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

ultrawomble

LOL! It's not as if the government were giving away fortune to children. My 2 mth daughter will get only the initial £250 from the government - equivalent to less than 27 pence/week by the time she'll be 18. I'm not saying that CTFs are right or wrong, but they're a drop in the ocean compared to other saving that could be made. For example, by how much does the tax-payer subsidise ISAs and other tax-free savings?

dunstonh

ultrawomble wrote: »

LOL! It's not as if the government were giving away fortune to children. My 2 mth daughter will get only the initial £250 from the government - equivalent to less than 27 pence/week by the time she'll be 18. I'm not saying that CTFs are right or wrong, but they're a drop in the ocean compared to other saving that could be made.

The ocean is made up of lots of drops of water.

For example, by how much does the tax-payer subsidise ISAs and other tax-free savings?

ISAs are not subsidised. They are not a drain on the public purse but a reduction in income to the pot. CTFs are a drain on the pot.

People need to be encouraged to save and invest. Not have it given to them on a plate.

confuseddad_2

As with most people i agree its a total waste of time. To allow only the child acces to this pot of money at 18 was always barmy.

We opened accounts and have not added anything to it. We have made other arrangemants.

My question is what happens next.

Potentially there are millions of pounds just sitting there wasting time and costing the banks who look after these schemes money in admin etc.

Can we not cash them in, close the accounts and put the money / vouchers into something more tangible?

property.advert

I came back to the UK last years and I could not believe the gush of benefits that Bliar and Broon had bestowed on the country in my absence. They gave me child benefit and tax credits for time I lived abroad (madness) and they sent me a cheque for this Child Trust Fund. Money was gushing in from everywhere. No wonder the country is bankrupt.

Thank goodness for some sense at last. Of course, the great socialist scroungers will bleat and wail at their benefits being removed but the lesson learned is never to give in to their desire for money for nothing ever again.

ultrawomble

dunstonh wrote: »

The ocean is made up of lots of drops of water.

ISAs are not subsidised. They are not a drain on the public purse but a reduction in income to the pot. CTFs are a drain on the pot.

People need to be encouraged to save and invest. Not have it given to them on a plate.

I know that CTFs are a drain on the pot, but how much bigger would that pot be, or how much lower would direct taxation be, if the government chose to tax those savings?

I've no argument about encouraging people to save either, but I don't believe that a young baby who's just been given £250 by the government can really grasp that concept. It is more of a token gesture to encourage households with no history of saving/investing to do so. It's not as if the money can be spent on fags and booze....... well, not for at least 18 years

emweaver

im really disappointed / annoyed about this . i think there should be another election the public werent asked if we wanted the lib dems in too and from what i gather a hell of a lot of people couldnt even vote as were turned away!

emweaver

mitchaa wrote: »

I agree, it's about time.

I am a father of a 2yr old boy so not biased in anyway shape or form. I believe it is an unnecessary waste of tax payers cash and so be it, my son will not receive a further £250 on his 7th birthday. Woopty do.

The £190 healthy eating grant and the £500 surestart maternity grant are equally as wasteful. These should soon be scrapped too. Nice to have I suppose but completely unnecessary.

The £500 is only for those on a low income an is an absolute godsend we were both working full time on min wage so the £500 was a godsend to us to buy our baby bits. We were both tax payers before I get slated for saying I needed it

Paul_Herring

emweaver wrote: »

im really disappointed / annoyed about this . i think there should be another election the public werent asked if we wanted the lib dems in too

Yes they were. The public voted for a "hung parliament" and one of the consequences of a hung parliament is a coalition government. The public got what the public voted for. It might not be what most wanted, but them's the rules of the election.

The ones that did vote that is, which brings me to your next point...

and from what i gather a hell of a lot of people couldnt even vote as were turned away!

I'm sure it wasn't quite as many as a "hell of a lot" (and I'm sure they would have been able to vote if most of them had gone at 7am, instead of turning up at 9.30pm. Yes, I know some turned up slightly earlier, but you get my point.)

I'm sure they were more than outweighed by the number of 'voters' who couldn't even be bothered to actually vote at all.

[Deleted User]

£500 million to be cut from dwp budget this year

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Axing this trust will slowly degrade the value of the trusts that have already been set up, there will be no new investment into it, and rates will slowly fall to nothing for those already tied in, admin fees will slowly eat away at the rest of the capital left in.

Don't forget these funds are reliant on the stockmarket and other investments arms. All in all by the time your little one get his/her money on the fund, there will be very little left. A complete waste of time! The only winners were those people in the stockmarket, now they are going to have to find the money elsewhere to fund their lifestyle and a good thing too.

AMD