Should child benefit be means tested?

meher

We're fostering a very punitive attitude to the wealthy in this society - we expect them to pay almost half their pay tax and we want to deprive their little children of their benefits, regardless of the circumstances of an innocent child?

I strongly believe everyone should pay the same tax and be recipients of benefits for their child - it's for the child and not for the parent. Every British child has a right to be reasonably secure by their own right regardless of who his parent is and what they earn. How do we know if wealthy parents are parents / step parents and couldn't care less about the child? How do we know what future holds for the child? It should not be means tested.

Fran

meher wrote:

...it's for the child and not for the parent.

This might be the theory but the fact is Child Benefit is paid to the parent. Until such a time it is paid direct to children, who's to say what it is actually spent on?

jackieb

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.

What do you think should the cut off point be? I think most people would say that it's above what they're earning.

meher

Fran wrote:

This might be the theory but the fact is Child Benefit is paid to the parent. Until such a time it is paid direct to children, who's to say what it is actually spent on?

I accept it though half heartedly - but we should be worrying only about a minority of such cases isn't it - most children are well taken care of perhaps spent far more than what they are entitled to? Do we want to put the policymakers in a dilemma as to bringing about a change in the current system for the sake of such minority?

scorour

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.

Fair treatment for all? Does not sound fair to me, either everyone gets the same or nobody gets anything, my view anyway.

Bramshott

They should be available to all - in my view child benefit is a shining example of a simple, universal benefit that is easy and cost-efficient to administer. When I compare the ease of child benefit, with the reams and reams of paper and hours and hours of admin time that are connected with tax credits, I can't help thinking that the child benefit must be more cost-effective. I would love for the government to publish how much it costs them to administer the complicated system that is tax credits - it must be millions!!

deenor_2

the fairest thing is to make it taxable , that way those who need it most get it , and those who are on such high wages that they "forget to pick it up" ( what parent in REAL need of that money would forget ?) get less :T

melaniec_2

I am so sick of funding peoples life style choices and kids are one of those, too right it should be means tested how many people give child benefit to their kids as pocket money? It was designed to help parents feed and clothe their kids not to give to them as pocket money.

I do how ever think the rate should be raised if it becomes means tested and should be the same rate for each child, each child needs their own clothes and shoes you don't benefit from economies of scale kids don't wear many hand me downs theses days.

I could rant on about people having kids when they are already on benefit when they should have considered if they could afford them in the first place but I've probably upset enough people already.

Melanie

ps no i don't have kids

sallie603

I dont believe child benefit should be means tested as there are a lot of families out there too rich to qualify for Government handouts but too poor to be unaffected by means testing which could mean kids missing out on extra activities eg. sports lessons which could be beneficial to their physical and mental development.

2Princess_Mum

After reading through all the comments I find it interesting what peoples views are. Although none of them surprise me, I think the fairest way is to offer the benefit to all children, and for those parents/children who clearly are not in need of the benefit, they should have the option of not claiming the benefit/if they claim, the said amount will be deducted in tax/they give it as a charitable donation/the benefit is inaccessible to the parent the same way the CTF funding is only accessible to the child upon reaching 18, (obviously parents, friends and relatives can contribute to the childs future if they so wish), but the child can benefit ONLY if they are using it to fund (in part or whole) their higher education (not for a car, world trip in their gap year, which employment or their parents should contribute to).

I think, as one person mentioned previously, that subsequent children should receive no child benefit at all is unfair for the child. It is worth bearing in mind that an individual can have a child of one of two sexes, therefore they should not dispose of the child(rens) outgrown clothes. If a parent is careless enough to continue to have children with no thought of how to be self sufficient, then it should be the child tax credit that is available to the first child only, and child benefit available to all the children. I believe that CTC is the same amount for each child, which, for arguments sake, if you have 6 kids, can be a substantial amount for sitting on a wide load watching Trisha/Jeremy Kyle of a weekday morn . If a parent on benefit is insistent on continuing to populate the earth with more children than they can dedicate time to then they should feel the pinch or go back to work. £11.70 for each subsequent child is not much, though enough to buy raw fruit and veg to feed the child for a week, (as opposed to ready made and convenience foods) and the odd £2.00 top/skirt/trouser from Primark when the hand-me-downs are looking weathered. That way they can't afford to pay for satellite TV and other luxuries that employment can afford. I think the most humorous thing about many on benefits is that they want to have the latest gadgets in their homes and the only way to make it possible is to head on down to Bright House, the biggest con on the high street.

The government has encouraged a nation of lazy beggars who feel that they are at a loss once they have had children, and that it's easy to fall pregnant, get a flat and free money and then send the odd letter to remind that "you can be £100* a week better off working", never mind the fact that once they've paid the rent/council tax/utilities, their tantamount to being dead (hello? work? why work?).

What I think is also a good idea is for those who are on benefits who insist on kitting themselves (and their children, which to this day i fail to understand) in mountains of jewellery; many of these children of whom are yet unable to walk or talk, and then head on down to Jobcentre Plus for a crisis loan (hello, the crisis is that this joke of a state hasn't clamped down on their antics as yet), should be told to sell their trinkets first, then do a home visit to see (if the loan application is for furniture, say) if their really are in need of the loan. At present I don't believe they run checks even if its to pay bills. A friend who isn't working recently applied for a crisis loan to pay bills and wasn't even asked to submit evidence of the monies owing (she got about £800 after initially asking for £1000).

Now I know I may have upset a vast amount of people by posting my views, but to be honest I think those who are typical of the examples I have put across are not smart enough to be on the mailing list of a site that is there to help them get themselves out of debt, therefore if any of my comments are subject to criticism, lets just say the truth hurts.

And for the record I do not work, have taken time out of my working life to have my children, was in a relationship where I was not dependant on the state until recently, and once I have my third child, have no intention of sitting on my a*se expecting the working population to support me and my children.

This site has been a Godsend to me, giving advice about how to save money, especially in this time in my life when I need to be money savvy, so when I do go back to work, WE, not my creditors (only 1 CC left to repay) wil reap the benefits.

2PM

*Represents an average amount, based on a sample of single parents helped into work by (a certain employment agency). (Children have to be 16+under for parent to be eligible for programme)