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

smk77

I'm not getting into the rights and wrong of the scheme but I think a few people are missing the point of the CTF.

taken from wiki:

"A Child Trust Fund (CTF) is a long-term savings or investment account for children in the United Kingdom. The UK Government introduced the Child Trust Fund with the aim of ensuring every child has savings at the age of 18, helping children get into the habit of saving whilst teaching them the benefits of saving and helping them understand personal finance."

We've got ourselves into a huge mess in this country because of out inability to save money so the reasons for the CTF are good even if the solution isn't right.

bumpoowee

smk77 wrote: »

I'm not getting into the rights and wrong of the scheme but I think a few people are missing the point of the CTF.

taken from wiki:

"A Child Trust Fund (CTF) is a long-term savings or investment account for children in the United Kingdom. The UK Government introduced the Child Trust Fund with the aim of ensuring every child has savings at the age of 18, helping children get into the habit of saving whilst teaching them the benefits of saving and helping them understand personal finance."

We've got ourselves into a huge mess in this country because of out inability to save money so the reasons for the CTF are good even if the solution isn't right.

Didn't realise that. What a terrible idea, don't even know where to begin with what's wrong with that.

seven-day-weekend

smk77 wrote: »

I'm not getting into the rights and wrong of the scheme but I think a few people are missing the point of the CTF.

taken from wiki:

"A Child Trust Fund (CTF) is a long-term savings or investment account for children in the United Kingdom. The UK Government introduced the Child Trust Fund with the aim of ensuring every child has savings at the age of 18, helping children get into the habit of saving whilst teaching them the benefits of saving and helping them understand personal finance."

We've got ourselves into a huge mess in this country because of out inability to save money so the reasons for the CTF are good even if the solution isn't right.

Ah, I see. So receiving free money from the Government when you are a child encourages young people to get into the habit of saving. I really wish I'd have thought of that.

smk77

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Ah, I see. So receiving free money from the Government when you are a child encourages young people to get into the habit of saving. I really wish I'd have thought of that.

no need for the sarcasm.

To answer your comment then of course it does! It gives them an opportunity to see what happens when money is invested.

When I was very young my grandad retired from work and gave me, my brother and sister some money to invest in a building society account. Each year I was sent an annual statement with the balance. I liked to see how much interest the money had made during that time. This money encouraged me to save.

As for the "free money" from the government, any child who is given any money to save is given "free money" regardless of its source. Did you never save pocket money for something that you wanted??

kelloggs36

smk77 wrote: »

no need for the sarcasm.

To answer your comment then of course it does! It gives them an opportunity to see what happens when money is invested. So far it has lost 1/3!!!!!!!

When I was very young my grandad retired from work and gave me, my brother and sister some money to invest in a building society account. Each year I was sent an annual statement with the balance. I liked to see how much interest the money had made during that time. This money encouraged me to save. YOU did it, not the government. My son was sent his £250 child trust fund which we put in the bank and have not been able to add to it since (he is now 6). People who can afford to save will do so, those who can't wont - being given a small amount of money to start with won't change this.

As for the "free money" from the government, any child who is given any money to save is given "free money" regardless of its source. Did you never save pocket money for something that you wanted??

I would rather save the money paid out in taxes by not paying anybody ALREADY on benefits more for having more children. My belief is that the welfare state is a safety net for when you fall on hard times. So, anybody who has found themselves in a jobless situation through no fault of their own who already has children should get lots of help, but those who have never worked should not be given an extra £58 per child per week. I'm sure that there would be a lot less 'accidents' if this were the case. There are those who argue that those children would be born into absolute poverty but the current system does nothing to encourage responsibility. Accidents don't need to happen in this day and age, we aren't living in the Victorian times - we all know how to prevent pregnancy.

