Why do high earners expect a hand-out from the state?

Fascinating – many middle class people will shake their heads at those who expect hand-outs from the state and yet there has been no end of people phoning in, e-mailing, blogging or appearing on TV (the BBC seeks them out in ‘leafy suburbs’) complaining how they will suffer by losing child benefit because they earn more than £44,000. [This is after the Chancellor George Osborne announces that child benefit will end for those earning over £44,000].

Excuse me ... £44,000? As one sane woman wrote, “I am a single mother and I earn £10,000, I would love to earn £44,000”. Many of us would be happy to ‘suffer’ that much, that’s for sure.

Do the people who are complaining not realise that £44,000 is a pretty decent salary and there are millions for whom £44k a year would be akin to a lottery win? Given that £25,000 is now meant to be the national average, it’s safe to say that £44,000 is certainly well above average.

Does the word ‘austerity’ really apply if you are a single person earning more than £44,000? Do people earning this much not know there has been a recession and that the government is looking to make swingeing cuts left, right and centre? Or did they think they would be immune? Certainly on £44,000 you are immune to many things ... unless they are self-inflicted of course, and children must fall into that category.

One woman had the gall to appear on TV stating that she relied on child benefit to buy nappies and other essentials and she would now lose around £1700 a year. But hang on, she earns more than £44,000 and has chosen to have a family – which is fair enough, of course, it’s a free country – but she expects the state (and by that we mean the taxpayer of course, you and me) – to pay for her children’s nappies, clothes and food?

Does she expect the state to pay towards her summer holidays, feeding the dog, cleaning her carpets, buying her clothes or maybe towards her choice of car? Of course not, those are personal life choices that have nothing to do with anyone but her (and maybe whoever she chooses to share her life with) ... so why on earth should the government pay towards the ‘essentials’ that come with having a family?

Another person interviewed said “I think every taxpayer who has children should get child benefit.” The obvious response to that would be “Why?”. Try this and see if it makes as much sense: “I think every taxpayer who drives a car should get free extras.” Or “I think every taxpayer who goes on holiday should be given vouchers.” Doesn’t really work does it?

There is an argument for saying that child benefit shouldn’t exist in the first place but there is certainly no argument at all that says it should exist for those who plan to have a family in the knowledge that they can afford it. Do people genuinely plan to have children on the understanding that nappies and other items will be covered by the state? If so, perhaps they shouldn’t. Besides, this is the very mentality that ‘middle England’ is supposed to dislike so much about the welfare state, ie “the state owes me a favour” or “I don’t need to think about whether to have a baby because the state will support me”.

Osborne’s logic was that people on low incomes should “no longer be taxed to provide child benefit for those with bigger salaries”. Sounds very much like Labour or even Liberal Democrat logic. So why are people up in arms about it so much?

There’s been so much talk of how the vulnerable and the poor are going to be hit by the forthcoming cuts – and that is still likely to be the case – so maybe this move will provide some small comfort that those people who earn more in a year than millions earn in five are having an unnecessary privilege taken away.

The hurt will certainly be felt by everyone – but those earning £44k and over should realise that they are likely to be more cushioned than most.

The only real problem with Osborne’s logic, of course, is that if a couple earn £43,000 each, bringing in a combined income of £86k, they can still get child benefit. That isn’t consistent with the message about those who are less well-off but maybe it’s a subtle attempt at what Ken Clarke memorably called “social engineering” ... ie encouraging families to have two parents. Who knows, it might just work.