Should child benefit be means tested?

superdday

Give us a break, no to means testing ! It's getting that bad I think I may have a few more children , pack in work and still be better off, who's the mug :mad:

Fran

superdday wrote:

Give us a break, no to means testing ! It's getting that bad I think I may have a few more children , pack in work and still be better off, who's the mug :mad:

That's ridiculous, it's £17.45 per week for the first/eldest child then £11.70 for further children which is hardly life changing for someone in work ....unless they are on a low income.

blondie7 wrote:

I think all should get it, personally its about the only fair benefit around where everyone is classed as the same and why not we are all parents no matter how much money we have or have not which ever the case may be.

One thing it definitely isn't is fair! When a couple split, if they share the care only one of them gets child benefit so even if the other person shares childcare they are labelled as an "absent parent" and receive nothing. Everyone might be "classed as the same" but proportionately it makes a huge difference to someone on low income/benefits and I can only see it as a matter of greed for anyone on a high income. Someone on a decent income might well be able to put it to one side for their kids future, but people on a low income are more likely to have to spend it on day to day things. Given that, it puts people who are already comfortably off at an even greater advantage.... so the divide gets bigger between people in terms of financial advantage.

garysletters

I've had a long standing idea for child benefit, although I must say I like a couple of ideas above. (no child benefit, but free meals and nursery etc.)

My main idea would be for a higher amount for 1st child, but then none for following children. Everyone could still have as many kids as they want, but are limited in the financial help they get. Might stop a few "10 kid" families springing up demanding huge houses of the council and taking home more in benefits than most working couples. (a situation already commented on above).
Parents with 1 child would be better off, 2 kids about the same, but after 2 you'd need to really think if you could afford any more! At the same time it'd probably cost the state less to run, saving tax payers money!

Best of both worlds, although some would say worst! Can't please everyone.

Amanda65

There is already WTC and CTC as a means tested benefit for those on low incomes so don't think child beneft should be taxed. Also higher income doesn't necessarily mean hihger disposable income.

Before anyone shouts me down I realise that this is totally mine and my OH's decision but we live in the South East in a modest semi-detatched house but with a fairly high mortgage due to the cost of housing in the area. We have 3 children, all of whom we have educated privately from secondary school age - something that costs the state nothing, but in fact benefits the Treasury as I am not costing the education system anything and I work to fund their education and therefore am paying tax on a salary that I might not have to earn were it not for our choice (sorry if that's a bit rambling but I hope you know what I mean). The child benefit goes into a separate account and helps towards uniforms, school shoes and trips etc. Whilst on income alone we appear to be 'well off' our disposable income is rather a sad looking !

TonyW_2

Child benefit like every other benefit should not be means tested in the sense the government runs this notion. The reasoning for this is twofold

The enormous cost and difficulty of means testing accurately - CTC and NI benefits are primew examples of huge costs and poor results.
The adverse effects of perverse disincentives - the lower the income the higher the benefit - then why work or save? We hear a lot about high marginal rates of tax/ benefit loss when means tested - sadly it can be quite easy to be better off by not working or trying to improve your own situation. Frank Field spoke a lot about this before he was sacked!

The way to make the system fairer is to make all benefits taxable in the same way as any other income, in that way the well off would keep less of the benefit than those are less well off.

ceebeeby

I know even before I start typing that I'm going to be controversial .... but why would we think of means testing it, either have it, or don't have it, but have it for some only, I don't think so!!! Why on earth should those that get up early, rush breakfast etc. travel to work, graft away, go home, do parenting and fall exhausted into bed, only to repeat it the next day, do without .... and let's give it to the poor people who lie in bed all day!!!!!! (Whoa, before you come back and say, not everyone can work or not everyone has well paid jobs .... tough!! I'm darn sure I had to graft until the skin peeled off my hands to get where I am today, and I'm sure my kids would have liked me to be there when they came home at night ....) Everyone's destiny is not the governments responsibility .... it's THEIRS. I exclude from my reply anyone who is physically or mentally completely incapable of working (or caring for someone similarly), but even disabled people can work .... again, I know!!!!

