Should child benefit be means tested?

before_hollywood

melaniec wrote:

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

i agree it should be means tested, some people need extra money while others clearly do not, although i think it and working tax credit should be replaced with a minimum income for anyone with a full time job- the current minimum wage is laughable, that is no way a living wage.
my idea would be a take home pay that doesn't leave people struggling if they can and will work, and doesn't reward one lifestyle over another- if you want kids, fine, if you don't thats fine too.

before_hollywood

astonsmummy wrote:

but does this counrty not need more children to be born otherwise in yeasr to come it will be populated by mainly adults

we are lucky, we have one of the most desirable countries to live in

David_Harrison_2

grumpyeggman wrote:

the question for me is...does a family who can afford circa £15000 a year to send a child to public school that has the cars,the holidays and the lifestyle that go along with serious opulence really need a state handout of £17.25 a week for that child?

But that is the magic word, isn't it? What does afford mean? Does it mean an expenditure that is within your means?

In that case we can't afford public school fees as to pay them means our expenditure is greater than our income. However are priorities are that this is a necessary expense and so we pay them, and in the process increase our level of debt. We consider it to be a worthwhile investment, and have calculated that we will be able to repay the debt in the future. Many other families we know are in a similar situation.

Holidays - we, and most of the families we know who are chosing to pay for their children's education (twice - don't forget - as we get no refund of the taxes we have paid that the state would have used to "educate" our kids) have camping holidays. Not because of some love af getting bitten to death by mosqitos, but because it is cheap, meaning we don't go any further into debt.

As for the cars - probably company cars, on which they are paying heavy taxes. Again personal choice.

You make this assumption that because people chose to invest in their children, they must be loaded, but you are wrong.

Everyday you and I make decisions about what we are going to spend our hard earned income on. A certain percentage of that is "essential", but the rest is what we have choice about. Some chose to invest their children's child benefit in booze, fags, going to the football, going to the opera, or whatever. I believe that if people have had to do something for that money (the parenting classes I talked about in post 20) they are more likely to spend it in a way that benefits the child. And if there is the threat that the money will be taken away if they do not bring their children up to be good citizens, again they will invest more time and energy in their children.

As for the "old money" comment: these people probably make up less than half of one percent of parents and really are not of any relevance. (However if the idea I outlined in post 20 of this thread was to be implemented these people would be unlikely to attend classes as it would not be worth their while, and so you would get your way.)

tamste

Don't means test it.....and remove the requirement to means test many other benefits.

The administration of means testing is a complex and costly operation. Should this be abolished, it would free funds for those that are in need. Just because someone has worked hard and been frugal with their spending should not commit them to a benefits free zone, which is what means testing does in reality

fbromley

No I dont think it should be means tested as the line is always drawn too low for ordinary people. My husband and myself both work but would not qualify if Child Benefit was means tested as I know to my cost - when the took away the additional personal tax allowance for children and replaced it with Child Tax Creit, we ended up £20pw worse off beacuse we only qualify for the basic.
I do think that the amount should be the same for each child, after all it doesnt cost less to feed and clothe 2nd and subsequent children does it. I also think that it should only be paid for a maximum number of children, maybe 4? After all why should people be able to keep on having kids and expect the state to raise them? Working people have only as many as they can afford.

littleange

Benefits should only be for people who desperately need them in my opinion, and I'm not quite sure how you can determine that easily. I'd say most people don't desperately need them. I just don't think people should have kids if they can't afford them, or if they can't afford to spend time with them either. I don't think my boyfriend and I will be able to afford to buy a house at this rate nevermind have kids.

David Harrison = and in the process increase our level of debt

I'm sure kids would rather you were around and go to public school than them never getting to spend any time with you and being sent to private school, I think they'd learn a lot more from spending time with you. I'm not sure it's worth the cost to be honest. I only know a couple of people who wen't to private school who I was at Uni with, and those are the only two people out of my group of friends at uni who didn't manage to get thier degree. I'd feel so bad if my parents had a lot of debt beause of me.

