Should child benefit be means tested?

astonsmummy

God post fran, some people really need to look at facts before they make sweeping statements, i wear gold jewellery, am a single mum was on benefits, have received a crisis loan and budgeting loan - do i seem like one of these supposedly MANY benefit scroungers??
My son has some nice bits of jewellery which he wears for photos, should i sell it even though i saved up for months to get them?

scorour

The_Snorkmaiden wrote:

I can't believe people think it's right that financially well off people should get extra money in benefits when they don't need it. What about people who don't earn much and don't have kids? Wouldn't the money that is currently being paid in child benefit to people who don't really need it be better used supporting people who don't earn much, regardless of if they have kids or not?

Depends how you view "well off", I have a good job, three young kids, my wife works evenings and weekends (had to pack in her 9 to 5 job as the childminder fees equalled her take home pay :mad: ), we live comfortably, but I would certainly not say we were well off. I don't think parents who really try and make a better life for themselves and their children should be penalised by taking their child benefit from them.

garysletters

I have to stick up for 2princessmum.
Although she disagreed with one point I made earlier, I think she still shares my view that any money payed out should diminish with each child. (I believe just one amount for the first child (or 2 for sake of arguement) for everyone. This would save a fortune on administration costs (no means testing admin), meaning they could supply free school meals with the savings probably.
Whatever the "award" is called, I do believe that after the first few kids, no extra "help" should be given.
To the person who queried "do people having large numbers of kids do it thinking of the money, then yes, I do believe the handouts they recieve is a factor in their decision. If nothing was available for more than say 3 kids, then I dare say we would have fewer 4+ kid families. I guess the person asking the question doesn't believe that young girls get pregnant just so they can get a council house either!!!

My OPINION isn't meant to offend people, it is how I see things.

[hypothetical question]To all those who don't believe higher earners should get CB because its not fair/equal, do they also think that "to be fair" higher earners shouldn't pay 40% tax?? (i'm not a high earner, I make about £3,000 gross p.a. and look after my baby full time, my girlfriend is a nurse

teddyco

Blessed is the man who considereth the poor!

Murphy_The_Cat

For straight up economic reasons, and for reasons of accuracy - leave it as it is.

The more levels of government incompetence touch it, the worse the service that gaets delivered to the parent / guardian.

MTC

Plasticman

garysletters wrote:

[hypothetical question]To all those who don't believe higher earners should get CB because its not fair/equal, do they also think that "to be fair" higher earners shouldn't pay 40% tax??

Or maybe the higher rate tax payers should be entitled to a higher level of benefit, as the put a larger amount of money into the benefits system?

grumpyeggman

howzabout,
public school=no child benefit.state school=get child benefit.
i say this tongue in cheek,a definite vote loser huh!

higher rate tax payers have plenty of tax avoidance schemes,enough to keep them happy you would think.
there looking pretty good on it anyway!!!

Plasticman

grumpyeggman wrote:

higher rate tax payers have plenty of tax avoidance schemes,enough to keep them happy you would think.
there looking pretty good on it anyway!!!

What tax avoidance schemes are available for higher rate tax payers that don't apply to everybody?

Fait_accompli

Just because higher rate tax payers earn more, why should they be penalised? Many would have worked hard through school, college, university so they could achieve a better salary. Do we assume that they all don't need the child benefit funds? Lets apply that to 50% of HRP. We can then say 50% of those on the poverty line squander child benefit they receive. It's all assumptions so let's be fair. Yep, I understand (though sometimes grudingly) that society should support those who need a helping hand from time to time - but is it unreasonable to think that parents should take reponsibility for their actions and not have one, two or nine children without being able to afford them?

Another alternative - why not make child benefit something that should be earned, i.e. you'll receive the weekly amount if you spend an hour a week reading a story to your childs class/escort them on an outing/make sure they're up to date with the cirriculum etc? I'm sure many parents try and do this anyway, but child benefit would give some that little bit more of an incentive/motivation. Just a thought...possibly a dream!

meher

Why attack parents or lifestyle here when we should be only focusing on a child's welfare and what's the best interest of a child - sure it's immoral to lead a life of glamor whilst keeping children undernourished - but it's so rare that there's no record of studies or statistics found should you look for it. Pleased to be corrected provided I have some evidence of such. Deprived children usually come from broken homes or unwell parents - it's wrong to assume that people who wear some extra accessories neglect their child.

Forgot to add earlier on I don't agree with the spiral or tapering of provision of benefit for the child when there're more children - regardless every child should be paid equally. That's one of the areas perhaps there needs reformation if at all.