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

Indie_Kid

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.

Exactly. Babies clothes doesn't last that long due to constantly growing. I'm sure there's also decent hardly-worn baby clothes in charity shops too.

DarkConvict

People coped perfectly fine without the handout, if it was never given out in the first place people wouldn't mind it been taken away.

Clothes, Nappies, Food, Etc. Parents provided it because they had to, the government doesn't need to interfere with it.

BargainMad_3

To be honest the entire CTF scheme was ill conceived for many reasons:

(1) 18 year olds would have vastly different amounts in their CTF accounts because of different payments from their parents and/or different levels of investment return. So thousands of people in the same age group would have been made to feel inadeqate because their parents didn't top up and/or their investments didn't do as well whilst others would brag how much they were worth. In this respect it would emphasise inequality.

(2) 18 year olds are granted access to a lump sum of money that has taken 18 years to build up. Ask any parent whether they think their 18 year old offspring will spend a lump sum wisely and you'll get many who say "NO!"....with very good reason. 18 years to save, 18 minutes to spend was one reaction.

(3) The CTF was a compulsory product - if the parent didn't invest it then the (big) "we know best" government would do it for them in a cumbersome administrative exercise. Not exactly the ethos of self reliance now, is it? Crucially, it ignored the fact that for religious and cultural reasons some people don't want their offspring to have money forced into the stock market "in their name" for "their own good".

(4) The scheme had a defined start date which precluded existing children who were born even a day before the scheme started. Thus some children in the family would have it, some wouldn't. In the worst cases some people in the same class at school would have it, some wouldn't because they were born a short time before it came in. This sort of thing leads to resentment from those who missed out and difficult questions from those in the same age range or offspring in the same family who do/don't have a trust fund because of confined date ranges.

(5) The administration system cost millions per year and relied on databases, cross verifications, the issue of vouchers, the issue of instructions, monitoring of take up, the compulsion of those refusing to comply. In all, everything that people are sick to the back teeth of in this country.

(6) Parents were often given the "hard sell" from CTF providers to increase their payments, the implication being that those that really cared for their children would pay more money in every month. Of course the CTF providers were actually preoccupied with the % they could take and make. And unlike all other savings schemes, once the money is deposited it cannot be withdrawn for up to 18 years and then - and only then - it goes to the 18 year old to spend as they wish (see point 2 above!).


I am afraid the scheme was more to do with the Labour party (especially Gordon Brown) trying to be popular - easily done on borrowed money - rather than a mindful policy. Providing these ill conceived and cumbersome "saving" accounts by increasing the national debt is just pure folly.

Percy1983

As much as I don't think a license to have children is the right idea I do think benefits should stop after 3.

My plan with my other half is 2 children, there is 2 of us so if we replace us then net population movement is nil... but right now you can make a living off having children which is wrong. I know a couple near me who have had 9 children evenly spread over the years... I am guessing they can't have any more as they are both walking with sticks (dare I say another form of income), guess what none of them have ever worked...

So we can't stop people breeding, but if they can't support them then they should have them taken off them not money thrown at them.

xmaslolly76

I have 3 children and another one on the way the first two were born before the hand out the third one did get it and it looks like the 4th one will just miss out due to the cut off point. I'm not bothered that it has been axed it is my responsibilty to provide for their futures no one elses we need to sort out the mess this country is in today. Once this country is more affluant again then maybe benefits of this kind can be reinstated until then they are a drain on resources that are needed elsewhere. if you can afford to put money away each month for your child then you should in the big scheme of things how far will £250 extra get them anyway in 18yrs time not very far probably.

shegirl

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.

Exactly.I had my son at 17,was single and doing my A Levels so on benefits and recieved what is now the Sure Start Grant.Back then (only 11 years ago lol) it was £100 and I got everything for that except for clothes that I saved for and bought with my pocket money(how shameful does that sound:o:o:o).

Why do people now 'need' £500?Why do those who don't work or earn very little have to have more expensive items and have to have everything new?Why the hell is it that more and more often it's those who work and support themselves more that are clearly the ones buying secondhand or struggling?It's wrong!

Nobody NEEDS £500 to buy baby things,it's absurd!

Paul_Herring

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Actually, it is a persons right to breed.

But it's not a right to demand that others pay for you to breed.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/652399/The-Lolly-and-the-Skive-y.html
2 adults, neither work, 14(+1 - pregnant) kids, £36,847pa.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-541598/Meet-families-ones-worked-THREE-generations--dont-care.html
4 adults, none work, 6 kids, £32,400pa

Jean Thompson, right, with son Steven and granddaughter Jessica, who says: 'It is my right to claim benefits'. All ten members of her family share a three-bedroom council house

[...]


"I'm asking the council for a ten-bedroom home for all of us. We need more space. It's awful sometimes when all the children are squabbling. Still, we do have a big TV with Sky, but we need some relaxation."

Poor lambs.



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23811226-the-dispossessed-mother-of-11-lives-on-just-pound-7-a-day-per-child.do
One adult (not working,) 11 (+1 - pregnant) kids (5 different fathers), £28, 105pa




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266649/Theyre-family-Mercedes-drive-getting-42-000-year-benefits-Scroungers-AMANDA-PLATELL-meets-them.html
2 adults (neither working), 7(+1 - pregnant) kids, £42,000pa.



All the sums given above are 100% benefits. Paid for by the tax payer. There are other such families, but those were the first 4 I found. Yes, it's not common, but the system as it stands encourages this behavior.

DaisyFlower

Deepmistrust wrote: »

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.

Most children who grow up on benefits go onto claim themselves and therefore will not be supporting themselves let alone contributing to others pensions.

The state has a welfare system to provide for those that cannot, it should not be obliged to provide for anyone that can support themselves. If all child related benefits were cut then we'd see a drop in our birth numbers as parents would have to ensure they were financially able to support a child.

bubblegumcola

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Most children who grow up on benefits go onto claim themselves and therefore will not be supporting themselves let alone contributing to others pensions.

I would be one of those children who grew up with my parents being on benefits for a large part of my childhood. I've only claimed unemployment benefit for three weeks when I left school til I got my first summer job. I've been a student then worked full time til I had my kids then became a stay at home mum while my hubby worked. I've been working part time now the kids are a little bit older as my hubby's business wasn't doing very well and now most recently I am working full time as my hubby''s income is dramatically less than it was. I have come close to seeing if we have been entitled to any benefits but have always managed to find a way of either myself or my husband bringing in money.

Just because I was brought up with parents who claimed benefits it certainly does not mean that my kids will be brought up the same way unless there was no possible way of getting a job. There's always been a job out there somewhere I could get, doesn't have to be a grand one, but as long as I get enough to pay my bills, feed my kids, I'd rather work than not.

System

I've never seen the point in the Child Trust Fund and neither have I seen the point in the Health in Pregnancy grant. £190 tax free if you are over 25 weeks pregnant to spend on anything you like, not necessarily healthy foods or drink.

I also think the government should pick an optimum number of children per household (2 or 3) and limit child benefit to that number for fresh claims from now on. Those families who currently have more kids than that shall continue to receive child benefit for their children until they leave education but should not receive anymore money for any future children they bring into the world. We need to discourage the benefits for kids culture which pervades among some people. I also think it should be means tested and should finish at around the same level of income as the tax credits.

Everyone will still be free to have as many kids as they like but with the knowledge that they will only get financial help from the state for the first 2 or 3 and as long as their income is below a certain limit.

Special consideration would be given for natural multiple births as opposed to those from IVF.