending Review of October 2010. (This year, that’d be anyone earning over £42,475.) But after criticism that this would hit too many people, and that it would create a ‘cliff-edge effect’ (whereby someone earning £42,475 would keep all their Child Benefit but someone earning £42,476 would lose it all, so the lower-earner would end up better-off), Osborne changed his mind.

In his Budget of March 2012, the Chancellor announced that only families with at least one parent earning more than £50,000 would lose out, and that the removal would be tapered. Families will lose 1 per cent for every £100 their highest-earner earns over £50,000 — up to 100 per cent for those earning £60,000-plus.

HMRC estimates that this will affect around 1.2 million families, with 70 per cent of them losing all their child benefit (because at least one parent earns £60,000 or more). Those 1.2 million families will lose an average of roughly £1,300 each per year. (Child Benefit is currently £1,056 a year for one child, and an extra £697 per additional child.)

How will it work?

Somewhat bizarrely, the affected families will actually carry on receiving Child Benefit, but will face an extra ‘income tax charge’ to reduce their net income by the appropriate amount. So a family with two children whose highest earner has an income of £60,000 will receive £1,752 in Child Benefit (as now) but will also have to pay a new tax of £1,752.

How much will it save the government?

[Alt-Text]


The Treasury estimates that the change will save the government around £1.5 billion in 2013-14, rising to £2.5 billion a year by 2016-17.

Criticism 1: Unfairness

One criticism of the original plan that Osborne didn’t address with his changes is that a family where both parents earn, say, £40,000 (so the total income is £80,000) gets to keep all of its Child Benefit, whereas a lone parent earning £60,000 loses all of it. On the plus side, the policy does not hit the 85 per cent of families where both parents earn less than £50,000 at all.

Criticism 2: High marginal tax rates

The gradual reduction in Child Benefit means that families whose highest earner’s income is between £50,000 and £60,000 will effectively face much higher marginal income tax rates. At the moment, for every extra pound they earn, they keep 60p, but from Monday — if they have kids — they’ll keep less. How much less depends on how many children they have:

Robert Joyce of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has put together the below graph to show how the change will distort the income tax system, warning that this will raise the incentives for those in this band ‘to reduce their taxable income by, for example, working less or contributing more to a private pension’.

Criticism 3: Ignoring inflation

As Joyce notes, the government does not plan to raise the £50,000 and £60,000 thresholds — which has two knock-on effects. First: as wages rise, more families will find themselves losing their Child Benefit. Second, as Child Benefit rises to keep up with the cost of living, the marginal tax rates facing those in that range will rise even further.

Criticism 4: More paperwork

HMRC predicts that, as a result of the policy, an extra 500,000 people will have to fill in self assessment forms.

Criticism 5: What happened to simplifying the benefits system?

‘Perhaps the biggest concern is the incoherence it creates in the welfare system’, Joyce says. He notes that on the one hand the government is simplifying benefits by combining six means-tested benefits into one (the Universal Credit), but at the same time is turning Child Benefit into a new one. With Council Tax Benefit also becoming more complicated, Joyce warns that ‘It is unclear whether the net effect of all this will be to improve the welfare system.’

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close