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

Deepmistrust

Back in the olden days, a house only cost about 3 times a persons annual salary. I guess that even decent salaries, don't go as far pound for pound as they used to. Now in many places, even a modest home is about 10 times. For most people there is no hope of social housing. Hence an awful lot of people need help to support their families.

Although, the CTF isn't a benefit paid to the parents, it's held for the child, until they are 18.

trynsave

emweaver wrote: »

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.

I'm completely staggered by your opinions!

Can I just say that I realised that the cessation of the CTF was the topic of conversation and that it was you who mentioned the pregnancy grant before I did! I was merely trying to point out that before the grant those of us on low incomes managed and people will again if/when the grant is stopped. It is therefore representative of non essential Government spending and should be stopped alongside the CTF.

I'm also not actually as old as you may think, my youngest is only 4, so I am well aware of the regulations regarding infant car seats. I did actually acknowledge that a new was a necessity, but luckily your £500 didn't have to stretch to buying one as you didn't drive. How on earth did you manage to get to work when you live in the middle of nowhere? Don't tell me your OH drives or you get a bus etc, etc. Why therefore couldn't you get your second hand goodies home the same way as you managed to bring home new ones? Where there is a will there is a way. You didn't have to find a will as the Govt gave you a get out clause to buy new.

To address your other criticisim, the reason why the elderly should be considered before babies is because they are already here and have contributed to society in their own right. It should be the duty of all want-to-be parents to make rational decisions and plan the arrival of their babies to coincide when they can afford to support their offspring. If you can't afford to heat your house don't have a baby - simples.

I do however agree with you in one respect, being that those in work and contributing via the tax system should have a right to expect the State to help them out when the going gets tough. However the tax system is not a savings plan. You don't have a right to expect to get back out what you put in. Having babies through your own choice is not an example of 'when the going gets tough'. You have chosen to change the status quo of your life and those changes should be planned for financially ahead of time.

It is the 'me, me , me' attitude of many that has helped push our country into it's present shambolic state.

I must add however that I sympathise with parents who have added to their children's CTF's in good faith, and who now feel cheated by trying to do the right thing. The Government should have added a clause to allow additional monies to be withdrawn, leaving only the Government's contributions behind to mature at 18. That would have been fair.

POPPYOSCAR

trynsave wrote: »

I'm completely staggered by your opinions!

Can I just say that I realised that the cessation of the CTF was the topic of conversation and that it was you who mentioned the pregnancy grant before I did! I was merely trying to point out that before the grant those of us on low incomes managed and people will again if/when the grant is stopped. It is therefore representative of non essential Government spending and should be stopped alongside the CTF.

I'm also not actually as old as you may think, my youngest is only 4, so I am well aware of the regulations regarding infant car seats. I did actually acknowledge that a new was a necessity, but luckily your £500 didn't have to stretch to buying one as you didn't drive. How on earth did you manage to get to work when you live in the middle of nowhere? Don't tell me your OH drives or you get a bus etc, etc. Why therefore couldn't you get your second hand goodies home the same way as you managed to bring home new ones? Where there is a will there is a way. You didn't have to find a will as the Govt gave you a get out clause to buy new.

To address your other criticisim, the reason why the elderly should be considered before babies is because they are already here and have contributed to society in their own right. It should be the duty of all want-to-be parents to make rational decisions and plan the arrival of their babies to coincide when they can afford to support their offspring. If you can't afford to heat your house don't have a baby - simples.

I do however agree with you in one respect, being that those in work and contributing via the tax system should have a right to expect the State to help them out when the going gets tough. However the tax system is not a savings plan. You don't have a right to expect to get back out what you put in. Having babies through your own choice is not an example of 'when the going gets tough'. You have chosen to change the status quo of your life and those changes should be planned for financially ahead of time.

It is the 'me, me , me' attitude of many that has helped push our country into it's present shambolic state.

I must add however that I sympathise with parents who have added to their children's CTF's in good faith, and who now feel cheated by trying to do the right thing. The Government should have added a clause to allow additional monies to be withdrawn, leaving only the Government's contributions behind to mature at 18. That would have been fair.

I have to agree with you.When I had our kids I did not spend much money at all really.I bought a small pushchair that could be folded down and made into a pram and a cot that converted into a bed and they were new but cheap. I know of young mums who do not have a lot of money but want the very best of everything and feel it is their right to have it.One mum I know spent £350.00 on a pram and she drives everywhere! When I decorated the babies room I did it so it would last a few years and not have to be redone because it was all baby.I have real sympathy for those that struggle but I hear all to often people who say how badly off they are but manage to spend money on things they don't have to have.

roddydogs

Great, now cut the ridiculous "£250" for pregnant chavs to buy "Fruit"

Deepmistrust

roddydogs wrote: »

Great, now cut the ridiculous "£250" for pregnant chavs to buy "Fruit"

As the £250 is available to everyone who had a child during that period, (nor are they able to 'buy fruit', it's for the child and can't be touched until they are 18), I take it that you are calling every single pregnant woman in Britain a 'chav'? Your misguided pseudo-snobbery, actually says more about you...than pregnant 'chavs'.

cazanwood

emweaver wrote: »

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

I KNOW working people get the ctf, but I do not believe that this country has the funds to be giving out money on this scale. Some people who pay taxes do not have children so what are they getting back? This country needs to concentrate on the important issues of getting back on it's feet and saving HAVE to be made somewhere. Better this than putting our forces at more risk or school NHS cut backs!

slates

I'm due on 20th July so depending when the little one arrives will depend on the amount of CTF he will get.

But in all honestly I would not bothered if it was to be axed before he was born, so would not be entitled to anything. I prefer to look at the wider picture and see that the money saved from the CTF helps in making our economy more stable.

When I was born my parents only received CB and they managed, so whats the difference now........I can think of many reasons but don't want to upset certain groups.

Yes I work for a living and have saved very hard over the last 9 months to cover my shortfall in earnings whilst i'm on maternity leave so i do not have to rely on the state.

shegirl

Deepmistrust wrote: »

As the £250 is available to everyone who had a child during that period, (nor are they able to 'buy fruit', it's for the child and can't be touched until they are 18), I take it that you are calling every single pregnant woman in Britain a 'chav'? Your misguided pseudo-snobbery, actually says more about you...than pregnant 'chavs'.

Roddydogs clearly meant the Health in Pregnancy Grant but got the amount paid wrong.And yes it's still for everyone but it's pathetic and if you can't try and be healthy yourself (not that anyone uses it for it's purpose) then there is something wrong with you!

ultrawomble

I imagine that it's cheaper option for the tax-payer if the child is to start off healthy rather than try and pick up the pieces later on through the NHS. Slashing now is likely to simply defer to costs 'til a few months/years down the line.

ultrawomble

roddydogs wrote: »

Great, now cut the ridiculous "£250" for pregnant chavs to buy "Fruit"

At least Liz and Maggie will still continue to receive their winter fuel allowance....