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

seraphina

I'm amazed at the number of people who save it/put it towards the mortgage/gymnastics lessons etc - in my mind that's no different from MPs spending taxpayers money on duck houses.

Benefits should be there for those who need them - if your husband or you have lost your job, then that's what they are there for - extra cash to help look after your children at a basic level. If you *choose* to save it, you're taking money you don't need - if you needed it, you'd be spending it on nappies, milk and school shoes! I'm beginning to think that child benefits should be paid in vouchers to stop people who can manage without it spending taxpayer's money on luxuries!

And all those people bleating about, well I need something back for my taxes paid, get over yourselves. It's to each according to their needs, surely? I thank God I haven't needed the NHS in a major capacity but I don't go banging on about how I should get a refund as a taxpayer.

And while we're at it, can we get rid of the winter fuel allowance? My parents, and many others like it, tend to spend it on the Christmas booze:( Proper means testing would allow people in genuine need to receive more - not just in help towards their gas bills, but grants could be made to upgrade heating systems, improve insulation etc.

Baileys_Babe

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.

I agree. I don't think means testing is the way foward, masses of administration costs which would eat into any savings. Also means testing often means middle income households don't qualify but struggle without the assistance.

If CB was removed could my family cope? we would have to but it would require a lot of reorganising the budget.

I use the CB mainly for funding the childrens activities and travel costs asociated. Due to a crisis earlier this year I made a budget where the CB had to cover all our food as well as what I usually use it for, that was scary, thankfully we found a new income stream.

galvanizersbaby

seraphina wrote: »

I'm amazed at the number of people who save it/put it towards the mortgage/gymnastics lessons etc - in my mind that's no different from MPs spending taxpayers money on duck houses.

Benefits should be there for those who need them - if your husband or you have lost your job, then that's what they are there for - extra cash to help look after your children at a basic level. If you *choose* to save it, you're taking money you don't need - if you needed it, you'd be spending it on nappies, milk and school shoes! I'm beginning to think that child benefits should be paid in vouchers to stop people who can manage without it spending taxpayer's money on luxuries!

And all those people bleating about, well I need something back for my taxes paid, get over yourselves. It's to each according to their needs, surely? I thank God I haven't needed the NHS in a major capacity but I don't go banging on about how I should get a refund as a taxpayer.

And while we're at it, can we get rid of the winter fuel allowance? My parents, and many others like it, tend to spend it on the Christmas booze:( Proper means testing would allow people in genuine need to receive more - not just in help towards their gas bills, but grants could be made to upgrade heating systems, improve insulation etc.

But many are saving it towards the cost of their childs further education - i.e. university costs

Who are you to stipulate which items people should spend their child benefit on?

brians_daughter

seraphina wrote: »

Benefits should be there for those who need them - if your husband or you have lost your job, then that's what they are there for - extra cash to help look after your children at a basic level. If you *choose* to save it, you're taking money you don't need - if you needed it, you'd be spending it on nappies, milk and school shoes! I'm beginning to think that child benefits should be paid in vouchers to stop people who can manage without it spending taxpayer's money on luxuries!

And all those people bleating about, well I need something back for my taxes paid, get over yourselves. It's to each according to their needs, surely? I thank God I haven't needed the NHS in a major capacity but I don't go banging on about how I should get a refund as a taxpayer.

And while we're at it, can we get rid of the winter fuel allowance? My parents, and many others like it, tend to spend it on the Christmas booze:( Proper means testing would allow people in genuine need to receive more - not just in help towards their gas bills, but grants could be made to upgrade heating systems, improve insulation etc.

Whilst i agree with what you are saying there are more apropriate wasy of saying it!

Ancilla

I don't usually comment on other threads like this but my sister is a headmisstress and when her daughter was born she didn't claim child benefit. She's got a household income of nearly 200k a year from various places and it came to light when her little girl was 3 that she'd never bothered to fill in the form as 'it was only £20 a week'.

Who'd want to fill in a simple form for a free £20 a week after all!??!

I always thought this was very funny, if not downright shocking. Although I suppose if they change the rules she would no longer be entitled anyway?

LJM

my child benefit pays for my girls clothes for everyday and uniform and anything else they need and also helps to pay for shopping so we would be a little pushed if it wasnt there

seraphina

galvanizersbaby wrote: »

But many are saving it towards the cost of their childs further education - i.e. university costs

Who are you to stipulate which items people should spend their child benefit on?

I think the taxpayer in general has every right to stipulate what tax money is spent on. Benefits are there to help the genuinely needy. It's very easy to slam "chav beneft scum" who appear to spend benefits on booze and fags, so how come the middle classes spending taxpayer cash on ballet classes or music lessons somehow acceptable? It reduces available funds for those who really need them.

Saving it for a university education (at which point the child is an adult...) is a grossly unfair way of subsidising the more well-off. If you actually need child benefit for the necessities, you can't afford to put aside a nest egg for uni. So it's okay for the chattering classes to be able to send Alex and Freya off to uni with a lump sum, or a deposit for their first house, but all it does is perpetuate inequality.

University education is funded through student loans, or parental income. If you want to help your child through university, that's fine - but do it out of your own income, not the taxpayers. That way, the taxpayer might be able to better support children from poorer families to attend uni...

brians_daughter

seraphina wrote: »

I think the taxpayer in general has every right to stipulate what tax money is spent on. Benefits are there to help the genuinely needy. It's very easy to slam "chav beneft scum" who appear to spend benefits on booze and fags, so how come the middle classes spending taxpayer cash on ballet classes or music lessons somehow acceptable? It reduces available funds for those who really need them.

Saving it for a university education (at which point the child is an adult...) is a grossly unfair way of subsidising the more well-off. If you actually need child benefit for the necessities, you can't afford to put aside a nest egg for uni. So it's okay for the chattering classes to be able to send Alex and Freya off to uni with a lump sum, or a deposit for their first house, but all it does is perpetuate inequality.

University education is funded through student loans, or parental income. If you want to help your child through university, that's fine - but do it out of your own income, not the taxpayers. That way, the taxpayer might be able to better support children from poorer families to attend uni...

On the other hand it could be said that if you NEED cb in order to buy milk, clothes, food for your own children then those ppl cant support their own children without state help and should stop having children they cannot support (this may or maynot be my opinion, i am simply pointing out that there are 2 sides to every coin...)

As for uni ,taxpayers and low income families - some ppl from low income family can access grants for uni that are not repayable... guess where that money comes from.. yes the taxpayer.. again swings and roundabouts.

The fact of the matter, IMO is we( as a counrty) have had it too good for too long including the ppl who get cb, child tax credit, working tax credit etc (me included,as i get cb) The whole process needs a match taking to it and i do hope that this G'ment is strong enough to do it!

kafkathecat

An argument against means testing which I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the administration of means tested benefits makes them more expensive to deliver which could end up costing taxpayers more.Also universal benefits ensure that the most needy do get them as every year millions of pounds of benefits go unclaimed that people are entitled to. It is the children who suffer if families go short.

msb5262

brians_daughter wrote: »

On the other hand it could be said that if you NEED cb in order to buy milk, clothes, food for your own children then those ppl cant support their own children without state help and should stop having children they cannot support

The difficulty here is that circumstances change - I am currently finding it quite hard to support my children as my marriage ended in divorce. According to your theory, I should "stop having children I can't support"...rather difficult as they're now 12, 14 and 16. Presumably I should tell them I'm having to let them go due to the recession!

MsB