Anne is spot on. Child benefit is not about the parents; it is about the child, or children. It works on the principle that, irrespective of the circumstances of the household in which a child grows up, the state will underpin its welfare by an allowance, paid typically through the mother. All discussions to date about ending the universal nature of the benefit have ultimately foundered on the question of how one can ensure that no child who need it goes without. What no one expected was a proposal that makes no claim to achieve that end, and instead positively rattles with anomalies and inequities. Legislation often has unintended consequences, but all of this is screamingly obvious well in advance.The disparity between households where two people earn £43k and get the benefit, and those where one breadwinner earns £44k and doesn't, has been highlighted elsewhere. There are others: this proposal creates a minefield in the area of income and marginal rates of taxation; what does a single parent of three earning £43.5k do when offered a pay rise of £500? The effect would be to gain £500 of taxable income, but lose over £2400 of tax-free income. It's regressive taxation gone mad.Are they stupid? Tempting to say, but realistically, no. Do they think we're stupid? Again, I think not. No, this appears to another example of their strategy of chopping up society into the deserving (eg married people) and undeserving (eg public sector workers, single parent households, the unmarried, the unemployed, the sick - oh, and immigrants, obviously). They then make the assumption that, as a majority of us are not in any single one of these categories, we're happy to see them given a kicking. I hope we're above all that, although I'm starting to fear otherwise.
Steve Donnelly ● 5826d