Should the tax and benefits system prioritise families? poll discussion

seven-day-weekend

I've never been happy with the concept of child benefits which imho should only be paid to the very poorest of people. Because ALL poor people (whatever their family make up - married, single, with kids, without kids) should be helped.

I voted the category which said 'children left home, families should not be prioritised.'

Oggyoi

ceridwen wrote: »

Well - I've been following this debate with interest. What surprises me is to see there is still so many people who think that money should be paid out to someone just because they have children - some of it isnt even means-tested.

Having children is a CHOICE!


And yet....families can claim Tax Credit money even if they are on a very generous salary thank you!

I repeat my point - no-one forces people to have children these day. Every child born here these days is a wanted and planned child (as otherwise the woman would have used the most effective contraception available to her and - if that didnt work - had an abortion). I had decided not to have children - so I made sure I never ever got pregnant in the first place.

It seems strange a family earning hundreds of thousands can claim tax credits etc, but then again why not ? They clearly work and must work hard. I wonder how many would actually own up to doing so ?

Do Tony Blair, David Cameron or Gordon Brown claim I wonder ?

The thing that annoys me is when you open a newspaper and see an unmarried ( or married ) couple, with 7 or more kids, boasting they don't want nor need to work as they don't have to do so as the benefit system pays for their lifestyle. In the background picture you see a 42" plasma tv, top of the range cinema kit and all the other mod-cons.

Someone else mentioned on here too about the migrant workers from Eastern Europe who come here, work but claim family tax benefits etc to send to their kids back home in Poland or wherever they are from, that to me is a joke.

We have pensioners who don't know if to pay their fuel bill or buy food as they struggle to survive. Most of these will have brought up their children with little or no help from the benefits system 40 or 50 years ago.
We have the Ghurkas ( this really is a massive issue with me ) who fought, some died and love the chance to serve this country, who are not even allowed to live here after completing 25 years service for Queen and Country!!! What is that all about ???
Nepal isn't some sort of holiday resort, a place where Brits move abroad to retire to. Do their kids get family tax credits for them risking their lives in the army ?

I personally think for your first child you get £ X until the age of 16
Second child gets 2/3 of that amount
Third child gets 1/3
any more than 3, you get nothing extra but pay your own way.

I also think there should be 4 income bands too
a) 0-9,999 ( gets 100% of allowances )
b)10,000-29,999 ( 75% )
c)30,000-59,999 ( 40% )
d)60,000+ (10% )

There you go, something to ponder lol
!!

shadej

Am I not right in thinking that if you were to have children and get extra help as opposed to someone with no children that is very fair. Being that your children will grow you and pay tax and contribute to the economy. If you have no children then that wont be the case. Children don't stay kids forever. They grow up and pay back the extra money their parents received through taxes. I think the government see it as an investment. If you choose not to have kids then that's fine but parents cant work the same hours as singles and childless couples can. They need extra help.

johnsp72

I voted B as if you can't look after your own kids don't have them.
However there are unfair tax breaks AGAINST families. My argument for this isn't really about the money as luckily I don't need it but about the principle.
My wife couldn't claim maternity allowance (she isn't entitled to maternity pay as she hasn't been working) due to my income, so we are treated as a couple. However because my wife doesn't work so she can look after our three children so we loose her tax allowance as we are treated as individuals in this case.
I am fairly certain that child tax credits are there to compensate for the loss of the second tax allowance (replacing married persons allowance). However I feel they fail by then paying towards childcare for couples where both work.

justthisonce_2

shadej wrote: »

Am I not right in thinking that if you were to have children and get extra help as opposed to someone with no children that is very fair. Being that your children will grow you and pay tax and contribute to the economy. If you have no children then that wont be the case. Children don't stay kids forever. They grow up and pay back the extra money their parents received through taxes. I think the government see it as an investment. If you choose not to have kids then that's fine but parents can work the same hours as singles and childless couples can. They need extra help.

But it is all about choice. No one knows what will happen to a child born today. He could grow up and be a useful member of society, paying taxes etc. The child could have an illness which means he will never be able to work, but will cost loads because of expensive medical treatment and needing finacial support throughout his life.Or the child could turn out to be a waster,never working, producing loads of children in order to claim the generous benefits.

No one should have children that they can't afford to keep unaided. Would you get a car you couldn't afford to run? We would all have top of the range gas guzzlers if the taxpayer was funding it. If you have children then you work to provide for them, 2 jobs if need be. I bet the birthrate would go down dramatically if the government stopped offering financial inducements that encourage it. All these children are not an investment for the future, they will be a financial millstone and unaffordable.

gingerlova

This is a thorny subject but basically I grew up with parents who worked hard & had nothing & I decided to get an education. My husband & I would love to have kids but because my Brother & his !!!!less girlfriend keep on having them (5 to date) & then not looking after them there are 2 living with us 50% of the time & with my Mum 50% of the time. We have decided to not to have any kids of our own because we want to be able to help his out financially & we don't ask the state for handouts. We make it far too easy in this country for people to sit on their b****ms & do very little & in turn warp the minds of their offspring. Growing up with very little made me ambitious & my parents taught me about work ethic. Unfortunately most people think of "families" in the UK as those who know how to scam the system for more benefits whilst doing the least they can. Although of course not everyone with children has that type of attitude. It's very sad, but as such my view is if you choose to have kids that is YOUR CHOICE. I didn't get you pregnant so stop bleating to me if you can't afford them. Get an education & delay gratification, & then decide if you want to have a child.

