If the PM DID means test child benefit could you manage without it?

Rainey_LB

lily76 wrote: »

Higher income means they put more in their jobs and the tax system, they might not need to be rewarded but at least not being biased. To work part-timely means they do not need a full income otherwise they will work full-timely. I am a part-timer because I am not bothered to work full-timely, but if I do need the income I will work more instead of finding solutions from benefit system.

Thats a good point and the only benefit I get and really rely on right now is my CB, however in my situation increasing my hours would just raise my childcare costs and I would pay out all additional income to childcare, so its not always that easy and things are not always black & white.

Spendless

Rainey_LB wrote: »

You can still qualify for a host of benefits depending on your situation, children are part of society too.

I hate these type of comments, they always put me in mind of the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!! lol

If you choose not to have children that's up to you, and I have the feeling you would be anti CTC, free nursery, bascially anything family orientated.

But these children you seem to begrudge so much will be tomorrows, doctors, nurses, carers, police, fireman, support workers, plumbers, etc............ I am sure in your latter years you are likely to have to rely at some point on someone else's children as you won't have your own to help you, whether it be health or social care, unless you are extremely lucky and you have expcetional health to the end. So why not invest in these children now? Bringing up children properly guiding them to becoming good contributing members of society is not easy at the best of times.

Today's children are also likely to be heavily taxed as they will support a top heavy ageing population. The birth rate is down from the famous 2.4 children, at a time when people are living longer.

richardvc

Apologies I haven't read the whole thread.

I noticed that a number of parents were just sticking it in the kids savings accounts and whilst that maybe very commendable, they obviously don't need it and in my mind shouldn't be eligible for it !

As with a lot of the current benefits, they were brought in when this country was a lot poorer and there was less money to go around.

So IMHO, it should be means tested - after all, that money could go somewhere else that it is needed.

angelicmary85

galvanizersbaby wrote: »

- because all the time I am eligible for it I want to claim it to put away for my children's future.

I might point out that since I had my children I have divorced their father for adultery (when they were very young) and work full time to support us (I have always worked full time from the age of 18 - am 38 now) I am not on a particularly high income so would be likely to qualify for CB if it was means tested.
All the time I can manage to save it I will.

Maybe I should have said that I too am a mother and claim it I find mine really useful though - I use it for their clothes and shoes, I don't really save very much for them as things are quite tight whilst I pay off the loan and credit card.

ETA - I do get help from the government (in the form of CTC/WTC and CB) but it's allowed me the extra time I needed to spend with my son who has special needs. I've spend so much time with him that he's away ahead of his development chart and I'm really proud we've done such a great job with him - had I been at work 5 days a week, he wouldn't be so 'advanced' - But it is quite embaressing that I've got most of the nation to Thank for him doing so well

borokat

I think a lot of people are missing the point which is that it's called child benefit, i.e. for the child. Why should the children suffer just because they have older siblings. I think restricting the benefit to first 2 children only is absoloutely wrong. I can't believe someone actually appeared to mention China's 1 child policy as something positive. I for one am glad that British children aren't forced into orphanages because their parents can't afford to keep them.
If they do means test it I hope it will be done fairly. I am hoping to start a family in the next few years. Our household income is £42k which probably sounds like a lot but we have a £500 per month mortgage to pay on a 2 bedroom flat - a lot of people have much smaller mortgages on bigger properties so I hope these kinds of outgoings would be accounted for.

starsandmoon

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It's time child benefit went. Tax credits are here now, for those that can't keep their own children.

The reason I claim tax credits is because childcare for school age children is pathetic and I can only work 9-5 which limits me in what jobs I can do. I have 2 jobs and Im a single parent who's ex husband is no use whatsoever.

So I can keep my own child thank you but need some help until my daughter is old enough to be left alone as social services would take a dim view of me leaving her alone whilst I worked.

You are either a stay at home mother with a partner who can pay for everything or childless.

Lindy_-_Loo

My OH works full time, and I'm a SAHM.(I worked thru university and for 10 years before I had children) We have two boys. OH is on a low paid job and we get WTC and CTC, if they means tested CB then so be it, but we probably would struggle to replace the £134 a month.

the money is used for the boys, clothes, food and treats.

It would be lovely to save it all but we cant afford to at the moment

Indie_Kid

borokat wrote: »

I
If they do means test it I hope it will be done fairly. I am hoping to start a family in the next few years. Our household income is £42k which probably sounds like a lot but we have a £500 per month mortgage to pay on a 2 bedroom flat - a lot of people have much smaller mortgages on bigger properties so I hope these kinds of outgoings would be accounted for.

Why should they be? No-one forced you to gt the mortgage. Many people pay that much (or more) on rent per month.

borokat

Living costs should be taken into account regardless of whether it is mortgage or rent. If rent becomes unaffordable it is a lot easier to downsize though. With a mortgage you are sort of stuck with it!
I would like to live in a more equal society, I don't see how getting rid of child benefit will achieve this.

galvanizersbaby

borokat wrote: »

Living costs should be taken into account regardless of whether it is mortgage or rent. If rent becomes unaffordable it is a lot easier to downsize though. With a mortgage you are sort of stuck with it!
I would like to live in a more equal society, I don't see how getting rid of child benefit will achieve this.

Why? - you can choose to change to a different mortgage deal or sell the property to go into rented accommodation?

I don't think that it's likely that mortgage/rental costs will be taken in to account if Child benefit is means tested.

My mortgage is 560 per month at the moment on a 2 bed property - I don't earn as much as 42K a year and I have 2 children - I manage to save my 134 per month Child benefit at the moment if thats of any reassurance to you