Child Benefit Poll

silvercar

nutsohazelnuts wrote: »

We grew up in a different world though didn't we? It seems to be the norm to go to organised after school club among my younger relatives. I think it would be fairer to cut costs by restricting child benefit to lower income families.



I can't imagine any of our family leaving children of eleven alone after school or during the holidays. They have clubs that they go to, au pairs and childminders.



What about during the long school holidays? What did you do then? I walked alone from age 6 but the past is another country. I am quite surprised that anybody would leave 11 year olds alone nowadays. There are so many new things to worry about.

My children are 16 and 20, so not so long ago. Lots of my friend have children aged 12-15 and it really is the norm around here. A couple of hours alone in the house is common, walking home from school / coach stops is standard.

The long summer holidays is a problem because they are old enough to be alone for short times but not all day long everyday. There are sports clubs in the school holidays. I would think that children are not left alone all day everyday in the school holidays but probably a few hours in common.

Graham_Devon

nutsohazelnuts wrote: »

We grew up in a different world though didn't we? It seems to be the norm to go to organised after school club among my younger relatives. I think it would be fairer to cut costs by restricting child benefit to lower income families.

Well on a personal level, I don't think that would be fairer.

Someone mentioned punishing the kids earlier by taking away child benefit.

If you took child benefit away for all, but low earners, then it would just blow up into a "punishing the kids" argument.

Treat everyone equally, define the rules (to take effect from now, so that anyone planning children knows), and you can't be any fairer.

For an example of where limiting child benefit to low incomes would lead, you need to look at ESA (think thats the right one!). One kid gets paid to attend school, the kid next to him, get's nothing, as his parents get more money. Thats pathetically unjust. Labour scheme, obviously.

As I have said, it's our decision, in the majority of cases, to have children. We have a raft of other benefits to help people through hard times.

silvercar

Latest news is that CB may stop at 16 not 18 for everyone.

I don't have a problem with that. 16 year olds from low income families get upto £30 a week in EMA and are by far the richest kids in the 6th form common room. With no CB, no doubt they will contribute to the pot some of their EMA.

chucky

Those with Children living in the UK

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

No one should receive Child Benefit
AngelEyes81, Bennifred, Chris2685, FATBALLZ, ILW, KeepYourChinUp, Meadows, Money_Mad, MrsE, Proxy, Snooze, Starrystarrynight, angelsmomma, baby_boomer, bigspender2, dave4545454, dopester, gatita, greenbubble, iinvestor, iolanthe07, kissingthepink, mbga9pgf, mcc100, michaels, neverdespairgirl, newleaf, nightwatchman, rewired, romany, sammyjammy, sss555s, stonethrower, tberry6686, tru




Which of you has children then?

i think they call it moral hazard...

aqueoushumour01

it's very strange that if you take the cut off as being 44k below which you get child benefit, then two parents earning 22k each will receive it but one parent earning their combined wage won't. I think a cut off point is sensible but needs to be set at a higher level. In addition, perhaps there should be child vouchers as opposed to child benefit so that you are forced to spend it on child's items. Clearly this would be administratively expensive and difficult to implement however.

RJP33

No one should receive Child Benefit

I really don't see the point of it, we don't live in a nanny state - I don't think it's something the government should be involved in.

carolt

Those with Children living in the UK

aqueoushumour01 wrote: »

it's very strange that if you take the cut off as being 44k below which you get child benefit, then two parents earning 22k each will receive it but one parent earning their combined wage won't.

It's even stranger when you think that the couple both on 22K are already several thousands of pounds better off per year, because they each benefit from their own tax allowance, unlike the couple with one high earner, where the second tax allowance is wasted.

So if anything, it should be the couple with 2 lower earners who could better 'afford' to lose the benefit - after all, the big argument is that 'rich' couples can easily 'afford' to do without it.

But of course there never was any 'logic' or 'fairness' in the move.

Snooze

No one should receive Child Benefit

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.

No. We support those in need. You are not in need of support if you have an income of £70-80k+ per year. What you need are lessons on money management, and life in general.

carolt

Those with Children living in the UK

Snooze wrote: »

No. We support those in need. You are not in need of support if you have an income of £70-80k+ per year. What you need are lessons on money management, and life in general.

Who are you referring to with an income of 70-80K a year?

The cut-off point for those who are going to be affected, on a single income, is 44K, not 70-80K.


On the other hand,the cut-off point for those with 2 incomes is over 80K.

Do you think that is just, and if so, why?

Malcolm.

Means testing should include both assets and income

Snooze wrote: »

No. We support those in need. You are not in need of support if you have an income of £70-80k+ per year. What you need are lessons on money management, and life in general.

I believe we should support those who deserve it.

Ronnie Biggs returned to the UK, and needed medical treatment, in my view, he didn't deserve it and shouldn't have received it.

Using an extreme example to prove the point. Hitler needed military assistance towards the end of world war 2, should he have received it, of course not.