Letter: Child benefit cut a shortsighted betrayal

No wonder the electorate feels betrayed by politicians. Having made "supporting the family" a major issue before the election, David Cameron's Conservatives have now singled out parents who choose to live together with their children as their first major target for tax rises (your report, 5 October).

Far from hitting the super-rich, this will hit many families with a parent who, as a police officer, nurse or teacher, has worked for promotion and taken on extra responsibility in order to better themselves and their families and will now see the reward for their endeavours being a substantial cut to their income.

This measure will also disproportionately affect any family where one spouse has chosen to stay at home to look after their children.

The biggest threat to the sustainable future of our society and economy is the financial pressure young families are under; with many struggling to repay student debt, large mortgage deposits or rent for overpriced housing and worrying about the threat to their jobs from excessively savage government cuts to hit next year.

No wonder many of the hard-working people we would wish to produce the next generation decide instead to have only one child, or often no children at all.

Meanwhile, by want of ambition, effort or the necessary faculties our burgeoning feckless, benefit-dependent sub-culture continues to produce large families who tend to follow their parents into a life of unemployment, thereby distorting the balance of our population towards ever-increasing state dependency.

Raising tax on the "rich" may be justifiable or even desirable in the current economic climate, but that could have been more fairly achieved by raising the basic and 40 per cent tax rates for everyone, rather than deliberately targeting only families with young children.

Such a crude disincentive for the so-called "middle classes" to have children is unfair, socially regressive and extremely shortsighted.

Philip Lardner

Parkinch

Erskine, Renfrewshire

Cuts to child benefit mean yet again the government is failing the equality test and failing to meet legal requirements for gender impact assessment.

For the second time in this Chancellor's short time in office it's women and children who must pay for his big ideas to cut the deficit caused by bailing out the banks. More than 70 per cent of the revenue raised from direct tax and benefit changes announced in the June emergency Budget came from women.

The latest coalition revenue raiser, to remove child benefit as a universal benefit from families in which one earner pays higher rate tax, falls nearly 100 per cent on women (and 100 per cent on children).

The gender pay gap and the other lifetime earnings penalties faced by women means the higher earner in this scenario is likely to be a man.Child benefit is usually paid to mothers, and for many mothers who are not employed, this is their only source of independent income.

In June the coalition stated it would retain a universal child benefit. The universal character has been some recognition of the costs to mothers of providing the next generation, who will be helping to provide for everyone's old age pension; and some recognition of the importance of mothers having some income in their own right.

The decision to cut benefits rather than to raise taxes will fall on women. A tax rise would not have impacted on those women looking after children full-time who have no other income of their own, while removing child benefit will leave most without any money of their own at all.

Clearly we're not all in this together.

Angela O'Hagan

Scottish Women's Budget Group

Glasgow

Spare a thought for the captains of our financial institutions, who, after leading the way in the face of the forthcoming cuts, and showing us that they are tightening their belts by slashing their bonus payments from 7.3 billion to a niggardly 7bn, are now hit with the announcement that they will be losing their entitlement to child benefit. Talk about kicking a man when he's down!

Walter J Allan

Colinton Mains Drive

Edinburgh

Children are our tomorrow and for the Chancellor to announce cuts in child benefits is in clear contradiction of the Conservative election commitment of promoting families.

This announcement about one of the great universal benefits begs the question: is the state pension also under threat? This has not been thought through.

Cutting benefits designed to encourage children and families is in clear contradiction of the principals of the welfare state. A much better solution - and one cheaper to process - would be higher progressive taxation of the wealthy.

Catriona C Clark

Hawthorn Drive

Banknock, Falkirk

Why is only a small section of the "rich" being penalised? Why are those with young families being, in effect, taxed a minimum of 1,000 or so?

Would it not have been more equitable, more efficient, and raise as much, if not more, revenue, to increase the top rate by 1p?

Hector Woodhouse

Clarendon Crescent

Linlithgow