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

jamespir

galvanizersbaby wrote: »

No need to be rude - and I think you mean grasp? - I was surprised because I thought the take up for child benefit was 100% - assumably you don't claim it for your child because your not entitled to it - i.e. whoever your child lives with claims it for your child.

If your not entitled to CB it isn't going to make any difference to you so why bother to comment if it's not relevant to you

it is releveant to me i could claim it if i wanted too but i dont

galvanizersbaby

jamespir wrote: »

it is releveant to me i could claim it if i wanted too but i dont

In that case what I have read about the take being 100% for child benefit is obviously incorrect.
That is if you are saying nobody claims CB for your child.
i.e. the parents choose not to take up child benefit

dizziblonde

We'd probably fall to the side that would still get it when I stop working for the baby coming - but if we had to do without it - we'd manage... what's the alternative to not cutting your outgoings according to your income!?

I personally don't think it should be paid for more than two children anyway. Once can be a happy accident, two - yeah well you wanted a sibling.... three or more - if you can't feed it - don't breed it.

galvanizersbaby

dizziblonde wrote: »

We'd probably fall to the side that would still get it when I stop working for the baby coming - but if we had to do without it - we'd manage... what's the alternative to not cutting your outgoings according to your income!?

I personally don't think it should be paid for more than two children anyway. Once can be a happy accident, two - yeah well you wanted a sibling.... three or more - if you can't feed it - don't breed it.

It's a long time ago now for me but I think I could only claim child benefit after my first was born - unless things have changed

pinkclouds

brians_daughter wrote: »

whats your opinions and could you manage without it? What changes would you have to make, if any?

I'm opposed to means testing because I feel that means testing is intrusive and demeaning. However, I would have no problem with limiting child benefit to a fixed number of children. Alternatively, I'd have no issue with it being added to hubby's tax free personal allowance. (It always feels a bit pointless to take tax with one hand and give it back with the other.)

I suppose we would manage without it but we would compensate by spending less money.

MERFE

Its very easy to say it should be means tested when you can live without it, if all you are doing is putting it in savings for the child, that is lovely for your child but some people actually use it for their living expenses.

Its possible if it went means tested it we would be a boderline case, in which case I would probably give up working, get the child benefit and stay at home and look after the kids. Seriously it is likely it could make going to work pointless for some people, especially as the cost of petrol is so high.

brians_daughter

jamespir wrote: »

it is releveant to me i could claim it if i wanted too but i dont

Interesting James, I never claimed child benefit for my 1st 2 children - i didnt like doing it, i didnt need the money and thought if i didnt claim it would be put to good use elsewhere.
Then i split from the childrens dad and still didnt claim it - however when i went via the csa for support they couldnt do anything as my kids 'werent on the system' as i didnt claim cb so i had to claim to cb in order to persue child support! Hence now why the money goes to them and not me - i dont need it, nor do athey, but they will do 1 day!

Dunno hwo true this is but i was also told (via csa) that if you didnt claim cb then a national insurance number was not automatically generated for your child as they werent on the system as a child... dont know how old they are but when they get to 16 or whatever it is it maybe worth chasing this up...

Jolinar

I thought they'd ruled out the means testing route as it would cost more to implement than it would save?

I think it would be far more sensible to limit it to two children or even one perhaps. The problem with scraping it for a large portion of the population would be that people who have never claimed anything else off the government in their lives see it as a nice thing to have when all and sundry seemingly get handed benefits on a plate. Rightly or wrongly getting rid of it altogether would be hugely unpopular.

I would miss the money but could manage without it. I wonder if they will look into scraping the child care voucher system as well? That would hit us much harder as both of us use these.

MarieAAP

pinkshoes wrote: »

I would rather they limited child benefit to two children only, thus discouraging people from having more than two if they can't afford it.

Unless it's twins or triplets! So you could have 3 kids.

Definitely won't agree though if it was an articial insemination, and they placed 4 fertile eggs - or have I started a total new debate :P

M

msb5262

I don't know if I'd get CB if it was means-tested.
I currently receive child tax credits and would have been in real trouble if that wasn't the case.
Child benefit would be much missed - I use it for food, bills, kids' train passes for school, uniform, trips...all those tiny extras.

It may be very unpopular to say this, but I don't feel that people who put their child benefit into savings for the children are necessarily "in need" of it.

I know several families who have never "used" their CB on the children's care or upbringing, and every penny has gone into savings - so those children will have a nice nest-egg to start them off when they reach adulthood.

They are children whose families are well off in the first place, and who have never gone short of anything - it doesn't seem wildly fair to give them an extra boost at the expense of the government!

I wish I'd been in a position to give my children everything they need without child benefit but as it is, CB and child tax credits have really saved our bacon.

MsB