Child Benefit Poll

Snooze

No one should receive Child Benefit

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.

LilacPixie

Those with Children living in the UK

Malcolm. wrote: »

Is the system they're introducing that complex?

I thought they'd opted for simplicity over fairness. (the one person on high income versus two on income just below the threshold highlights this)

Yes it's complex, as it stands only 1 person claims child benefit. So how will they know if there is a 2nd adult in the household? How will they know if any of the adults is a higher rate tax payer? Will child benefit be paid a year in arrears after you employer payroll return has been done or your own self assesment form? Cost implications?? If they had used what was already in place like the tax credit system they could of quite easily did a house hold income cut off of say 50k or quite simply used the existing child benefit system limiting payment to first child or first 2 children with alot less hassle.

I predict a new computer system with a huge cost, lots of 'retraining' and a disaster at the end

Malcolm.

Means testing should include both assets and income

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not sure if you are just prodding for an argument or not.

I don't know where you're getting that idea from Graham...

Would you like me to argue with you? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

Malcolm.

Means testing should include both assets and income

LilacPixie wrote: »

Yes it's complex, as it stands only 1 person claims child benefit. So how will they know if there is a 2nd adult in the household? How will they know if any of the adults is a higher rate tax payer? Will child benefit be paid a year in arrears after you employer payroll return has been done or your own self assesment form? Cost implications?? If they had used what was already in place like the tax credit system they could of quite easily did a house hold income cut off of say 50k or quite simply used the existing child benefit system limiting payment to first child or first 2 children with alot less hassle.

I predict a new computer system with a huge cost, lots of 'retraining' and a disaster at the end

Very good points lilac. I'd thank your post, and many others on this thread, but alas my thanks button isn't (currently) operational.

treliac

Those with Children living in the UK

Malcolm. wrote: »

Very good points lilac. I'd thank your post, and many others on this thread, but alas my thanks button isn't (currently) operational.

Oo-er..... mine is.

lostinrates

Malcolm. wrote: »

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.

It does. I did one ages ago that became really interesting IMO. But it would be interesting to see how opinions might have changed over a couple of years.

Generali

Means testing should include both assets and income

All state income subsidy should be a safety net not a way of life. If you fall sick or lose your job and can't pay your own way you should receive a transfer of funds from people that are working and can afford it. If you have kids your costs are higher and benefit payments should reflect that in some way.

However, people shouldn't expect to receive cash from that state week in week out, regardless of whether or not they have kids unless they are very sick or disabled.

bootman

Those with Children living abroad

I have saved my CB from the word go, even whe times were tough. My lad is now 13 and I hope that the pot that has built up will be put to good use by him when he is a little older. I have dipped in for a few things over the years for him, but it stands at £12k.

I was given nothing by family when I stepped out into the world and decided this was to be my way of helping him in the future.

Some might argue I should be someone not to get it and indeed wll be someone who will lose it, but I could of just rolled it into the household spend, but I made a choice it would be for him later in life.

silvercar

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

11 year olds can be a lot cheaper than younger children - in terms of childcare, for a start!

I disagree, teenage children are expensive. They may not need childcare but they need clothes and they grow, constantly. They also socialise, constantly.

Malcolm. wrote: »

They can be more expensive too. I can't forsee a big drop in expenditure from age 10 to 11 (secondary school?). Being a pedant I'd like to know where the age 11 specifically came from and the thought process behind it.

Once they hit secondary school at 11 they gain a whole new independence. This is the age where they are generally allowed to make their own way to school and so can now roam freely. Consequently its also the age where parents feel more happy about leaving them home unsupervised and so can take on more work commitments themselves. All the after school clubs and child minding available to under 11s (with their costs) now stop.

macaque_2

I couldn't vote because the poll wasn't complete

Q: Who should receive child benefit?
A: Those without children

The planet is already heavily over populated but people without children are forced to subsidise the upbringing of other people's kids through the tax system. Parents already enjoy free education and healthcare for their children. Why should childless people be obliged to fund a weekly bonus for parents on top of this?

Having children is a huge responsibility. If you cannot afford to support children, buy a Furby.