If I went to my employer and asked for a £58 per week payrise just because I had decided to have a child, they would tell me to get lost, yet have no job, have a child and get paid more money by the government or rather by you and me!! I would dearly love to have another child, but my consideration is that it is too expensive now for us, and so I have to make a hard choice - do the right thing, or the selfish thing? People keep going on about their rights these days - a right to have children I'm afraid does not exist. You choose to have children, then you choose to take responsibility for them. We cannot predict the future, which is why I feel that help should be given if circumstances change but not for lifestyle choices.

smk77

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I would rather save the money paid out in taxes by not paying anybody ALREADY on benefits more for having more children. My belief is that the welfare state is a safety net for when you fall on hard times. So, anybody who has found themselves in a jobless situation through no fault of their own who already has children should get lots of help, but those who have never worked should not be given an extra £58 per child per week. I'm sure that there would be a lot less 'accidents' if this were the case. There are those who argue that those children would be born into absolute poverty but the current system does nothing to encourage responsibility. Accidents don't need to happen in this day and age, we aren't living in the Victorian times - we all know how to prevent pregnancy.

If I went to my employer and asked for a £58 per week payrise just because I had decided to have a child, they would tell me to get lost, yet have no job, have a child and get paid more money by the government or rather by you and me!! I would dearly love to have another child, but my consideration is that it is too expensive now for us, and so I have to make a hard choice - do the right thing, or the selfish thing? People keep going on about their rights these days - a right to have children I'm afraid does not exist. You choose to have children, then you choose to take responsibility for them. We cannot predict the future, which is why I feel that help should be given if circumstances change but not for lifestyle choices.

What's this got to do with CTF??

As for your points in relation to my comments:

1. You chose where to invest your childs CTF. My 18 month old son has made money despite the economic problems because we chose the cash option. What your CTF has taught your child is that shares are risky but it will have opened the idea to investing...I'm not sure what your issue is because if you invested £250 of your money then it would have done the same so it sounds like you are saying that there was no point in saving money.

2. you missed the point about the money from my grandad. My parents invested it - I was too young but benefited from the watching the balance grow. If I wasn't fortunate to have this small investment then I may not have had the same ideas on savings. Not all children are fortunate enough to have parent who have the desire or money to save. At least the CTF gives children an insight into saving.

kelloggs36

Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball - no matter where I put it I take the chance that it would win or lose - most families aren't experts and will also have lost. You were also lucky - your parents were in a position to add to it, many are not, so it will make no difference to them at all in the long term. If you can save money of course it is great, but if you can't being given a small lump sum won't change their ability to add to it will it?????

As for my other comments, I was pointing out that there are other savings to be made which could be then put into the hard working families to help them. Sorry if I upset you and went slightly off topic - I note I'm not the only one who has put their two penneth in about this.

Oldernotwiser

sammyjammy wrote: »

think of all the new Civil Servants and the bureaucracy to go with it , .

Also known as "job creation"; surely a rather good idea in a recession?

Stompa

Nickynoo1 wrote: »

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

Continuing to increase the population in order to support the growing number of elderly people is a recipe for disaster - you can't keep doing it ad infinitum. If we really need to increase the numbers, there's no shortage of willing immigrants.

smk77

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball - no matter where I put it I take the chance that it would win or lose - most families aren't experts and will also have lost. You were also lucky - your parents were in a position to add to it, many are not, so it will make no difference to them at all in the long term. If you can save money of course it is great, but if you can't being given a small lump sum won't change their ability to add to it will it?????

As for my other comments, I was pointing out that there are other savings to be made which could be then put into the hard working families to help them. Sorry if I upset you and went slightly off topic - I note I'm not the only one who has put their two penneth in about this.

You've not upset me.

My point is that I was given a small amount in real terms - about the same as the CTF. I watch the balance grow and that's the basics of what the government was trying to achieve when the CTF was introduced.

My parents did not add to it - I was pointing out that many children in this country do not have parents that save themselves and therefore aren't being taught a good practice at a young age. It's not just about saving money on a regular basis either which you seem to be hitting on - it's about having savings and watching them grow for the future.