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

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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

Ah, as i said before i think they should just change it into a voucher scheme so it can only be used on certain things that will be of value, ie towards uni, towards deposits for housing etc. Including college books which are expensive (i know, i moved out at 16, got a part time job and paid for my own books often through overtime as they cost so blimmin much). These are the things i think the ''poorer'' families will benefit from - not cold hard cash that is too easily spent on nonsense.

They can stop mine i wouldn't be that bothered, £500 is not that much compared to what i hopefully will have saved for each of my children by the time they are 18, but the difference is it'll be partly my decision on what it'll be spent on.

I put one £20 payment a month away for my daughter in a lock away account for when she is 18 (my idea is to help towards uni costs) and one £20 payment away a month to pay for her if we go on holiday or she needs extra things throughout the year, ie extra curicular classes. It's not much but it is us making an effort. Too many people think the money is for themselves and not for the benefit of the child, which is the problem.

sammyjammy

WASHER wrote: »

I totally agree with the conservatives on this.

I'll go one further and say that Child Allowance should be means tested.( I'm a mother with two young children, I cannot understand why the government gives out money to those parents who are on joint income of 60K and over)

To make it means tested will just make it cost more than it does now, think of all the new Civil Servants and the bureaucracy to go with it , better to make a change to tax personal allowances for relevant people, same goes for tax credits.

michaels

And given that it seems it should be used for socially responsible things why not offer it to 18 year olds as a grant towards uni/college fees or training credit rather than having a silly bureaucratic savings account from birth that is only benefiting the fund management industry?

Nickynoo1

bumpoowee wrote: »

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.

.

But if we have a falling population our labour force will reduce, and then who will pay for the increasing elderly population?

scootw1

Nickynoo1 wrote: »

But if we have a falling population our labour force will reduce, and then who will pay for the increasing elderly population?

I very much doubt there will be a falling population in the near future:rolleyes:

bumpoowee

scootw1 wrote: »

I very much doubt there will be a falling population in the near future:rolleyes:

Me neither. The problem will be ignored til it is far too late.

Toomuchdebt

I think a voucher scheme would be a good idea-especially with the rising costs of uni education-sure put it in the account you want to but when the child turns 18 and wants to take the money out, you have to have it transferred to a voucher for uni fees,housing,something like that(not for a massive booze up)

cit_k

Must admit, suprised its still not been moved, any thread that dares to discuss issues relating to the mistreatment of claimaints, or bad policy moves etc re the sick/disabled, or in general is negative in anyway about anything to do with benefits gets moved sharpish...

But then, this one stays.

I wonder, is there a MSE official post about how the new benefit reforms affect a whole range of different people or is it just people with kids that MSE worries about?

Andy_Davies

"Many 'average' families will be hit hard by Conservative plans to abolish child trust funds (CTFs) payments, if the Tories are elected....."

Well for starters it's a inaccurate, alarmist headline, it makes no difference to the "average" family as the kids can't have the money until they are 18.

The whole policy was always a mess...

- if you've got kids below a certain age the government redistributes tax payers money to them based on the family income at the time - what happens when the families income changes over the 18 yeats

- it creates a situation where you can save tax free for one child but for kids who too old for the CTF saving tax free for them becomes more complex

In general the government are too quick to tax us and then choose how they give us back our money, employing who knows how many civil servants, quangos etc to make it all happen.

What they should do is just allow people to keep more of their own money in the first place say minimum wage x 37.5 x 52 and provide benefits for those who really need help.

Although my youngest has a CTF I won't be sad to see it go as it doesn't make sense in the larger scheme of things.

Andy

smk77

WASHER wrote: »

I totally agree with the conservatives on this.

I'll go one further and say that Child Allowance should be means tested.( I'm a mother with two young children, I cannot understand why the government gives out money to those parents who are on joint income of 60K and over)

Why should parents with an joint income of 60K and over pay for their own children and others? Next you'll be asking to go one step further and suggest that the goverment should not pay for the education or healthcare of children from high income families.

I have no objections to paying more tax than the average person if I earn more. I have no issues with helping those on society who need financial assistance. However, i'd like to actually see some of my taxes spent on my family in one way or another. I don't want more than others because I pay more - I want to be treated the same.