Should child benefit be means tested?

freddy27

I can't believe that people are so awful that they think child benifit should be paid to ALL. Surely anyone earning more than £30000 is not in need of this benifit. Fair treatment for all, look after the low wage and no wage people.

hils01

garysletters wrote:

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.

So you actually think that a contributing factor to couples who have more than two children is because of the financial stability that child benefit offers????....ha ha ha!!

Tractorbabe

I think Child Benefit should be available to all children however the amount paid to multiple births need to be looked at.

If you have 3 children born as singletons then you receive a higher level for Child 1 than you do for Child 2 & 3 because the eldest child is deemed to be more expensive. eg You buy the cot, clothes etc for Child 1 but these can be handed down to Child 2 and Child 3. This continues as children get older with other items eg bikes.

However if you have triplets you receive the higher benefit for the Child who is alphabetically first and the reduced level for Triplet 2 and Triplet 3. However each child is just as expensive, there are no items to hand-down, you need 3 cots, 3 highchairs, 3 bikes etc.

As a mother of twins I know the higher level for both children would have been appreciated. Before someone points out that having children was my choice, I chose to have a baby but we were blessed with two. I had no choice in the matter. We probably would have had a second child in time but having two at the same time doesn't give you a chance to plan.

Plasticman

freddy27 wrote:

I can't believe that people are so awful that they think child benifit should be paid to ALL. Surely anyone earning more than £30000 is not in need of this benifit. Fair treatment for all, look after the low wage and no wage people.

Do you mean a family with an income of £30,000? So, for example, if dad earns £20,000 and mum earns £10,000 then they are classed as rich? Seems a bit harsh to me.

I agree with your comment on 'fair treatment for all' though. Personally I think that it's time to scrap child benefit - for everybody. If you can't afford to have kids then don't have any. If you already have children and fall on hard times then there should be benefits that kick in when you need them. I think that all benefits should be linked to the number of years that the claimant has been working. If you've never worked, you aren't entitled to any benefits. Those unable to work due to disability would get full benefits for obvious reasons.

The_Snorkmaiden

I was listening to a radio phone in about this subject recently, where a woman phoned in and laughed about how she forgets to pick it up for ages because she doesn't need it, and last time she remembered and there was a nice lump sum there she spent it on a pony. Er...do I think it should be means tested?! Yes! And this absolutely doesn't mean I think that any of these large sums of benefit should be doled out to people who can't be arsed to work as so often featured in the tabloids (don't get me started on that...), but people who don't need benefits shouldn't get them. This is much the same as some of these working tax credits which I believe people earning £40.000+ are still entitled to. Why?!?

choclover

I think if it was means tested, less people would have kids and I think that would be a BIG problem.

We are already an ageing population: people are living longer due to medical advancements and a better quality of life. The strain on pensions and the problems with care for the elderly is well known. If people had less children this situation would only get worse. I'm not sure how many children the average couple has, but I believe its more common place nowadays for couples to only have one child. Theorectically, this would mean that child once working would have to contribute to both parents' pensions...

If this continues there will no longer be a state pension!

Stompa

Of course it should be means tested - or better still abolished.

grumpyeggman

i work in a public school where the fees are £15000 a year,before all the extras.
some families can afford put 2 or 3 of thier kids through there.
some 6th formers drive newer and more expensive cars than i,a workman for 27 years,could ever afford.
do thier mothers and fathers need child benefit?
only to pay the cleaning (char) lady while they play tennis or meet for coffee.

lets have means testing at the top of the income scale as well as for us poor souls at the bottom.

louisecoatesuk

forget just Child benefit all benefits are used and abused. lots of people who are entitled to them don't claim and lots who aren't entitled manage to get them (usually fraudulently).
I personally believe that every household should be sent a form every year to be filled in which should cover everything a person should need to claim any benefit for, update forms should be availiable in case circumstances change over the year but otherwise it should be just the one form for everything.
At the moment I am a unemployed disabled lone parent and to get all the benefits I am entitled to I had to fill in 7 different forms, many of which asked exactly the same questions most of the way through. I am sure that given this situation more people entitled to benefits would get them and those commiting benefit fraud are more likely to be caught as many benefits have very few checks after the first few months.
Ok the new replacement benefit would be quite complicated to calculate but at least everybody would know where they stand and it would probably save an enourmous amount of paperwork (and trees).
After all why do we have Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit administered by the same organisation made as 2 seperate payments. Why don't they just increase the Family element of the Child Tax Credit by an appropriate amount and have done with it.

I believe there already is an element of means testing even though it isn't an enforced one, can you imagine a millionaire even being bothered to fill the form in to claim their £17.45 a week I think they'd just decide to manage on their own money!!!!

I would also like to say I like the idea of split parents having split shares of the benefits related to children but only in the cases where the "non-resident parent" can actually be bothered to see the child, my son's father hasn't even rung us since Easter never mind seen him he had him for 5 nights between Christmas 05 and February 06 and before that hadn't even spoken to the boy since January 05. He expects to be able to pick up where he left off the year before. At the moment he's lucky my son will let him do that but I doubt it will last for much longer!!!!

oh and I'm sure I read in cases where the child spends almost equal amounts of times with both parents, both parents have the right to claim maintenance payments off the other. I know it sounds daft but I'm sure I read it somewhere, always worth a try!!!!

Fran

The_Snorkmaiden wrote:

And this absolutely doesn't mean I think that any of these large sums of benefit should be doled out to people who can't be arsed to work as so often featured in the tabloids (don't get me started on that...),

Why did you add this comment? Perhaps the clue is in the word "tabloids"? This discussion is about Child Benefit - would you mention tax evaders when talking about tax?