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

seraphina

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 (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 teh 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!

I'm perfectly happy for CB to be paid to families who, on paper, look like they can't afford to have kids without state support. I don't want to see families in dire need. However, I don't support a system that "encourages" people to have kids for some financial benefit.

And I have no problem with supporting kids from less well off families through university - in all probability they'll go on to have well paying jobs and pay their own way through taxation.

I'd rather see us being more generous with benefits for families in genuine need, rather than giving everyone the same amount and seeing large amounts of benefit paying for gymnastics classes...

lynnexxxo

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...

My problem with your argument is that the parents who are spending their child benefit on ballet or saving it are already providing the necessities - presumably from their hard earned salary.

So I could say I spend my family allowance of food and bills. I spend some of my salary on savings and other things that you might not as essential - but my salary my choice.

Means testing has been ruled out as the savings it would make would be wiped out by the cost of implementing it.

balletshoes

kafkathecat wrote: »

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.

A simple cap type of means test (NOT the sliding scale thats used for tax credits etc) wouldn't be more expensive to deliver than the savings it would bring - as I've already said, HMRC administer CHB already, so it could be linked to yearly tax returns.

brians_daughter

msb5262 wrote: »

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

As i said in my post MsB, this isnt necessarily my own opinion, just another side of the coin for ppl to consider... I agree it should be means tested and if you need it you should have it.

Spendless

brian's daughter- you know when you said you didn't claim CB initially cos you didn't need it, were you working at the time?

CB carried HRP with it, so a NI stamp paid for the person whose name it was in. (the system has recently changed, but to something similar). If you work enough to pay NI, then you don';'t need to consider this aspect but those that don't work or don't earn enough need to do so.

missworks2jobs

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.

Sorry if my post is harsh, but I have to agree with pinkshoes....especially as were trying to sort out our finances BEFORE we commit to bringing an extra person into the world and there are wonderful people like the lady in the papers the other week with baby no12 on the way and the family of 10 who've never worked a day in their lives and ge £40k in benefits. I would prefer they paid it only to the first two children but possibly increased it for the early years (so it could be used on the expensive things like prams, cots, car seats etc).

janninew

I think the fairest thing to do would be to limit CB to 2 children. I don't think its fair to means test it though. Me and my husband have a very good household income and if it were to be means tested we would probably not qualify (we don't qualify for CTC). Neither of us were rich or come from wealthy families, but we have both worked hard and progressed at work (my hubby works away and I can go up to a month without seeing him) we both pay the higher rate of tax, so why should we not get anything back, purely because we have worked hard and put off having children until we can afford them.

I do the same as others on here, save my CD for my daughter!

Hope that doesn't offend, but its my opinion on CB and other benefits, things are going to change though and I'm sure they are going to come as a shock to come people.

Rainmaker_uk

Personally it annoys me that the only state benefit that my family is entiltled to might be taken away. I am a high rate tax payer and put much in to the pot for everyone else which is OK but I am sick of being the target for every new tax rise...

Please just leave me this one benefit - it's not a lot considering how much I put in to the pot year after year.

It confounds me why we reward people who cannot afford to have loads of children to fund them? Rather than make it means tested I agree that it should be limited to two children maximum.

kindofagilr

We could possibly live without it, but it would be tight, we use it to buy his nappies and his baby milk.

janninew

Rainmaker_uk wrote: »

Personally it annoys me that the only state benefit that my family is entiltled to might be taken away. I am a high rate tax payer and put much in to the pot for everyone else which is OK but I am sick of being the target for every new tax rise...

Please just leave me this one benefit - it's not a lot considering how much I put in to the pot year after year.

It confounds me why we reward people who cannot afford to have loads of children to fund them? Rather than make it means tested I agree that it should be limited to two children maximum.

That's just the way things go, as my old Dad said "Life isn't fair!"

Lots of people are rewarded for not working in this country, it is possible to have children and do some work, I know plenty that do! I know there will always be exceptions, but I personally know lots of women from my anti-natal group that didn't go back to work or don't work many hours, as they get more benefits. I was really surprised recently to look at the CTC table and see what people are entitled to, especially if you have 3 or more children, it amazed me actually!

Seems a little daft to cut your hours back and rely on a benefit that can be taken away, there is no guarantee that you would get your hours back. Also I wonder what happens to the people who have lots of children and don't work, when their children grow up and your not entitled to the benefits anymore, surely they are going to struggle getting jobs, with no recent work experience.