But it's your choice and I'm not judging anyone, but in my opinion life experience far outways education, and I'd rather have a happy child than an intelligent one. No offence meant.

anewman

How many filthy rich people actually bother claiming the £900 odd a year? I think it's naturally means tested that way in itself.

Can you seriously imagine Richard Branson, or Victoria Beckham bothering lifting their 24 Karat Gold diamond encrusted pens worth £1 million, with premium ink costing £1000 a refil, to claim £900 each year?!

Same applies with couples with good incomes, say £70,000 combined. £900 is such a low percentage is it really worth bothering?

Also means testing = more beaurocracy - form filling - and losers employed in benefits offices who haven't a clue what they're doing and striking for pay increases - and rules that no-one can work out. This costs money too. Oh yes! Everyone remembers how great the Child Support Agency are?!!

David_Harrison wrote:

You talk about "higher rate tax earners" as if they are some sort of parasite, but the fact is, some of us who pay tax at a higher rate probably have less cash in our pocket to spend than some people living entirely on handouts.

It's very unlikely. People on Jobseekers allowance get £57.45 a week who are over 25 years old. Cannot exactly have a lavish lifestyle on that - and people who are given money for their children, it's just for that - their kids. And even if they do have more of a disposable income, you chose how to spend your cash - if you feel unhappy about the money you have left - you probably made the wrong purchase choice - in pretty much the same way the person on Benefits who blows it down the pub finding his wallet empty chose to spend his money wrong.

And to say state schools are no good for education is rubbish, and you're putting down every child who went from GCSE's in a state school -> A levels -> Degree and possibly even higher. I'll bet more people with degrees today took this route than private school atendee's.

mandi

I for one couldnt manage without my CB.. Life is difficult enough, forget private schools, holidays and expensive cars..

Mine is spent on food, and bus fares..

I would love to have given my children, the chance of a " private education" ..

achtunglady

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.

Just because someone earns £30,000 doesn't mean they are well off. For a start, that amount will be reduced to £22,000 when tax is taken off.
Then theres what working parents have to pay out that parents on benefit get for free, they get
* rent paid for, working parent pays rent or mortgage say an average of £400 a month, thats £4800 a year
* council tax paid for, working parent pays full amount, say average of £130 a month, £1300 taking into account that its paid over 10 months
* free milk for pregnant women,babies and children, working parent has to buy it all, 4 pints of milk cost £1.11, don't know how much a tin of baby milk is so cant compare
* £500 sure start maternity grant, working parents get nothing
* free school dinners, working parents have to pay for their childrens meals, say an average of £1.60 a day, thats £32 a month
* free prescriptions for adults, working parents pay for their own at nearly £7
* free dental treatment, working parents have to pay even for their kids, costs us £30 a month
* free eye tests and glasses, working parents pay for their eyes tests and glasses
* free uniform grants, working parents pay for their child(ren) uniform
* free childcare help with the Surestart scheme, working parents get nothing
* very easy access to crisis/budgeting loans, working parents get no access, we applied for a crisis loan when our cooker packed in, we had no money to buy another and were told well wait till next month till you get paid, a cooker to them is not a necessity, its a luxury!!!! And i had to pawn my jewellery to get money to buy the cooker.

The only things that a working parent and a non working parent both get are free contraception and child benefit.

Fran

achtunglady wrote:

* free school dinners, working parents have to pay for their childrens meals, say an average of £1.60 a day, thats £32 a month

Only people on Income Support get this.

* free prescriptions for adults, working parents pay for their own at nearly £7

Wales is working towards free prescriptions for all.

* free uniform grants, working parents pay for their child(ren) uniform

Only certain authorities give uniform grants.

* very easy access to crisis/budgeting loans, working parents get no access,

Anyone can apply for a Crisis Loan, it depends how much is in the pot at the time you apply.