George Osborne’s announcement today that from 2013 Child Benefit payments will be axed for any family with a parent earning enough to put them in the 40-50% income tax bracket is neither “fair” nor “right” as some commentators would have us believe: it’s actually an attack on the basic principles of the welfare state, and it’s an attack on women.
Before I get into how and why that is this though I just want to make something clear. By 2013 none of my 4 children will be eligible for Child Benefit, so I have absolutely no vested interest in this issue. This is not about me trying to preserve something for myself; the decision to cut Child Benefit will make no difference to me personally one way or another.
Right, so now I’ve got that out of the way, here’s the problem.
Child Benefit, or Family Allowance as it used to be called, is a universal benefit, and it’s universal for a reason. As Yvonne Roberts said in the Guardian last year:
“It’s precisely because child benefit is universal and not means-tested that it lays down a marker of mutuality in society that has a value that must not be sacrificed. It says that children matter and this cash, paid to the mother, is highly likely to be spent on their welfare.”
It’s a recognition if you like that children are valued, and that society as a whole has an obligation to support its children. It’s not, as some have said, a “reward” for having children, it’s society’s (small) contribution to its children’s welfare.
More importantly though as far as I’m concerned is the fact that Child Benefit is the one state benefit that has nearly always gone to the mother, or at least it has since 1945, when Eleanor Rathbone’s amendment to the Family Allowances Bill overturned the then Government’s proposal to have Family Allowance paid to the father:
“For moral and economic reasons this would, Rathbone believed, give mothers security and rights, as well as providing better chance of the money being used for the purpose it was intended: the welfare of children. This ‘child benefit’ payment was universal and paid into the purse. Rathbone knew that mothers could be vulnerable and less able to cope with changes in circumstance; she was also aware that payment direct to mothers made a statement about women’s equal status.”
It could of course be argued that Child Benefit as it currently stands is sexist, in that by giving mothers the payment it helps feed the notion that women are somehow more caring and nurturing than men, and in an ideal world I would be more than happy to argue that men are just as capable of fulfilling that role as women therefore both parents should get the benefit and so on and so forth. However, we don’t live in an ideal world, we are not in some post-patriarchal post-feminist sodding nirvana. The reality is that women do still bear the brunt of caring responsibilities, that women are still the ones most likely to take on the role of primary carer, and that mothers are still the ones who tend to do the shopping and cooking for their kids.
And it’s also still the case that women are the main victims of domestic violence, and that domestic violence cuts across all classes and income brackets. Rich women get beaten by their husbands too, and so do women who are married to men who pay 40% of their wages back to the taxman.
Speak to anyone who works in a domestic violence shelter, and they will tell you that often-times Child Benefit is the only source of income a woman and her children escaping from a violent partner and father will have. Speak to anyone who works in the violence against women sector and they will tell you all about how some men use money as a way to exert power and control in a relationship; how many women are denied access to the family finances, and how Child Benefit is often the only money they ever get to see.
Child Benefit is a fucking life-line for some women, and yet this government wants to take it away from them.
Others have already pointed out the discrepancy in Osborne’s proposals that will see a family with one person earning £44,000 a year losing their Child Benefit while a family with two people earning £43,000 each a year will get to keep theirs, but so far I’ve seen little about how, once again, this ConDem Government is proposing cuts that will have a disproportionate impact on women.
The Fawcett Society has called for a judicial review of this year’s budget, arguing that “the government should have assessed whether its budget proposals would increase or reduce inequality between women and men.” I firmly believe that that legal challenge should now be extended, and that the axing of Child Benefit for higher earners should be assessed according to the same criteria. Because an attack on Child Benefit is an attack on women, it really is as simple as that.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Brava!
There was a time when the child benifit payment was the only money I had when I was living in a domestic violent situation, this small amount often paid for food for my two children and I, week on week. It is not always the amount the woman’s partner earns that indicates their ability to access money. If a woman is not working and reliant on he partner it does not alway equate that he is supportitive of the family. It may well be the more vunerable and isolated groups of women in society who will be the ones to fall victim of these changes, people with learning difficulties or language barriers.
Today this action will also be felt by a different generation in another way. My son and his partner who works in key worker role, are earning enough to just take then out of the bracket to recieve child benifit. They are in their late twenties, and burdened with student debt and still living at home, and delaying the start of a family life. Because they do not qualify for a mortgage,they cannot afford to rent an approprate house in the south east, and the entitlement for child benifit that may have been some support is now being removed, delaying the start of a family even later. People like them who have never been out of work have been nothing but an asset to the community and act responsibly, are the targets for this action, and this is just the start.
The reason for the child benifit being a seperate allowance was to make it sole payment directly to women, in a time when the man’s role was accepted as being dominant. We have come a long way in equalties, but until all equality issues are addressed this benifit should remain standing alone for all.
Since payments for CHB were made only via a bank account it is much harder to argue that it is a lifeline for battered women.
George Osborne, like so many men makes the assumption that ‘families’ are composed of both the mother and father working, but that is not the case. Given the fact many women do not work because they are the ones providing childcare to their children, this means it is the father who is the one with earned income and it is the father who decides when and if he will ‘pay’ the non-working parent any money in order that she can ‘put food on the table.’
