Another one of those benefits threads

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

What's your definition of "living in poverty or living in a mansion", Harry?

I am quite strongly opposed to that, because people with no earnings may actually be better off than people with nominal earnings, once you take housing/council tax etc out of the equation.

I mean that both 'benefits' are not means-tested and are therefore available for all, regardless of their income or circumstances. Is that clear enough for you, or would you like me to further elaborate?

carolt wrote: »

Many of those 'living in mansions' appear to be on benefits, with the tab being picked up by the taxpayer, so I hope they would lose their entitlement to child benefit too, Harry?

I felt the statement 'I think Child Benefit should be scrapped, followed closely by Children's Trust Funds' is pretty unequivocal. It clearly doesn't mean only 'people living in mansions' should lose their entitlement, it means that the whole thing should be scrapped for everyone. Has that cleared it up for you?

carolt

Really? The child trust fund is small beer and is not cashable in for ages anyway, so I think it would raise few complaints.

But child benefit is a lot. We currently get £185/month. To replace that from taxed income would mean my having to work a lot more hours and have even less hours to spend with my children - as it would for most parents who actually have to work.

Is that really desirable?

It was intended to help families with children afford the basics.

The alternative, obviously, is to raise tax credits. Or let lots of children go without the basics.

Which option do you prefer?

SingleSue

I think Harry is saying that he would prefer that no-one, rich or poor, on benefits or working, to receive child benefit or Childrens trust funds (which all mine were too old for anyway, so didn't receive).

Well, I think that is what he means anyway!

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

What cut-off point?

You're quoting my earlier post which I had to change because you edited your earlier post. As you have now changed your earlier post, you can ignore this post.


I'd be very interested to hear whether you prefer the option of letting poorer children go without the basics, or of raising tax credits to plug the gap, one of which will be the result of your suggested end to child benefit.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Really? The child trust fund is small beer and is not cashable in for ages anyway, so I think it would raise few complaints.

But child benefit is a lot. We currently get £185/month. To replace that from taxed income would mean my having to work a lot more hours and have even less hours to spend with my children - as it would for most parents who actually have to work.

Is that really desirable?

It was intended to help families with children afford the basics.

The alternative, obviously, is to raise tax credits. Or let lots of children go without the basics.

Which option do you prefer?

The alternative is not to subsidise people at all. If you choose to have children, why should other people pick up the bill?

carolt

So I take it your preferred alternative is to let poorer children go without the basics.

Good to know.

Harry_Powell

no, you follow the precedent that the government have already used for pensions, you phase it in. Kids receive CB for 18 years I believe. We therefore set a date where we say that from then on, no one receives Child Benefits. Children's trust funds can be cancelled whenever because they have only been going a relatively short time, and as you say, they're small beans in the grand scheme of things.

In 18 years time, no more CB at all.

EDIT: Oh, you've completely changed your post from a decent debatable point into emotional rhetoric. However, my response above to your original post "What about existing children" still stands for your altered post above. Current children will not be impacted.

carolt

Which one? I got so tired of your posts coming and going whilst I was trying to respond above, I almost gave up!

So basically, you'd still like to see poor children go without the basics in future. Or are you suggesting to phase it in over 18 years? If so, I'd agree - trouble is, policy isn't usually made 18 years in advance, as few govts can count on being in power then to see it through - and this one more so than most...

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Which one? I got so tired of your posts coming and going whilst I was trying to respond above, I almost gave up!

I'm responding to each of your posts carolt, hence why we see a pattern of you posting and me responding. If you don't want to discuss this any further, then fine.

SingleSue

Harry_Powell wrote: »

no, you follow the precedent that the government have already used for pensions, you phase it in. Kids receive CB for 18 years I believe. We therefore set a date where we say that from then on, no one receives Child Benefits. Children's trust funds can be cancelled whenever because they have only been going a relatively short time, and as you say, they're small beans in the grand scheme of things.

In 18 years time, no more CB at all.


EDIT: Oh, you've completely changed your post from a decent debatable point into emotional rhetoric. However, my response above to your original post "What about existing children" still stands for your altered post above. Current children will not be impacted.

Dependent on education, if a child leaves education at age 16 and doesn't go onto an approved course or 6th form, then child benefit stops.

Child benefit can be paid until the child is 19 if they stay in education or on an approved course.