Hold on a mo. If you are paying for childcare, that means both parents are working. To lose child benefit, one parent must be a higher rate tax payer. Even if the parent earning less loses ALL their income to child care (in which case, why are they working), you still have someone in the house earning £45K+

That was in reply to DerbyHillTop, by the way.

The worst case scenario is one parent earning just over the higher tax threshold, and one not working at all. What proportion of their income will they lose when child benefit goes, if they have, say, two children?

What would happen if people stop having children. Children are primarily the responsibility of the parents, secondarily 'society'. we do not have children to exist in a bubble.

May be me Roz but not totally sure what you are getting at.

I agree the higher rate tax withdrawal of family allowance could have been presented better. In fact much better, but most British tax payers would still get the allowance.

Should ideally be basrd on family income so maybe we go back to the family being taxes as one unit.

well find a cheaper alternative then. Why should the taxpayer fund your child care? And as has been pointed out that would mean both parents are working so if it costs more for childcare than one partner earns then stay at home and look after the kids instead of passing responsibility to the state.[/quote]

@ Willy:

Would you rather pay for the daycare, or the income support and housing benefit that would in many cases replace it?

Did someone claim it costs 30k to fund 2 children at nursery. Jas the world gone mad. 15k a child.
If that is truly the case find a grandparent or friend

the income support would be cheaper if it costs 15k per child!

The average London nursery and indeed childminder charges around £60 per day per child, some more , some less but thats probably the average. Thats £300 pw or £15 K per annum. If you are lucky to live near and get into either a Surestart facility or one run by a Childrens Centre, you know those monstrosities set up by Labour, then you would pay around £40 per day. As a parent of three my childcare costs per month for 2 days childcare per week are £1400 and that includes sibling discount and the nursery subsidy for three year olds. Believe me, if we had family or friends at the ready with time to spare then we would be off like a shot. But I suppose social leeches like us who don't have that sort of support network should never have had children at all.
Giving up work is not an option for either of us or probably most people as its now very hard to get back on career ladders once you are off it, and from previous experience and knowing that of others there are plenty of employers out there who would try and avoid hiring parents especially mothers of young children.

I should have also said that most people just lump the extortionate early years costs to keep in pensionable employment, as it does get easier when kids start school. There are other costs but nothing like in the first few years of life.
Things are also a lot harder for parents of multiples who are hit doubly with expensive costs all at the one time. Thats another long story.

I think topics such as this are all meant to make us realise what this 'big society' idea is about (because no-one has really been told).
I think in fact what Cameron means more is 'small society'.
I think he wants people to be forced to move back near relatives to get them to do the childcare, or have grandparents/parents move in with them even, like in the good old WWI/WW2 days. I think he wants neighbourhoods to start getting together to solve issues the council can no longer afford to cover, and to police the areas the police are no longer available to protect, no matter that 'neighbourhoods' don't exist any more since the heady days of the 80s. I think he wants us to pick up other people's dog poo because there's no-one left to educate the idiots who let it happen, and to educate our own children because there's no more libraries, and actual teachers are in scarce supply due to lack of funds.
He wants us all to step back and take a good hard look at our lives and say 'well, we must make sacrifices now, for the good of everyone'.
And why should we be grateful for his guidance, this light in the murk? Why do we need to do this? Because the governments and the bankers messed everything up.
THEY'RE HOLDING US RESPONSIBLE TO FIX A PROBLEM WE HAD NO SAY IN AND COULD NEVER HAVE ALTERED.
Absolutely nothing any government in power today in the UK could say about this situation would ever have any bearing on the fundamental truth of all this, because they all know the truth is that the 'people' are not to blame, and you can't punish people who are without blame.
So I'd just like to say, as politely as I possibly can to the people who run this planet, **** you all.
Rant over!

Not sure how you folow the last post. Of course ideal solution if you have limitless funds. I am afraid we have pay for years of largesse .

