MSE News: Tory child trust fund cuts to hit 'normal families'

seven-day-weekend

I don't see why they should give £500 to any family just for having children.

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

They aren't giving it to the family though - it can't be touched by the family, just the child once they reach of age. I think there should have been some method to work them into vouchers or something that could be used on university or studying, purchasing or renting property etc - not just once the child is old enough to be spent on anything. And true, i don't see why they are given to every child accross the board.

bumpoowee

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't see why they should give £500 to any family just for having children.

I agree, either you can afford them or you can't. If CTF, CTC and CB were all stopped and the cost reflected by an increase in tax codes for everybody, then responsible people who wanted kids would be no worse off than they are now.

I also don't see how an average family will be 'hit hard' by the loss of £500 in 18 years time. Somebody please explain that to me - by that point in a child's life they will either be on their way to a successful life or not, £500 makes no difference. It isn't enough money to make a substantial difference to a child's life (wouldn't pay them through university for example). Since it is money for a child why is the family 'hit' at all?

Does MSE claim to be politically neutral? As there seems to be an anti-conservative spin on this article.

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

Hmmm...kind of like saying survival of the fittest? That is why you end up with massive rich poor divides in so many countries. Wherever you go there will be people having children whether they can afford them or not - it's nature, you can't stop that! So what is the answer, abort the child if you can't afford them? Abandon them as babies for fear they'll send you into deeper poverty? It's extreme but it is what we have seen happening in thrid world countries. We are not a third world country hence why we (as a country) try to look after the poor and elderly, and give free healthcare and education to everyone within reason.

I do agree the CTF is not really a massive deal if it goes, i certainly won't miss it as i save a small amount of money every month for my child - i mean it only came about a few years ago so it's not like it'll be a massive hit on anyone really.

I think benefits should be tougher to claim for those who are not seriously trying to find work, and the money saved should be used to give something back to everyone who works for a living! I think as a government, it's all become the norm to look after people who do not work instead of helping them better themselves.

bumpoowee

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle wrote: »

Hmmm...kind of like saying survival of the fittest? That is why you end up with massive rich poor divides in so many countries. Wherever you go there will be people having children whether they can afford them or not - it's nature, you can't stop that! So what is the answer, abort the child if you can't afford them? Abandon them as babies for fear they'll send you into deeper poverty? It's extreme but it is what we have seen happening in thrid world countries. We are not a third world country hence why we (as a country) try to look after the poor and elderly, and give free healthcare and education to everyone within reason.

I do agree the CTF is not really a massive deal if it goes, i certainly won't miss it as i save a small amount of money every month for my child - i mean it only came about a few years ago so it's not like it'll be a massive hit on anyone really.

I think benefits should be tougher to claim for those who are not seriously trying to find work, and the money saved should be used to give something back to everyone who works for a living! I think as a government, it's all become the norm to look after people who do not work instead of helping them better themselves.

Unfortunately since it deals with children this is always a touchy subject, and I don't think there is an easy solution. I actually worry for the future and think we are all in for a lot of pain when people wake up to the fact we cannot keep reproducing at the current rate and we need to manage population responsibly as opposed to the current free-for-all.

As it is I think a situation where those in a position to provide for those kids need to be given priority from a tax point of view. Those who can't provide for kids, harsh although some people may think this is, shouldn't be having them. Welfare policy needs to gently discourage those reliant on handouts from having kids they can't afford to bring up. Maybe a voucher scheme to pay for the kids stuff could do this (so the parents don't benefit), but again there is no easy answer. The only thing that is for certain is that if we don't deal with the problem now then it will be much more painful and harder to sort out in the future.

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

Yes in a round-about way i do agree with you really. I don't think it should be a matter of abolish all help for families who are not able to afford to bring up their families as there will always be people who end up, through no fault of their own ie, disability, loss of a breadwinner and other reasons, that end up in poverty, especially when they may not have been previously. (if that makes sense, lol, sorry my wording is bad). There will always be people who lose their jobs through redundancy etc and these are the people we need to 'help', but as well as offering them some financial help i mean help in getting back out into the working world.

It does drive me crazy that we personally can afford to have our children (only just about but we will pay their ways until they are adults -we have one at the mo and one on the way) but those who do nothing for a living end up with near enough the same amount of income through government handouts I wish we were given just a little relief on tax or something and it will hit us hard when they remove the childare vouchers , that is at the moment our only bit of tax relief. And upping tax will hurt us too

kellyfrw

Sorry but I simply dont agree with the child trust fund, I have five children and another on the way. My last baby recieved the money as will this one but my other four have not.
We were very young when we got married and had nothing (we are only 32 now) but we have always put away a little each week for each of the children. They are our babies and we chould look after them.
I would agree with the fund if the rules were that it had to be spent on say toold for an apprentricship , uni books, driving lessons some kind of life skill. The other thing is some families who work cannt afford to put anthing away for their children yet others who dont work will have children turning 18 and off to Ibiza for a bender!
Its money that the country can ill afford. On the other hand I do believe child benefit should be paid regardless , sometimes the highest earners have the highest debts and thus need this money. Or in some cases hubbies give nothing to the wife regardless of income and its then used for the kids.
By the way I am a labour voter and always will be but think some policies are silly !

seven-day-weekend

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle wrote: »

They aren't giving it to the family though - it can't be touched by the family, just the child once they reach of age. I think there should have been some method to work them into vouchers or something that could be used on university or studying, purchasing or renting property etc - not just once the child is old enough to be spent on anything. And true, i don't see why they are given to every child accross the board.

I don't see why they give it at all.

[Deleted User]

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Why are we always told that the Benefits Board isn't the place to discuss benefits policy and then an MSE Official posts something like this?

I suggest that, like all discussion threads, it should be moved to Discussion Time.

totally agree

seven-day-weekend

woodbine wrote: »

totally agree

Yes, thinking about it, so do I.