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

jellytot61

my first baby is due on the 10th july.... does this mean i will get £250 automatically for my childs trust fund or will i have to be quick to get it all sorted before the 1st august xxx

Cat1

People seem to be getting confused between the Child Trust Fund and the Surestart Maternity Grant. I don't think they have mentioned axing the surestart maternity grant yet have they?

Percy1983

Cat1 wrote: »

People seem to be getting confused between the Child Trust Fund and the Surestart Maternity Grant. I don't think they have mentioned axing the surestart maternity grant yet have they?

Not yet... but here's hoping!

bristol_pilot

The CTF is just the sort of waste of taxpayers' money that I hoped the new administration would put a stop to. Good job!

DarkConvict

No, its just the Child Trust Fund, although i do think they are going to be axing alot of grants, as it was done for publicity not sensibility.

my first baby is due on the 10th july.... does this mean i will get £250 automatically for my childs trust fund or will i have to be quick to get it all sorted before the 1st august xxx

If you apply for the voucher before the 1st August you get £250, after that you get £50. And then after January 2011 you get £0.

shegirl

Cat1 wrote: »

People seem to be getting confused between the Child Trust Fund and the Surestart Maternity Grant. I don't think they have mentioned axing the surestart maternity grant yet have they?

Nobody is getting anything confused,just stating what else we want to go and why

Deepmistrust

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.
Evidence? Where do you get that information from? Besides, most parents get one form of benefit or another, be it CTC/WTC or even just Child benefit. So, yes, in that respect I suppose they would.

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. The government doesn't want our birth numbers to fall. In fact, we are only just above sustaining the population (immigration aside). We have an ageing population, and if we do not increase birth rates, then there will be more retired people, than working people alive at any one point.

Further more to some comments on this thread.

I think it's time to cut to the chase here. Many people here aren't differentiating between the rare (yes it is rare) cases of families who do actively make a living out of claiming state benefits, and those that do the jobs that pay the least, and need help to make ends meet.

I only wish there was as much vitriol for bankers, and MP's whose greed is responsible for the state of many peoples poverty in the first place.

It's also rotten to read such vitriol aimed at the unemployed. The economy needs unemployed people, in order to control wages. Without those people who are labelled as scroungers (unfairly), every single one of us would be working for a darn sight less than we are right now. :beer:

clb776

first thing, i only got £250, not £500, my income for the year my baby was born was just under 10,000.

I have heard alot of people moaning about this. If you have children and want them to have a better future, then invest your own money in them.

I did invest my £250 voucher, and i currently pay another £10 a month into it (its all i can afford and i wish it was more!) I had no idea that the government also put money into it!!! HOW STUPID! It is not up to the tax payer to fund anybodies adulthood through regular payments from birth!

I can understand why some people are angry about this, but there is so much in the pot, it has to run out at some point.

trynsave

Deepmistrust wrote: »

It's also rotten to read such vitriol aimed at the unemployed. The economy needs unemployed people, in order to control wages. Without those people who are labelled as scroungers (unfairly), every single one of us would be working for a darn sight less than we are right now. :beer:

That is a new look on the whole situation. Never quite heard it described like that before - don't reckon I agree either as I can't see how paying people to do nothing is useful to the economy at large.

Deepmistrust

trynsave wrote: »

That is a new look on the whole situation. Never quite heard it described like that before - don't reckon I agree either as I can't see how paying people to do nothing is useful to the economy at large.

I guess it's useful, because it provides, not only a ready bank of desperate people, who will work for the minimum wage (less, if they could), but it also ensures that those in jobs (i.e. most of us), are grateful for the pittance we earn. The benefits far outweigh the negatives, for the economy as a whole. When I say economy, I'm refering to those that make a lot of money on the back of other peoples labour.

If we had full employment, then we (i.e. the workers), would call the shots. Which ensures paying the unemployed a pittance every fortnight, is money well spent.