Child Benefit Poll

nutsohazelnuts

Means testing should include both assets and income

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

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

Does an after school place cost less for an eleven year old than for a ten year old?

I feel I should anticipate howling posts about irresponsible parents, latch key kids and crime sprees involving gangs of feral eleven year olds in the future should this cut off be implemented.

Teenagers need more supervision not less.

We found children became more expensive after they began secondary schooling, and I feel that there is much more support from family and friends for those with babies and young children, than for those with surly teenagers.

carolt

Those with Children living in the UK

macaque wrote: »

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.

Fine. So what do you suggest existing children do? Jump from the nearerst cliff en masse to reduce the cost to the taxpayer? I assume you're going to make the first leap, to reduce the terrible overpopulation our planet suffers from.

Or could you maybe understand that children are currently a burden on the taxpayer, as well as on their parents, through their subsidized education etc - even if you ignore costs like child benefit - BUT that is because they are CHILDREN and as such are too young to support themselves.

The point is, when you were a child, you too were supported, just like them. And when they're older, they - just like you - will pay back that contribution many times, through their taxes. They will pay to support the next generation.

That's because we're a society. We support each other. We support children when they're small and old people when they're old because... they can't support themselves then. And in return, we were supported when we were young and will be supported again when we're old.

That is right and proper. It is the mark of a civilised, advanced society.

I don't want to return to a society like Victorian England where those not fortunate enough to be born to wealthy parents had to work up chimneys to support themselves, or one like post-Communist Russia now, where the metro gleams with the sweat of the hundreds of barely-paid people in their 70's, having to be cleaners in their old age in the absence of any sort of pension provision following the collapse of communism.

silvercar

nutsohazelnuts wrote: »

Does an after school place cost less for an eleven year old than for a ten year old?

Doesn't exist. After school places are generally found in primary school. To supervise children while their parents are unable to look after them, generally due to work commitments.

Once at secondary school age, children are generally allowed to make their own way home and remain unsupervised for a couple of hours.

silvercar

carolt wrote: »

Fine. So what do you suggest existing children do? Jump from the nearerst cliff en masse to reduce the cost to the taxpayer? I assume you're going to make the first leap, to reduce the terrible overpopulation our planet suffers from.

Or could you maybe understand that children are currently a burden on the taxpayer, as well as on their parents, through their subsidized education etc - even if you ignore costs like child benefit - BUT that is because they are CHILDREN and as such are too young to support themselves.

The point is, when you were a child, you too were supported, just like them. And when they're older, they - just like you - will pay back that contribution many times, through their taxes. They will pay to support the next generation.

That's because we're a society. We support each other. We support children when they're small and old people when they're old because... they can't support themselves then. And in return, we were supported when we were young and will be supported again when we're old.

That is right and proper. It is the mark of a civilised, advanced society.

I don't want to return to a society like Victorian England where those not fortunate enough to be born to wealthy parents had to work up chimneys to support themselves, or one like post-Communist Russia now, where the metro gleams with the sweat of the hundreds of barely-paid people in their 70's, having to be cleaners in their old age in the absence of any sort of pension provision following the collapse of communism.

Your sentiment is correct. The change in CB is intended that the parents make cuts in their own budget once the CB is removed, not that they leave the children ignored. As you say the children are not old enough to be paying their own way, so the parents will have no choice but to fund them with less help from the government than before.

HeidiHi

Means testing should include both assets and income

silvercar wrote: »

Doesn't exist. After school places are generally found in primary school. To supervise children while their parents are unable to look after them, generally due to work commitments.

Once at secondary school age, children are generally allowed to make their own way home and remain unsupervised for a couple of hours.

Mine aren't / weren't, and I don't know anybody who leaves their 11 year old alone at night.

