So I got one of those letters a month or so back, and should really get 'round to sorting things out regarding what to do about it.
I suspect my income puts me just on the cusp - my basic is 47k, and I'm on an on-call rota that roughly provides somewhere in the region of 10-15k. I've just looked at my payslip for December and my wages up to and including December are £70 shy of 50k, gross pay for this month ~4900 (which is probably fairly typical).
So with three more paydays before the end of the financial year, I doubt it's going to be under 60k - probably over. Although from memory, my P60s for the past two or three years, have probably seen my gross pay to be late 50s.
So the form says I might wish to stop getting child benefit if my income is more than 60k - which this year it looks to be - going off the last few years, though, I'm sure my P60s haven't shown my yearly income to be 60k or above, just mid or late 50s. The form says if my income is between 50 and 60k, I may wish to keep getting child benefit.
Well my wife gets the child benefit, and she earns low 20k-ish (works part time 24hours / 3 days a week).
So I'm inclined to not want to have to both register for self-assessment and have to fill that in every year - especially if the tax liability is going to be more than the benefit.
Is that the best advice, though? And what puts me (personally) in this situation is a part of my income being "optional" (on-call rote providing regular overtime payments) - ie something that either I could opt out of, or my employer decide to no longer deem necessary / choose to fund. So there's at least the prospect either by personal choice, or employer choice that I may at some point no longer be in the group where my invididual income puts me above the threshold - so say I opt out now, can I opt in again should circumstances change?
And as a generalism, is it better to still receive it, then sort out the tax? I had a similar thing a few years back with child tax credits and child minder fees, I think we were on the borderline for actually receiving any credits, but applied, got some benefit from it, then after a year was told (by letter) we'd been overpaid in tax credits and owed them some money back. Rather than be in that situation again, I didn't bother applying after that, because I think it was rather more clear cut.
I have to say, on the whole child benefit thing, I'm not about to plead poverty, nor rap on about the universality of some benefits - but the problem I have with this all, is it always seems to hit people in the lower mid-tier. Yes, I get there are people who earn a lot less, and where the minimum wage is - but these changes aren't hitting the rich - they just hitting the people who aren't at the bottom of the ladder - there's a big difference. Some couples have more equal wages in the household, and would be earning a fair amount more than my household, and still not be hit by it. That's why it irks, somewhat, when these things are supposedly brought in so that high earners / "the rich" no longer get child benefit- I may not be low paid, but I'm certainly not highly paid, either - if they really wanted to remove the benefit for high earners / rich, then the limit would be a fair amount higher, and / or factor in household income, as opposed to a per person income limit.
I suspect my income puts me just on the cusp - my basic is 47k, and I'm on an on-call rota that roughly provides somewhere in the region of 10-15k. I've just looked at my payslip for December and my wages up to and including December are £70 shy of 50k, gross pay for this month ~4900 (which is probably fairly typical).
So with three more paydays before the end of the financial year, I doubt it's going to be under 60k - probably over. Although from memory, my P60s for the past two or three years, have probably seen my gross pay to be late 50s.
So the form says I might wish to stop getting child benefit if my income is more than 60k - which this year it looks to be - going off the last few years, though, I'm sure my P60s haven't shown my yearly income to be 60k or above, just mid or late 50s. The form says if my income is between 50 and 60k, I may wish to keep getting child benefit.
Well my wife gets the child benefit, and she earns low 20k-ish (works part time 24hours / 3 days a week).
So I'm inclined to not want to have to both register for self-assessment and have to fill that in every year - especially if the tax liability is going to be more than the benefit.
Is that the best advice, though? And what puts me (personally) in this situation is a part of my income being "optional" (on-call rote providing regular overtime payments) - ie something that either I could opt out of, or my employer decide to no longer deem necessary / choose to fund. So there's at least the prospect either by personal choice, or employer choice that I may at some point no longer be in the group where my invididual income puts me above the threshold - so say I opt out now, can I opt in again should circumstances change?
And as a generalism, is it better to still receive it, then sort out the tax? I had a similar thing a few years back with child tax credits and child minder fees, I think we were on the borderline for actually receiving any credits, but applied, got some benefit from it, then after a year was told (by letter) we'd been overpaid in tax credits and owed them some money back. Rather than be in that situation again, I didn't bother applying after that, because I think it was rather more clear cut.
I have to say, on the whole child benefit thing, I'm not about to plead poverty, nor rap on about the universality of some benefits - but the problem I have with this all, is it always seems to hit people in the lower mid-tier. Yes, I get there are people who earn a lot less, and where the minimum wage is - but these changes aren't hitting the rich - they just hitting the people who aren't at the bottom of the ladder - there's a big difference. Some couples have more equal wages in the household, and would be earning a fair amount more than my household, and still not be hit by it. That's why it irks, somewhat, when these things are supposedly brought in so that high earners / "the rich" no longer get child benefit- I may not be low paid, but I'm certainly not highly paid, either - if they really wanted to remove the benefit for high earners / rich, then the limit would be a fair amount higher, and / or factor in household income, as opposed to a per person income limit.