shadej

gingerlova wrote: »

This is a thorny subject but basically I grew up with parents who worked hard & had nothing & I decided to get an education. My husband & I would love to have kids but because my Brother & his !!!!less girlfriend keep on having them (5 to date) & then not looking after them there are 2 living with us 50% of the time & with my Mum 50% of the time. We have decided to not to have any kids of our own because we want to be able to help his out financially & we don't ask the state for handouts. We make it far too easy in this country for people to sit on their b****ms & do very little & in turn warp the minds of their offspring. Growing up with very little made me ambitious & my parents taught me about work ethic. Unfortunately most people think of "families" in the UK as those who know how to scam the system for more benefits whilst doing the least they can. Although of course not everyone with children has that type of attitude. It's very sad, but as such my view is if you choose to have kids that is YOUR CHOICE. I didn't get you pregnant so stop bleating to me if you can't afford them. Get an education & delay gratification, & then decide if you want to have a child.

Pardon me if I am wrong, but I think you have gone way off the topic. This is not about parents who sit at home and claim benefits. Its about parents that go out and work fulltime to support their families, but get extra help with childcare cost.ect. This is about parents that look after their children, not those like your brother. I can see your anger with you brother but you chose to take on his responsibalities. If you also ask for no help then thats good on you but you seem hostile and bitter about this. Help is there and many parents need it. I think your anger is towards thoes parents on benefits as opposed to thoes working and getting tax credits, which I understand fully.

justthisonce_2

shadej wrote: »

Pardon me if I am wrong, but I think you have gone way off the topic. This is not about parents who sit at home and claim benefits. Its about parents that go out and work fulltime to support their families, but get extra help with childcare cost.ect. This is about parents that look after their children, not those like your brother. I can see your anger with you brother but you chose to take on his responsibalities. If you also ask for no help then thats good on you but you seem hostile and bitter about this. Help is there and many parents need it. I think your anger is towards thoes parents on benefits as opposed to thoes working and getting tax credits, which I understand fully.

I still feel it is unfair to give people money simply because they CHOOSE to have children. Why does the government literally throw money at those with children? When did the rest of the country's inhabitants just become tax producing machines to give to those with children? Even the people who would desperately love to have children but simply can't afford it.

I think MIRAS should be reinstated, at least it would help a bit for the beleagured mortgage payers. Renters can get housing benefit, mortgage payers should get a little something as well.

shadej

justthisonce wrote: »

I still feel it is unfair to give people money simply because they CHOOSE to have children. Why does the government literally throw money at those with children? When did the rest of the country's inhabitants just become tax producing machines to give to those with children? Even the people who would desperately love to have children but simply can't afford it.

I think MIRAS should be reinstated, at least it would help a bit for the beleagured mortgage payers. Renters can get housing benefit, mortgage payers should get a little something as well.

Is it not better for the government to help those with children who choose to work full time and give less to unemployed parents. I earn enough to take care of my one child but that could very easily change tomorrow. When we have children we cant map out our financial state for the next 18 years, things change. If many working parents did not get extra help and credits they would be forced onto benefits as living and childcare cost are very high. That would cost the taxpayer a lot more. Or would you be happy if they took away benefits and tax credits altogether for any parent and leave them to fend for themselves, as they chose to have children? I do hope that's not how you feel but maybe you could let me know what you think is fair. Housing benefit pays out more than tax credits and surly if you feel you should not get extra help because you CHOOSE to have children then why would you offer to help someone pay their mortgage because they also CHOOSE to have their own home.

justthisonce_2

shadej wrote: »

Is it not better for the government to help those with children who choose to work full time and give less to unemployed parents. I earn enough to take care of my one child but that could very easily change tomorrow. When we have children we cant map out our financial state for the next 18 years, things change. If many working parents did not get extra help and credits they would be forced onto benefits as living and childcare cost are very high. That would cost the taxpayer a lot more. Or would you be happy if they took away benefits and tax credits altogether for any parent and leave them to fend for themselves, as they chose to have children? I do hope that's not how you feel but maybe you could let me know what you think is fair. Housing benefit pays out more than tax credits and surly if you feel you should not get extra help because you CHOOSE to have children then why would you offer to help someone pay their mortgage because they also CHOOSE to have their own home.

Have to say I would be happy if benefits were taken away from parents and any available financial assistance given to a wider range of recipients.
And why not give a wee bit of help to those struggling with large mortgages? Not asking for any cash payments to be given to them just some tax relief on the interest they pay. What do you suggest their alternative is rather than buying a house? Rent from a social landlord....affordable but almost impossible to get a place these days. Rent privately and perhaps have to up sticks and move because their landlord doesn't want tenants anymore. Everyone needs a roof over their head, most of us could do without mini-me's.

No as the opening question asks I certainly do not think families should be prioritised to the exclusion of other struggling groups.