surely it is better to limit child benefit to 2 kids per family

twirlypinky

"Bring back the work houses" is the phrase i hear bandied about where i work, very regularly.

stonethrower

starsandmoon wrote: »

When I married my husband and we wanted a baby we saved up, I managed to get a better paid job so when I returned to work I could afford the childcare. I took extra unpaid maternity leave but saved up 3 months salary to be able to do this. I returned to work part time and yes we applied for CB but not tax credits as it was such a lengthy process and my husband was self employed. We were able to pay to bring up our child with no benefits (except the CB).

Fast forward a few years. Divorced, ex husband sees child once a week (his choice). Im dependent on CB and tax credits even though I have 2 jobs. One of my jobs is being cut by 20%, my employers response was "the tax credits will make up the difference"!!! I do not want to be reliant on these benefits but what else can I do?

So those who have said dont have children if you carnt afford them well what happens if circumstances change and you become reliant on government handouts? I can only work 9-5 due to afterschool shuts at 5.30 and I have no family to help out.

Thats fair enough but I don't think its the like of you that most people complain about, its the people who never work and keep on churning out babies that really drives people crazy.

gauly

JackieChan wrote: »

Fair point, but they get by in other countries without any handouts, why should it be any diferent here?.
Far eastern countries are more family orientated than we are and they all help each other so nobody goes hungry. Maybe that's what is missing in the UK, it's more of a "every man for himself" kind of attitude.

Actually, virtually all other European countries don't give handouts because you get a different tax allowance if you have dependants. In fact, I've read that child benefit was created to replace increased tax allowances.

It does seem weird that you get a tax allowance of around £7k before you start paying taxes and there are plans to increase it to £10k because £7k isn't enough to live on, yet you get the same allowance if you are also supporting a spouse and two children. It seems to me that different tax thresholds sounds much more acceptable than calling it a "benefit".

silvercar

It does seem weird that you get a tax allowance of around £7k before you start paying taxes and there are plans to increase it to £10k because £7k isn't enough to live on, yet you get the same allowance if you are also supporting a spouse and two children. It seems to me that different tax thresholds sounds much more acceptable than calling it a "benefit".

All that would do is encourage people to have more dependants to increase their tax allowance.

Years ago, there was a married man's allowance that one half of a couple got to add some tax allowance for someone with a dependant. In the interests of equality it was phased out. Single people also used to be able to claim some help with mortgage interest through an allowance called MIRAS. I think you got tax relief on the interest on upto £30k of your mortgage. That started off as £30k per person, then became £30k per couple.

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

All that would do is encourage people to have more dependants to increase their tax allowance.

Years ago, there was a married man's allowance that one half of a couple got to add some tax allowance for someone with a dependant. In the interests of equality it was phased out. Single people also used to be able to claim some help with mortgage interest through an allowance called MIRAS. I think you got tax relief on the interest on upto £30k of your mortgage. That started off as £30k per person, then became £30k per couple.

But - and this is the big difference to the current system - tax allowances only motivate those already working and earning more than the allowance.

I think the current problem is the number of people who produce extra children for free cash that requires them to do no work at all.

silvercar

carolt wrote: »

But - and this is the big difference to the current system - tax allowances only motivate those already working and earning more than the allowance.

I think the current problem is the number of people who produce extra children for free cash that requires them to do no work at all.

True.

Do WTC and CTC go to people who are not working?

bendix

gauly wrote: »

Actually, virtually all other European countries don't give handouts because you get a different tax allowance if you have dependants. In fact, I've read that child benefit was created to replace increased tax allowances.

It does seem weird that you get a tax allowance of around £7k before you start paying taxes and there are plans to increase it to £10k because £7k isn't enough to live on, yet you get the same allowance if you are also supporting a spouse and two children. It seems to me that different tax thresholds sounds much more acceptable than calling it a "benefit".

Most Asia countries - including HK and Thailand where I lived - also gives increased tax allowances for kids.

The idea of simpling handing over case to 'encourage' the profligate to breed more is anathema to them.

Of course, they're much more sensible than us.

MrsE_2

ninky wrote: »

the cost to the taxpayer for children is far greater than child benefit. free schooling and healthcare (including maternity care) cost more than child benefit.

i'd rather have children provided for than punish parents for having children they can't support.

however, i think there is something to be said for shifting the mindset that encourages procreation. being childfree should be seen as a valid, if not admirable, position. also the benefits of being childfree both on future finances and lifestyle could be better encouraged. i don't think the condems are helping with all the talk about giving married couples tax breaks and putting the family at the centre of things (by which they clearly mean the nuclear family of mum, dad and kids).

So scrap it & give them ALL free school meals instead;)

Moneywise I think that would work out about even?

LydiaJ

silvercar wrote: »

True.

Do WTC and CTC go to people who are not working?

CTC does. WTC doesn't.

carolt

But the non-working get income support.

Plus the no/low waged get a load of other support those earning enough to benefit from tax breaks don't get: housing benefit, concil tax benefit, school meals, free prescriptions, dental care, the staying-on-at-school- allowance (forget what it's called), university bursaries, in some cases free/cheaper transport and leisure activities, free laptops, free school buses, blah-de-blah.

Certainly a big incentive currently for those not working or earning v little to continue doing so, and indeed pop out another kid or two in the process.

Contrast that to the tax break idea - only those already earning a reasonable amount will benefit - thus making middle-class taxpayers able to afford to have a family, and incentivising the non-low paid to get a (better) job.

Personally I think the second set of incentives makes much more sense economically ie for the future of the country. Surely we want to encourage people who work to have kids - not just the unemployed.