Child Benefit Poll

Procrastinator333

Those on Low Income

carolt wrote: »

I think all children should get it. The clue is in the name - that's why it's called 'child' benefit, not 'parents' benefit' - it is designed to pay towards the upkeep of children. Who let us not forget, do not work, and whom surely we do not expect to work to support themselves.

It's all very well lambasting '!!!!less' parents for having too many (or any) children; this is not the children's fault however, and they should not be punished for it. I strongly believe child benefit should remain universal for that reason. It was certainly not the children who were responsible for getting the country into the economic mess it is in, and, frankly, their generation will probably be still be paying for it for many, many years regardless.

After all, we all benefitted from it growing up, and the amount removing it will save is, frankly, peanuts, compared even to what Cameron's proposed transferable tax allowances (suggested to mollify the middle class Tory vote) will cost.

I just couldn't disagree more. There should be no such thing as universal benefits. None. If it were up to me I would even look at tapering away the state pension.

The state should only be supporting those who can't support themselves. It shouldn't be propping up families that are living beyond their means if those means are above the national average.

I'm happy to pay taxes to fund child benefit for a single mum or a family of low earners up to a certain point. That is part of being a civilised society and looking after our fellow citizens. I'm not happy that my taxes go towards paying CB to families on £50k plus.

They just need to learn to live within their means, budget and quit their whinning.

seven-day-weekend

Those on Low Income

Only the very poorest families should get it (less than £15k) and only until the child is 16.

carolt

Those with Children living in the UK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is where I disagree with you carol.

The kids don't receive the benefit, the parents do. Sure, it's intended to be spent on the kids, but in reality, it just goes into the pot.

The kids will only get "punished" if the parents don't really care. It's not as if any decent parent will say "oh, well, johnny can't have a new pair of shoes this month, my child benefit has gone and I'm not spending any of my money in the bank on him".

So the kids getting punished by a lack of child benefit, will be the kids who were being punished for having the parents they have in the first place. The same parents who would have used CB for themselves anyway.

That works on the assumption that there is spare money in the pot this month, or any month. Higher VAT, higher taxes, higher bills, salary cuts, higher rents bla bla bla - all mean that the chance of that happening is increasingly low. It is generally agreed that due to tax changes due to come in soon, higher rate taxpayers will soon be those earning over 38K ish - yet according to the govt, if you don't work at all, you are to be entitled to c 32.5K before tax (25K after it) - what kind of motivation is this for people to work at all?

I think the tax system should recognise children, just as it recognises people on low pay - we don't all pay a flat rate of tax, but accept that it is fair for those who earn less to contribute less. Similarly, rather than - as some on this forum seem to do - viewing children as merely an appendage or luxury item of expenditure of their parents (much like choosing to run an expensive car, say, or keep an expensive pet), the benefit system to date has sensibly recognised that children are actually separate people,who, by reason of their age, cannot work, but deserve to be provided for by society as a whole, because (a) they are full members of society, and its future earners and taxpayers, after all, and (b) because that is the civilised thing to do, to support all members of society, especially those who for reasons for example of disability (or in this case, of age, or disability by reason of age, if you prefer), cannot yet pay their own way.

Children cost far, far more to bring up than the measly amount given in child benefit, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

To remove it sends out entirely the wrong messages about the importance we ascribe to children in our society, and to remove it specifically from stay-at-home or part-time working parents ONLY again sends out an even clearer message about the value that Tories place on bringing up children - NONE.

Well, they may well get the society they deserve some way down the line.

But I'm not sure they'll like it that much.

Graham_Devon

I can't really argue against anything you have said Carol.

All I can say, is that other countries cope, without all these benefits....but I guess the massive cost of living here makes us rely on such payments.

Malcolm.

Means testing should include both assets and income

SingleSue wrote: »

What would you class as a high, middle and low income?

A good question. The answer probably deserves its own thread.

For simplicity, let's say, low income is the lower wage quartile, medium income the inter-quartile range and high income the upper quartile.

Malcolm.

Means testing should include both assets and income

LilacPixie wrote: »

I was looking for the option of everyone but limited to 1 child only.

I'd forgotten to include no of children, alas, only allowed 10 options. Maybe should have included a 1 child, 2 child, 3 child or more options. Even then is the number of children based upon the mother or the father or do each get an allowance of half the total?

It's not straightforward.

Malcolm.

Means testing should include both assets and income

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Everyone, up to 2 kids, up to 11 years old.

Why aged 11? Can children fend for themselves at 11 years old? There's only so many paper rounds available and child chimney sweeps seem to have gone out of fashion...

carolt

Those with Children living in the UK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't really argue against anything you have said Carol.

All I can say, is that other countries cope, without all these benefits....but I guess the massive cost of living here makes us rely on such payments.

Which countries?

Recent post I made - I'll find it if I have to :eek: - listed child benefits given in most developed countries, and the UK is pretty near the bottom of the pack, actually.

Graham_Devon

Malcolm. wrote: »

Why aged 11? Can children fend for themselves at 11 years old? There's only so many paper rounds available and child chimney sweeps seem to have gone out of fashion...

Because by the time they are 11, they should, in an ideal world, be be a bit more independant. Lending to the parents being able to take on more work.

Malcolm.

Means testing should include both assets and income

carolt wrote: »

I think all children should get it. The clue is in the name - that's why it's called 'child' benefit, not 'parents' benefit' - it is designed to pay towards the upkeep of children. Who let us not forget, do not work, and whom surely we do not expect to work to support themselves.

It's all very well lambasting '!!!!less' parents for having too many (or any) children; this is not the children's fault however, and they should not be punished for it. I strongly believe child benefit should remain universal for that reason. It was certainly not the children who were responsible for getting the country into the economic mess it is in, and, frankly, their generation will probably be still be paying for it for many, many years regardless.

Exactly.

If there is a cut off point, it distorts the wage market. Those just above the cut off point will be worse off than those below.

Well paid contractors, who often pay themselves a low income (they work for their own company), will continue to receive the benefit.

Why give monies for those on benefits to have children and not to those who contribute a large amount in taxes. It simply doesn't make sense from the moral hazard viewpoint.