Given the fact middle-income mothers do have child benefit paid directly into their bank account makes not one iota of difference, should the father decide to withhold ‘paying’ the mother anything towards taking care of their children. This means that taking away Child Benefit from mothers whose ‘family income’ is often only the male’s income in most cases, means once again it is women who are the ones being disproportionately affected. It also means that violent and controlling men will be able to wield even greater economic power over their female partners who do not work due to child care duties. These women rely on child benefit as a means of having a measure of financial independence and ability to care for their children.
To solve this issue Osborne should increase income tax on higher income earners and that means anyone who is paying 40% to 50% income tax will have to pay higher tax. A far fairer system wherein it is not women who are the ones disproportionately targetted simply because they happen to have ‘male breadwinners’ earning more than certain amount.
It also means those who earn more have to pay more income tax and this would include of course those male earners who receive massive bonuses each and every year – most of whom continue to be male.
Apparently this move will save £1 billion per year. How much would it cost to administer? And why not just axe trident, thereby saving us a lot more than that annually (estimated costs £2-5 billion depending on who you believe).
well said cath.
Let’s see now. A cabinet composed almost entirely of men (plus a few women who have competed successfully with men on male terms) has a choice. It can cut off a nuke-bearing missile shaped temptingly like a tumescent member and habitually associated with national potency (see the outrage at the thought of sharing it with – the French!), or it can impoverish women and children. Now which one is most likely to get the chop…
Oh dear, I see the Male and the Torygraph are outraged. I have to wonder how Osbore came up with this policy? A night on the sauce with some Bullingdon chums? It seems utterly predictable to me that the Male and the Torygraph would be outraged, doesn’t Georgie porgie have advisors?
Hilarious to see all the backpedalling about it anyway. One of my colleagues (with child +- sometimes in the higher tax bracket depending on his commission – hubby) has been ranting about Cameron all day.
Am also highly amused that they are going to spend money to get people back into work, having just made a shedload of folks (it could be me!) unemployed to save money!
Not. a. fucking. clue.
I think the phrase couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery was invented specifically for times like this…..
getting angrier…
cameron apologises that it wasn’t in the manifesto. which conveniently ignores the fact that the reason it wasn’t in the manifesto was because they explicitly said they would not cut child benefit!
the housing benefit caps are getting beyond awful too. osbourne says they want to make it so that people are better off in work than on benefits. are they raising the minimum wage then? no. are they regulating high rental prices? no.
are they planning on making loads of people redundant and getting rid of loads of jobs, thereby pushing people in to JSA and the benefits system? yes.
as you say, can’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
and now the marriage tax break is back on the agenda! ffs! the tories hate single mums and want them to go back to work, but middle class married mums – you can stay at home.
rage rage rage!
This is just the tip of the iceberg with regard breaking election, party conference promises. Given Teresa May’s response on Newsnight last night it also seems that not all those in the cabinet are aware of Gideon’s plans. William Hague, who’s usually vague, said this morning on Radio 4 that he was fully aware of the plans, an admission that will return to haunt him, given the mess they are now left with.
An almighty cockup, unpopular with the delgates, who readily agreed on Newsnight last night that it was delivered badly.
That light at the end of the tunnel is definitely the headlamp of high speed express train.
I thought much the same – but when I realised that they are going to ‘withdraw’ child benefit through the tax system it actually flips the whole thing on its head. Women will still receive child benefit (unless they decide not to claim) – it will be clawed back through tax, and as the majority of those in the top tax bracket are male (sadly), it will be done through their wage packets. Of course, you can imagine this causing disagreements within families.
To illustrate it, I’ve visualised some of the stats.
I know a lot of not even slightly political people who are pissed off about this. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Didn’t think it would start to go pear shaped this fast.
Hi Paul, I didn’t understand that to be the case at all. Can I ask what your source is for saying there’s going to be a tax rise?
Numerous sources – the BBC report it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300 – “People will be expected to declare on their tax returns whether they fall within the 40% and 50% tax brackets and the money will then be clawed back through the tax system.” Osborne goes on to recommend that top-rate taxpayers stop claiming child benefit altogether, but that seems rather optimistic.
Traditionally a woman claimed Child Benefit because if she took time off from work to care for the children it protected her pension contributions. Now you could argue that those in the high income bracket can top up the contributions but this strategy is often neglected and/or overlooked. Yet another reason why this cut is so strange. It will leave many women financially stranded, especially if circumstances change in later life.
I see what you’re saying Paul, but that doesn’t make much sense either, since not everyone fills in a tax return – there are plenty of people on PAYE earning higher rate tax who don’t, who don’t, and AFAIK, you don’t then have to fill one in just because you get child benefit cos it’s not a taxable benefit.
It seems clear they haven’t really thought this through at all.
What has amazed me is the number of people who describe themselves as being “on the left” who have come out in support of Osborne’s proposal – on the basis that if you’re earning over £43,000 then you’re rich enough to support your children without state help.
What they overlook is that once this measure is approved it will mark the end of universality, as Cath so rightly points out and the next step will be to reduce the limit first to maybe £35,000, then to £30,000 and so on. Also what’s being suggested by some of the same left thinking people is to limit the payment to the first two children.
Good article Cath.