Angela Epstein has written an article in the Daily Fail complaining about the coming changes in child benefits. In part I agree with her, the fact that one household where both parents earn less than £50,000 can still receive full benefits but a household with one parent working earning more than £60,000 will receive no benefits is absurd. Angela further argues income shouldn't come into it.

On this I disagree, household income should be considered. You may ask why should the children suffer, as she does:

But why should my children lose out, simply because their parents have had the temerity to work hard and earn a good living?

This is where I have a difference of opinion with Angela. I agree that children shouldn't lose out. However, Angela, you are in a position where your children shouldn't. How about you buy one less pare of Laboutin shoes per year, or go on a one week holiday as oppose to two week holiday.

The point is, you have choices to make so that your children don't suffer. A poor house hold doesn't. They can't afford to fully and completely provide for their children. It is absolutely right that we provide assistance for them.

We can have discussion as to how exactly is the best way to means test and their will always be a small number of people who are at the cutoff point and thus feel hard done by. Thats just a fact of life.

But I humbly disagree that child benefits shouldn't be means tested at all.