As a parent (and a previous single parent) it didn't stop me getting off my backside and working for a living without claiming a penny in income support. So why the flips shouldn't everyone else. People should be made to work for their benefits - it would ease a lot of laziness in todays society!!!!!!

Anyway, back on topic - if there's such a thing as child benefit - then it should be for everyone!! If there isn't .... fine too. If you someone can't afford to bring a child into the world and support it - then don't have one!!!

(Ummm, I voted no btw!)

Kazar0034

There are some great ideas here, like most I work hard and see no reason to not be entitled to family allowance, this goes into a separate account and is used for uniforms, school trips etc.
n.b My friend is just about to have twins, did you know that you only receive single family allowance as they are born on the same day - how is that fair! Kids do cost alot to bring up and yes it is our choice to work, but then again its others choice not too!

David_Harrison_2

I reckon that before you get child benefit you should have to go on a parenting course. Maybe six classes, with some sort of test at the end, and then an attendance certificate issued with which the parent can claim the benefit. There are so many kids with behaviour problems that could have been avoided if their parents had had better parenting skills. These kids then continue the cycle of being incompetent parents with their own offspring.

This would be self funding as there would be a certain number who refused to go who would then not get their money. This money would pay for the parenting teachers.

There would also be less crime if parents were taking more responsibilty for bringing their children up correctly. The cost saving from this would be enormous.

Parents whose kids were consistently in trouble would have the child benefit stopped until they started doing their job properly.

Parenting is the most responsible job there is, and yet anyone is allowed to do it without any kind of training.

I'd be interested to hear people's views on this idea, and if any of the political parties would have the courage to take it on.

newlywed

Fran wrote:

Ah.... Child Benefit. :mad:

If the parents split up both should receive it and at the same amount (to stop parents deliberately trying to get extra nights in order to get more child benefit). This is crucial if the "absent parent" (absent? don't they exist any more?) is on a low income or need to claim income related benefits. At the moment the absent parent, even if they care for the child 3 days a week or every other week, gets no help towards caring for the child as far as benefits are concerned and the "parent with care" gets all the extras.

Or they could split it pro rata between the parents. Although I think that judging it by nights could be incorrect since they aren't eating, using electricity, wanting to be entertained etc when asleep!

Fran

newlywed wrote:

Or they could split it pro rata between the parents. Although I think that judging it by nights could be incorrect since they aren't eating, using electricity, wanting to be entertained etc when asleep!

I think they use nights at the moment to judge who they stay with, that's why I mentioned them.

Though obviously pro rata would be ideal, there is often animosity from one or both parents when they have split up and they are competing for the available help. Particularly in low income families having extra in the form of Child Benefit and the other benefits that can be obtained through it can mean the difference between existence and existence with debt (though long term low income I think debt would be hard to avoid anyway). The "absent parent" can be required to pay maintenance which is more money out of their pocket. I am convinced that a pro rata system would result in unscrupulous "parents with care" deliberately making sure they had more "nights" or "days" purely to obtain the extra money and access other benefits such as Child Tax Credits. That is one reason I think if both parents want to bring up their children, both should get equal help and equal access to the extra money.

Another reason is keeping things simple as we are all aware of the problems with tax credits for example. Simple would be that all children receive equal Child Benefit. There is a lump sum paid for the first child..... hang on isn't the trust fund doing that? Ok... all children receive equal Child Benefit and there is a cut off point of over £30,000? Over £50,000?

An important point with Child Benefit is the access it provides to other money. For instance, "parent with care" is only required to work over 16 hours to be entitled to Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit. "Absent parent" would have to work over 30 hours to be entitled to Working Tax Credit (though it is different for Disabled and Over 50's). "Absent parent" will be chased for maintenance.

The point is, we are not just talking about Child Benefit but the current way the ones who receive it have access to other benefits too.