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

DaisyFlower

ultrawomble wrote: »

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.

Most claimants dont actually spend it on food though, it buys the latest design buggy etc.

If they really wanted to encourage healthy eating, it should have been in voucher form weekly rather than a cash lump sum. Or they could have worked with farmers and arranged for box deliveries therefore benefitting local farms and the mother to be.

As cash lumo sums both this grant and the surestart one should be scrapped, the parents should provide the pram, cot etc not the state/tax payers.

emmilee

I am very grateful for the £250 CTF vouchers that both of my children received when they were born but I have always thought that the scheme in general was a poor idea. It's great that children were given money to start savings and that even children born into families who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford savings had the same opportunity BUT why the heck should the taxpayer give 'spending money' to other people's kids? I'm surprised that here wasn't a hoo-ha when the scheme started.

I think that for the most part, people who use these forums are money concious, but not all parents are - some people who have received the CTF voucher don't understand what it's for or what to do with it. Some people don't even ever pay theirs in (I was a member of a Mum & baby forum where I saw evidence of this). If parents aren't proactive about saving (even pennies in a piggy bank now & again) and financial education for their children then I fail to see the point of the CTF. I can't afford to pay the maximum into my children's CTF's but I do put a little money away for them now & again when I can. We go to the bank together, they have money boxes and they are starting to learn a little about money and how much things cost, they're 4 & 5 years old.

Personally I think there are better ways of teaching children to save than giving them a £250 handout

ultrawomble

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Most claimants dont actually spend it on food though, it buys the latest design buggy etc.

If they really wanted to encourage healthy eating, it should have been in voucher form weekly rather than a cash lump sum. Or they could have worked with farmers and arranged for box deliveries therefore benefitting local farms and the mother to be.

As cash lumo sums both this grant and the surestart one should be scrapped, the parents should provide the pram, cot etc not the state/tax payers.

All benefits are paid in the hope that they are used wisely - some are and some aren't. Would you tell a pensioner that they can only spend their winter fuel allowance on just that? I expect some pensioners spend it on food, wealthy ones might even gamble it on the stock market. Who's to know? Perhaps we should apply a voucher system to undeserving pensioners also and strip a bit more dignity from their lives.

DaisyFlower

ultrawomble wrote: »

All benefits are paid in the hope that they are used wisely - some are and some aren't. Would you tell a pensioner that they can only spend their winter fuel allowance on just that? I expect some pensioners spend it on food, wealthy ones might even gamble it on the stock market. Who's to know? Perhaps we should apply a voucher system to undeserving pensioners also and strip a bit more dignity from their lives.

Why would vouchers strip their dignity? As long as they could pay their gas/electric bill why would it matter? Direct payments could also be made to suppliers so that they are in credit and dont have to dread putting the heating on.

neneromanova

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Most claimants dont actually spend it on food though, it buys the latest design buggy etc.

Or fags/drugs/booze. Very healthy for the baby growing inside them!

liam8282

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Why would vouchers strip their dignity? As long as they could pay their gas/electric bill why would it matter? Direct payments could also be made to suppliers so that they are in credit and dont have to dread putting the heating on.

Why is it that everyone here appears to presume that every pensioner is poor, struggling etc....

Just about all of the arguments used for the reasons why the CTF was scrapped could be applied to winter fuel payments.

WFP are not means tested, so the millionaire pensioner living in his mansion would still get the same payment as the pensioner living in a council flat.

Also, why is there the impression that every pensioner has contributed so much to society?

Surely there have been plenty of people on benefits going back through the years, these people will ultimately end up pensioners. Never contributed a penny, but still getting paid for by the state.

Deepmistrust

shegirl wrote: »

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!

Roddydogs can correct his own errors.

There are lots of people out there that have no idea how to be healthy in pregnancy. The point of it is to give the unborn baby a better start. So yes, there might be something wrong with a few people, that don't look after themselves, and need taking by the hand, especially when it comes to their children (unborn or born), but that isn't a reason to get on a high horse. People have problems and need help, what do you suggest a supposedly civilised nation, one of the richest in the world do with these vunerable children?

ultrawomble

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Why would vouchers strip their dignity?

Because vouchers imply that you cannot be trusted. That's a pretty big stigma. They also add another layer of bureaucracy - something I'm sure you'll be against.

Deepmistrust

Some ideas on this thread come from the dark ages. I'm convinced that some folk won't be happy until poor children are sent back up to clean chimneys.

shegirl

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Roddydogs can correct his own errors.

There are lots of people out there that have no idea how to be healthy in pregnancy. The point of it is to give the unborn baby a better start. So yes, there might be something wrong with a few people, that don't look after themselves, and need taking by the hand, especially when it comes to their children (unborn or born), but that isn't a reason to get on a high horse. People have problems and need help, what do you suggest a supposedly civilised nation, one of the richest in the world do with these vunerable children?

Women don't suddenly decide at 25 weeks or so gone that they are now going to try some healthy food because they've been given £190!Get real!

Education and encouragement is what is needed not a £190 handout that's spent on carpets,decorating,weekends away,saving for holidays,clothes shopping or whatever else they fancy spending it on!