Roz mentioned alleged cost of child care. Would think you would get a neighbour ( assuming no parents or siblings near by ) to do the job for 1/3 the price.

They'd have to be CRB checked, and have child gates, and provide stimulating entertainment all day and inspected by OFSTED - oh look, they've become childminders, with all the additional expense and admin that entails.

Remember the story about the two police ladies who looked after each other's kids and they weren't registered - red tape to the nth degree!

All that regulation is what has broken down the society that really functioned quite well, thank you very much, bar the odd aberration, until the labour regime tinkered with it over the last decade, making it impossible for anyone to as much as pass wind without registering for it.

Before Cameron can artificially rebuild the Big Society, he has to take away all the restricitons that make people unwilling to put themselves forward, because of the likelihood of being sued or whatever.

Well heeled people like Cameron consider the concept of a 'Big Society possible as they have no conception of what its like to have no choice whatsoever to have to work. People like him are surrounded by people with independent wealth and income who don't really need to take a job, and dare I say it, but it probably has a lot of truth in it, with wives/partners who have little to do but find good charitable works to do. The rest of us have so little time and energy left after putting it all into our jobs and families that its impossible to be able to do voluntary work as well and certainly not to the extent of running essential services.

Unfortunately I do agree that over regulation in the childcare sector has been an issue in recent years and continues to be so. I do think its of questionable value whether childminders follow an early years curriculum for under threes. However childminders must train to meet a certain standard and also be prepared for constant monitoring and assessment and all of these things puts pressure on them and makes their services more expensive. The average annual cost of a fulltime childminder or nursery is on the par with private school fees like Dulwich College. How many parents are on a salary that can support that yet they are expected to find this money in the early years of their childs life.

I would love to find a neighbour to take in my children however they are also out at work 24/7 trying to make ends meet and to pay their mortgages. It simply is not possible that people do this sort of thing any more least of all for not much money. I also work for a local authority where there are signs and posters up raising the issue of unofficial childminding.

Personally I'd have been happy with someone who could offer my children a loving, fun and safe environment ie a home from home,but that is not possible any more.

As much as I am chuffed that my post provoked lively reaction, I am saddened that some have not understood my message.
For a start I wasn’t talking about my family, my apologies if the concise numbers led you to that belief. That doesn’t mean that I can’t see the effect on the people that will see this cut. And my fear is that once it is removed for those earning 43875 or more, governments will have easier task in every year bringing more and more families of this universal benefit by reducing the income threshold. The method may be simple, but is crude and has some rather negative effects for those just over the threshold.
So to give a response to some comments and may be a bit less numbers:
Top 10% of taxpayers pay tax at 40% and top 1% pays tax of 50%. By my educated guess that means that about half of 40% payers are not on more than 50k. I would assume that London has greater number of such people as salaries in London are slightly higher than in other part of the country. Saying that the prices of equivalent housing and childcare are also higher and dare I say many would not be conservative supporters.
Now I have no idea how many of those have children, but for the ones that do the following will most likely apply:
Before they had children, they were living and aspiring to own their home as everyone else in this country. They might be paying a mortgage or rent for more than a one bedroom flat and their financies would have been guided on those incomes. They would have saved up for the pregnancies, as they would have been aware that maternity pay is lot lower than their pre children income. But cost of childcare in London is far bigger than what is quoted in the press and Direct GOV dot com. After the maternity then they face a dilemma whether work pays, because in order to work and have 2 children (nothing excessive here) you need more than average salary to have anything left to contribute towards your family’s wellbeing. Some people will stay at home and some will continue to work and thus still contribute to the tax man. Whatever their decision they are now effectively living and caring for 2 extra people by a greatly reduced income. No matter what you actually earn unless you are ¬TINY minority this has to be hard. Then some, that currently receive Working Families Tax Credit are told that as they earn more than national average and therefore they are really well of, shall no longer receive this benefit. On top will also lose child benefit the following year.

