Should child benefit be means tested?

David_Harrison_2

anewman wrote:

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.

That is not what I said. If you look again at my post you will see that what I said was

"I want the best possible education for them. If the state would provide that, they would go to a state school, but it doesn't."

The league tables, for what they are worth, clearly show that kids from private schools will generally get better results, and are more likely to get into uni, than those from state schools. With smaller classes and more spent per child, you'd expect them to, but there is more to it than that. Generally discipline is much greater, as the private schools have the ability to remove disruptive kids which the goveerment has to the most part taken away from state schools. And parents are less likely to put up with their kids messing around when they are investing so much in them financially. (And yes I know most parents work hard to bring their kids up well but the small minority who do not, produce kids who spoil it for the rest of the class.)

Working hard is not mocked but encouraged (none of the "spod bashing" my nephews experienced in state schools where kids who do put in the effort get bullied by those who don't.


Of course more people get into uni from state schools than private, but then only 10% of kids go to private schools. But I believe ( sorry cannot find exact figures ) that around 80 or 90 % of these go on to uni compared with around 40 to 50 % for state schools.

Not that going to uni is the be all and end all. I think this government's aim of getting 50 % of kids into uni is totally wrong. A lot of those kids would be better off getting into the working world, or doing some other form of further education or vocational training, as shown by the drop out rate from uni.

I am not putting any child down. In fact any that make it through the state system to uni have probably had to work a lot harder to get there than those who have gone through the private system.

David_Harrison_2

littleange_com wrote:

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.

No offence taken, but the two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have happy intelligent (educated) children.

I'm not certain, but I think you might be mixing up "public / private / boarding " schools. Public and private mean the same thing - i.e. paying for it. Most of these pupils are day pupils, i.e they do not sleep at the school but come home at night. The ones who sleep at school are called boarders - hence boarding schools. Schools that are paid for by the government from our taxes are generally called state schools. Some of these are also partly funded by religious groups, and are known as faith schools. Baffling isn't it?!

Our kids do not board so spend as much time with us as kids going to state schools (probably more if you take into account the longer holidays)

Former_MSE_Andrea

Below are the results to our previous poll. Thanks to the 3559 participants who took part in this poll.

Previous Poll Topic: Poll Started 3 October 2006. Should child benefit be means tested? Child benefit of £900 a year is paid for a family’s first child and £600 for each subsequent child. This applies whether you're Richard Branson, Victoria Beckham or Vicky Pollard (well it would if she were real); it doesn't depend on wealth or income at all. So should we ensure there's money for all or focus it where it’s most needed?

A. Means test it - Give more to those who really need it 53.5% - (1905 Votes)

B. For all - All children should be treated equally 46.1% - (1642 Votes)

Total Votes: 3559

littleange

David_Harrison wrote:

No offence taken, but the two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have happy intelligent (educated) children.

I'm not certain, but I think you might be mixing up "public / private / boarding " schools. Public and private mean the same thing - i.e. paying for it. Most of these pupils are day pupils, i.e they do not sleep at the school but come home at night. The ones who sleep at school are called boarders - hence boarding schools. Schools that are paid for by the government from our taxes are generally called state schools. Some of these are also partly funded by religious groups, and are known as faith schools. Baffling isn't it?!

Our kids do not board so spend as much time with us as kids going to state schools (probably more if you take into account the longer holidays)

I wasn't implying that they weren't happy , just sounded like you were working all the time so didn't see them much. Glad you get to spend time with them

David_Harrison_2

littleange_com wrote:

I wasn't implying that they weren't happy , just sounded like you were working all the time so didn't see them much. Glad you get to spend time with them

Don't worry, I work from home so get to see quite a lot of them.

pmd

Plasticman wrote:

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

Accountants! And tax breaks on enormous pensions, etc.

Murphy_The_Cat

pmd wrote:

Accountants! And tax breaks on enormous pensions, etc.

but anyone can employ the services of an accountant.

You are correct about pension payments being paid net of tax at the base rate of 22%. But are you aware that the other 18% has to be claimed back via your Tax Return form ? or that a lot of people fail to do this (those without accountants ?).

OMD/grumpyeggman, please can you give us some more examples of tax avoidance schemes that higher rate tax payers enjoy - I'd really love to see them.

MTC

p.s. the tax break is available to every tax payer, irrespective of the pension size - even on a £20 per month stakeholder pension.

Plasticman

pmd wrote:

Accountants! And tax breaks on enormous pensions, etc.

I'm sure that the majority of higher rate tax payers don't have an accountant. If they are PAYE why should the need one? Like MTC, I'm still waiting to see what tax avoidance schemes are available only to higher rate tax payers. I'd love to know, just in case I become one!

grumpyeggman

my mistake,perhaps that should have read...tax avoidance schemes for the rich.
what about this for starters...


http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=5737

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4618413.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,682158,00.html

blackcateddie

ceebeeby wrote:

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 someone can't afford to bring a child into the world and support it - then don't have one!!!

(Ummm, I voted no btw!)

I agree - we thought long and hard about having the second one because of the impact on finances and we didn't expect to have it on the social!
The clue is in the title, it's to benefit the child so who it is paid to should be irrelevant