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

meds12_2

Oh good at last, and I say that as someone who is due to give birth early September. My Mum was saying what a shame it would be for me if CTF's were cancelled and we lost out, and I said that TBH I was quite uncomfortable with the thought that tax-paying households with low incomes (e.g. pensioners, single people on under £20k) were paying tax to give to my child, who is my responsibility.

I remember being livid that the government topped-up my first daughter's CTF, as they had classified us as living in poverty, which was deeply insulting to us - yes, we had a difficult year proceeding first daughter's birth - but we never looked on ourselves as being poor (only that we didn't have much money, if you understand what I mean!), but we thought with a small child, you couldn't expect to have much money, and we also knew our position would be temporary.

Equaliser123

Paul_Herring wrote: »

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. .

I didn't see the box on my ballot paper for a hung parliament....

The hung parliament is a consequence of the voting. I don't think anyone in their right mind voted for it.

Percy1983

As above EMA should go next, yet again another one based on your parents income. When I left School in 99 I would have got nothing while a friend of mine would have got the full amount, could my parents afford to give me the amount he would get... no.

Also how many people are now in college just to get the EMA payments as a dole until you are 18?

You should be in further education because you want to be, not because you are paid to be.

I am quite enjoying watching the benfits be cut one by one, it really does seem that we are returning to the 'you want it, get a job' culture.

POPPYOSCAR

Good.I have always disagreed with this.The money would have been better spent by being put into the education system.

trynsave

emweaver wrote: »

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

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.

[Deleted User]

this is turning into a debate(big surprise)it should be moved to DT,in fact thats where it should have been put from the start.

Deepmistrust

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.

Actually, it is a persons right to breed. The only country in the world that denies this basic human right to its citizens, is China. I'm hoping that isn't what you are suggesting?

The state has an obligation to look after its citizens, and yes, financial help is part of that. The state works for us (or at least is supposed to). In fact the state needs us all to 'breed', in order to ensure a ready supply of the next generation of workers to fund the ageing population.

It doesn't bother me that the lowest paid receive a much needed £500 for their children. I'd much rather save my outrage for bankers, and of course, MP's.

DarkConvict

Equaliser123 wrote: »

I didn't see the box on my ballot paper for a hung parliament....

The hung parliament is a consequence of the voting. I don't think anyone in their right mind voted for it.

Indeed, welcome to the fun of democracy, people disagree now and only a few things get done, if everyone had to agree nothing would get done.

This is going to get really sided tracked but..

There are many benefits and grants that are a drain on resources, I'm all for cuts on benefits, and severe fines for benefit fraud (like pay it back twice) We are inflated with immigration because to many people don't want to work rather than cannot work.

As Cameron said, it should be what am I responsible for, not what am I entitled to.

If your ill/disabled and unable to work, then that it fine you are entitled to atleast an average style of living, you should be looking at getting near average income (from benefits) because you can't work. Although i would still encourage voluntary/charity work to support them in their own well being. My GF is on ESA and tells me she feels useless and wants to get back to work, so at the moment is doing some voluntary work when she can.

But those that can work, but are not employed should have benefits close to the bread line. basic shelter, warmth, food and water. Redundancy pay is their to cover you moving from job to job if things go wrong. The only issue i see is now a days is the commitments we are tied into, a drop in income to below min wage (as benifits) could be difficult, with training in financial planning it will be fine as you won't tie yourself in to what you can't afford. At least once a week, if not 5 times on the mobile forums board we get the "I need to get out of contract, drop in income" problem. People should not tie themselves down to this if they can't afford it. They must not look at it as £30 a month, but 24*30 = £720. Can i afford £720 today. If not, I can't afford it as my income could drop at anytime, the "credit feeling" needs to end. I've been in a luckier position were i was shown to build up a buffer, and I am able to meet all my commitments within my monthly income but also to pay them in full tomorrow if needed. From what the people have said on the debt free wannabe forum, this is how they want to be, the problem is they have to go through years of debt and financial worry, even bankruptcy before they can learn it, which is to late. Which is why i am such an avid supporter of financial education in schools.
Learn to budget, some people on job seeker benefits go on holiday, I'm not against holidays but really if your not actually seeking a job, and just sit watching TV... I think I've said enough on that.

Its a hard thing, but these are hard times and its upto the people to make a difference and support the government in making cuts. Not that government handouts are the only area that need cut backs, ignore the bureaucracy that prevents the reduction in bureaucracy, and just cut out the bureaucracy. Stop the wastage and act more like a business... just not like ENRON.

Actually, it is a persons right to breed. The only country in the world that denies this basic human right to its citizens, is China. I'm hoping that isn't what you are suggesting?

I agree, it is a right to breed. But it is your responsibility to look after your child not the government. My main support for government interaction is to ensure for the care of them, mostly to avoid abusive parents.

Starship troopers reminds me of people having to get a license to have kids, and District 9 had it too. We do not need to go that far by any stretch but i think the government can certainly help with family planning. Kids from split families in my experience have a much rougher ride and sadly you see it all to much nowadays.
If it was up to me, if you want benefits to help with kids then show you are responsible first. I would have a family planning package setup were you are shown what it means to be a good parent, and the common sense so many people don't have. I personally know nothing about looking after babies (kids i'm okay with). On completion of that if you still want to go ahead with it then go for it. For those that completed it before getting pregnant would receive a higher payout than those who were not planning it. Finally if the parents split up i would cut the benefits, sure it is harder to go it alone so you think they need more, but for gods sake don't reward people for it. Society has changed, it always has and always will but the government needs to step in and ensure it follows a good path, not a broken one!
But then again I say if you don't have parking space at the house, or a purchased car parking space you can't own a car, that's just because all the housing estate here are a pain to drive around as they just park cars on the roads everywhere. Cars need MOT, Tax, Insurance and a place to put it Oh and a competent driver helps too.

sheeps68

I know it does help a lot (trust fund , grants etc) and I know this could upset people but lets face fact. People choose to have children and everyone knows children do not come cheap. Therefore you know its going to pinch the £ seriously when you choose to have children.
However we live in a era where there is not lots of spare clash floatng around to give to children in the hope it will be used appropriately later in life and also hoping all parents add to it.
Surely all responsible caring parents would be trying to put some money away for the children as and when they can.

seven-day-weekend

MSE_Guy wrote: »

"The Government will stop offering cash to children in a CTF as part of the £6.2 billion of savings announced today
..."

Great news, waste of money from start to finish.