So to recap: The above are hard working people like the rest, just maybe luckier or smarter who have incomes in top 10%. Having children will mean a difficult readjustment of their living standards. To top it all they are being told that they do not know how other 90% live in one way or the other and should not complain.
My original post was that families whatever their income (or benefits) are most likely to bring up future generations in increasingly tougher conditions. This government is attacking them hard on every level. We have not heard it all yet but so far schools will not be updated, Working family tax credit will be scaled down, VAT increase, reduction in allowances for 40% earners to name a few. Yet DC, GO and their friends are untouched by the decisions they make for us. What sacrifices will they make?

I am pretty sure that DC children attend state school and that they use the NHS.

At least DC and GO are taking realistic decisions about how much money there is to spend rather than living in la la land like the last government.

I do not believe that there is any 'glee' being taken about making cuts - what sane politician would want to be in that position.

I agree with last posting.
Being rude to our PM is not on. Should be Mr Cameron or Primeminister not just his family or clan name.
The Government have an extremely difficult job after the debacle of the last 13 years .
Our former PM and former former PM tried to as many people dependent on the state as possible. I understand for instance people getting 55k could be able to claim tax credits. Surely this was a farce.
I see we have more jobless households than any other EU country. This is a disgrace.
I always thought we were stupid boasting a lower unemployment rate than other EU countries. Our true unemployment hidden in disability benefit etc.
We have 18 million fewer citizens than Germany but twice as many on Disability. How can this be.
As for childcare regulations again a farce. Scrap all regulations since 1997 , may not be enough but a good start.
Someone said to me I have spare time and could help young children to read. In principal would consider but refuse to lower myself to CRB. Why would redaing with children in presence of other adults be a child care risk.

mljay
and now here is my rant:
You don't buy a house with money you have - you get a loan.
You no longer get free university education - you get a loan.
If you happen to be a child you face constant criticism of the cost to the taxpayer of your growing up.
The way personal responsibility and personal economising is portrayed when shall we stop? Should we scrap taxation and pay for everything we need ourselves? If we have no money - we can get a LOAN.

We all know that the country is in the global recession - why pay off the debt now?
We had higher relative levels of debt in the past and we survived.

What % of wealth does the top 1% command? If they and you want / can afford to pay off the debt ASAP, please lead the example. For the first time in my life I will get into more debt in order to survive, and I don't think it's fair that the country's debt is transferred to me in this way. I didn't cause the global mess, and I am ending up with higher debt.

GO is not claiming Child Benefit - ha, good for him . He is still not sacrificing his lifestyle. Don't take it away from people who need it. What are DC and GO's sacrifices in all this? Or what changes to their life they will have to implement in facing their own proposals?

Well they certainly look like they are enjoying it when they announce it

So Child tax credit goes in April 2012 for all on over 25k per annum
Family allowance goes if you have on person earning more than 44k per annum, believe me, this is just theh start, just wait until they start hacking at it again

Uni fees for less well off will go up, making it harder for poorer children to go to uni

Now I hear they plan to start on winter fuel payments

Pensions also for final salary ones will also be getting hit

We all know that cuts had to be made, yet it is children and oaps who look like getting hit the most

Nick Clegg manifesto before election we must stop having these faith schools, now he is thing of sending his child to a catholic school

So you think that DC & GO send their children to state schools and will use the local hospital when they are ill, get real and live in the proper world, they will use private schools and use bupa

If you think these cuts are bad, just wait until they really get going

They were both members of the Bullingdon Club 'notorious for its members' wealth and destructive binges'

DC sends his daughter to a state funded CoE primary school, GO sends his children to the same private prep-school that he attended.

DC's son received all his treatment on the NHS prior to his death last year.

I hope so. I see no reason why 60 year olds in full time employment should receive a winter fuel bonus. If people are in full time employment, or spend their winters in the second home in Spain, I do not feel that the government should provide them with this money while many families living in state owned accommodation suffer from the cold during the winters.