Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

jamja

My point is that 'won't ' is irrelevant too - we need to look at the needs of the children in the family...

jamja

...which is probably for another arguement :-) Not directly related to CTF voucher and a bit OT.

Deepmistrust

Paul_Herring wrote: »

You appear to have missed "won't" out of that sentence.

Which applies to the:

Most people want to work, that are able.

You're talking about a minority, and applying it to a majority. I'm personally not interested in policies that go after everyone, in order to weed out a tiny minority of those that actively avoid work.

shegirl

jamja wrote: »

Whatever you think of these 'benefits' (no children myself and no need for 'perks' even if I have children in the future) and however good a parent you are, I hope that people still consider that there are children at the centre here. I am not naive enough to think that every mother will spend her HIP money on fruit and veg and I might even agree that they could be scrapped in the current economic climate, but as someone who works with young mothers and children I know that these 'extras' can be used well and appreciated and not everyone deserves scorn and disparagement. Its very easy to look down on people when you haven't walked in their shoes.

Whoever keeps posting photos of the large families on benefits - what I see is children needing protected... whatever you think of the parent/s.

Whoever has posted to say we should cut benefits after 2 or 3 children... punish the parents at the peril of the health and welfare of the children in the family.

I have grave concerns about proposals made by our new government. Taking benefits away from those that can't/don't work - what about the families that they 'support'? Whether you think they are right or wrong by claiming benefits or accepting pregnancy 'perks' - those without a voice are the ones that we should be focused on - the children of our country whose worth is immeasurable and may be silent sufferers if we crack down on their parents. Its easy to have a go at the grown ups, but have a look at who is peeking out from between their legs.

P.S Can you tell I have had a few glasses of wine before my first post (gulp!)

But in reality all the money given is not needed ,certainly not when you have several kids!Parents need to be more careful and be responsible.I see many things as trying to instill that rather than being about punishment.

AnxiousMum

wriggly wrote: »

Well, means-testing, originally proposed by the Conservatives, would have been silly. Why should a teenager receive or not receive a welfare payment based on what their parents earned 18 years previously?

For fairness, I think parents of any child (especially those that missed out because they are too old or too young) should be able to open a CTF, no government funding, but a tax-free ISA-like account for the child.

It was partially means tested - every child received £250 when born and a further £250 when turning 7. Children from low income families actually received £500 at each of those events instead of the £250.

Are any of them anywhere near the value that they initially had invested? I can think of much better ways to put money away to ensure the kids actually get some money from it when they're older!

emweaver

trynsave wrote: »

What exactly do babies need that costs £500?

Sounds like sour grapes, but it is not meant to be ... my daughter's pram cost £30 from an NCT sale ( I sold it after I had finished with it for £35), her cot was from a charity shop for £10 and I got other bits and bobs like a baby carrier and rocking seat from freecycle. Clothes from the supermarkets are really cheap nowadays.

The only item I can see that perhaps needs to be bought new is an infant car seat and of course nappies - they don't cost £500. People think a new pram, etc etc are essential because they are lovely to have, I agree they are nice, but the baby doesn't care.

I really object to the view that it is a person's human right to breed. It isn't! If you can afford to buy it the things it really needs ie food and clothes and are prepared to give it all the love and security a child needs, fantastic! If any one of those things are missing, forget it! Most people seem to agree that parents should provide the love bit, so why do so many reckon the State should help with the financial bit?

Personally speaking, my youngest received the £250 and won't get the top-up at 7. Good oh. Given the huge increase in the birth rate in recent years it is about time this daft handout was scrapped for all. the country can't afford it! Better to concentrate on feeding and keeping warm our elderly.

Well lucky you for having a NCT sale near you I looked into this when pregnant with my daughter and had none local and I didnt drive living in middle of nowhere so even local papers second hand was no good as I couldnt collect so I tried ebay which isnt cheap. They need a pram suitable from birth, a cot, bedding, clothes, nappies unless you want to be done for neglect letting them sleep in a bottom drawer, wearing just a nappy all day and put them in a stroller which wont support their neck. Dont forget the legal obligation for a car seat when you drive which you should not buy 2nd hand and are around £80.

I think you are the one with sour grapes because back in your day you didnt get any help. Also the £500 grant isnt whats in question here its the ctf and the £500 is only for people on low incomes not for those who can afford top notch for everything and as I said we both worked and are tax payers so why shouldnt we get something back we paid a hell of a lot more than £500 tax between us

It also annoys me how everything is about keeping the elderly warm they get a lot more than a one off £500 payment in their life why are theymore important than babies? Some people with babies are living on less than the pension and still have to pay their full heating bills themselves.

POPPYOSCAR

jamja wrote: »

My point is that 'won't ' is irrelevant too - we need to look at the needs of the children in the family...

Children have gone for years not having this money paid to them at birth and they have not suffered. I personally found it very wrong that these payments were being made when this money could have been put to much better use for our children by being invested in their education.Children need a good education not a lump sum that they possibly might put to good use at 18 or spend on drink, designer clothes etc.

emweaver

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Most people want to work, that are able.

You're talking about a minority, and applying it to a majority. I'm personally not interested in policies that go after everyone, in order to weed out a tiny minority of those that actively avoid work.

Not to mentin the CTF is available to all including those who do work and is for the child it cant be touched until theyre 18

emweaver

cazanwood wrote: »

Sorry if this offends anybody but I hope this is the first on many cuts the government make on giving away tax payers money. I for one am fed up of working to pay for others. I am sure i'm not the only one!!!

working people also get the ctf what on earth are you going on about? why shouldnt other ppl who pay into the tax system get something back too. i think your confusing it with social benefits

tobykim

This is just the tip of the iceberg and it seems that welfare is to be cut across the board, however it seems to me that this child trust fund was truly a waste of money. I was amazed to hear about all the benefits that people get for having a baby, seems ridiculous to me, even people who earn good salaries get money, why is that ?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, when mine were born I think CB was only a couple of quid, which went into a bank account, money seems to be given out willy nilly now