School kicks out around 3pm and the commuters round here generally don't get home until after 7pm or worse subject to delays on the trains and the M25. Most of the 11 year olds we know go to after school homework club and / or a childminder.

ag359

Those with Children living abroad

With respect, some very simplistic thinking on this thread. Yes, I can see why CB for rich people seems unfair, but it's not sensible to look at CB in isolation; it's just one part of an overall taxation/benefit system. It's necessary to look at the system as a whole to assess whether any one part of it is fair. If there's not enough money to go round, and we want a greater contribution from the wealthy then the correct way to do that is to raise higher rate income tax. That way, all the wealthy are affected equally. Scrapping child benefit just picks on a particular subset of the wealthy (those with children) and that's why it's inequitable.

silvercar

HeidiHi wrote: »

Mine aren't / weren't, and I don't know anybody who leaves their 11 year old alone at night.

School kicks out around 3pm and the commuters round here generally don't get home until after 7pm or worse subject to delays on the trains and the M25. Most of the 11 year olds we know go to after school homework club and / or a childminder.

Interesting, especially as we are just inside the M25.

Round here (and I've been through it twice, so its not just an odd case) the talk is of getting the children used to going out by themselves in the summer holidays between primary and secondary and making practice journeys to and from school in the holidays - first with parents, then in groups. A lot of children travel on school coaches, so they practice the route home from the coach stop and letting themselves in the house etc. Virtually every child I know and knew makes their own way home in year 7 and would be considered really "wet" by their peers if they were collected everyday.

Graham_Devon

nutsohazelnuts wrote: »

Does an after school place cost less for an eleven year old than for a ten year old?

I feel I should anticipate howling posts about irresponsible parents, latch key kids and crime sprees involving gangs of feral eleven year olds in the future should this cut off be implemented.

Teenagers need more supervision not less.

We found children became more expensive after they began secondary schooling, and I feel that there is much more support from family and friends for those with babies and young children, than for those with surly teenagers.

I'm not here to argue whether they are more or less expensive. I'm here to argue that people, including myself, chose to have children.

My suggestions of the 11 year old cut off, was because of where we are now. Money had to be saved. Don't fee; it's fair to target one single high earner in the way they are, and feel it would be fairer to give to everyone, up to 2 kids, up to 11.

Giving it to everyone keeps it fair. Giving it up to 2 children promotes responsibility. Giving it up to 11, cuts costs.

Giving it up to 11 would also allow people to start claiming for a 3rd child, when the first child hits 11 and so on.

In an ideal world, everyone would have everything. But it's not an ideal world. And whatever proposal you put forward, people will have issues with....but I'd like to see something fairer?

I also have to say that by age 11, if my parents were sending me to an after school club to be looked after, I'd be mortified. If they were there waiting for me at the gates, I would be doubly mortified.

I had a bus ride (or bike in the summer), a front door key, and was a dab hand at a ham sandwich.

carolt

Those with Children living in the UK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not here to argue whether they are more or less expensive. I'm here to argue that people, including myself, chose to have children.

My suggestions of the 11 year old cut off, was because of where we are now. Money had to be saved. Don't fee; it's fair to target one single high earner in the way they are, and feel it would be fairer to give to everyone, up to 2 kids, up to 11.

Giving it to everyone keeps it fair. Giving it up to 2 children promotes responsibility. Giving it up to 11, cuts costs.

Giving it up to 11 would also allow people to start claiming for a 3rd child, when the first child hits 11 and so on.

In an ideal world, everyone would have everything. But it's not an ideal world. And whatever proposal you put forward, people will have issues with....but I'd like to see something fairer?

I also have to say that by age 11, if my parents were sending me to an after school club to be looked after, I'd be mortified. If they were there waiting for me at the gates, I would be doubly mortified.

I had a bus ride (or bike in the summer), a front door key, and was a dab hand at a ham sandwich.

Really? I would have made my own way to/from school at (or before) 11, but wouldn't have been left on my own for a couple of hours at that age, and couldn't imagine doing that with my eldest when she turns 11 either, except in case of emergency.

PasturesNew

When I was 11 and went to big school, I had to get up and leave the house alone before 8am, bus arrived at 8am. Bus into town, hang around the bus station and general area for about 20 minutes or so, then onto the school bus .... but if you missed that then it was legging it down to the other end and catching the first public bus to within half a mile of the school and walking the last bit.

I lived.