Child Benefit- is is now means tested?

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

I don't think you said topping up was wrong at all!

My point was that some people feel they should get the top ups when they don't really need them, they just want them because it would make life a bit easier.

If the amount needed to care for 2 children is £100 a week (I'm simplifying, bear with me) and poor couple A only have £20 a week, then they need to be topped up by £80. If well off couple B have £105 a week they don't need to be topped up. They might feel peeved that they now have the same income as a poorer family, but the truth is that they don't need it.

I think this is just one of those areas that is so difficult. Whatever the Government do they will nto be able to please everyone.

I agree that there should be a cut off point but as has been proved with the Governments proposals it's so difficult to agree what that point is and implement it in a way that is fair and just for everyone.

Person_one

Kimberley82 wrote: »

and loosing hundreds by him not working

Having the child is going to reduce their income either way. They either lose money on childcare, or lose money by having dad stop working or reducing his hours. Whatever they do, they're going to have to figure out how to keep supporting two older children and a new baby on less money than they had before.

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

Having the child is going to reduce their income either way. They either lose money on childcare, or lose money by having dad stop working or reducing his hours. Whatever they do, they're going to have to figure out how to keep supporting two older children and a new baby on less money than they had before.

I agree with you that in some cases it does make sense for a parent to not work and to instead stay at home and look after the child.

But if the parents earns more than what the childcare is then it is understandable why people continue to work. Yes their income is drastically reduced (by having to pay childcare) but there is SOME extra income which they obviously wouldn’t have if they didn’t work.

shop-to-drop

I think most people would prefer not to have top ups but to pay less in tax while they still have dependent children. If they can afford to still work while they have children they will be in a position to pay lots of tax again when the children are independent.

Person_one

fannyanna wrote: »

I agree with you that in some cases it does make sense for a parent to not work and to instead stay at home and look after the child.

But if the parents earns more than what the childcare is then it is understandable why people continue to work. Yes their income is drastically reduced (by having to pay childcare) but there is SOME extra income which they obviously wouldn’t have if they didn’t work.

I guess it depends on what is important to you.

I wouldn't want to give up work if I had a child, but equally I wouldn't want to have a child I rarely saw whose primary human contact was with nursery nurses. I think it should be more accepted and normal for both parents to go part time.

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

I guess it depends on what is important to you.

I wouldn't want to give up work if I had a child, but equally I wouldn't want to have a child I rarely saw whose primary human contact was with nursery nurses. I think it should be more accepted and normal for both parents to go part time.

But sometimes what is important is ensuring that you have a roof over your head and can put food in your babies tummies (which means earning). This basic need overrides any desire to spend time with your child(ren).

I have to say that I do understand and agree with you. However I think it’s also important to recognise that it’s the quality of the time that you spend with a child and not necessarily the quantity of time. I’m sure there are those that do not work yet do not actually invest in their children or spend time with them. They are merely just at home but not interacting in any meaningful way. Just because you work full-time doesn’t mean you’re not going to spend time with your child(ren). It just makes it that much more difficult and means that you have to sacrifice a bit more. Which I’m sure anyone who has taken the conscious decision to have a child is prepared to do (or you would hope so).

Errata

fannyanna wrote: »

But sometimes what is important is ensuring that you have a roof over your head and can put food in your babies tummies (which means earning). This basic need overrides any desire to spend time with your child(ren).

I have to say that I do understand and agree with you. However I think it’s also important to recognise that it’s the quality of the time that you spend with a child and not necessarily the quantity of time. I’m sure there are those that do not work yet do not actually invest in their children or spend time with them. They are merely just at home but not interacting in any meaningful way. Just because you work full-time doesn’t mean you’re not going to spend time with your child(ren). It just makes it that much more difficult and means that you have to sacrifice a bit more. Which I’m sure anyone who has taken the conscious decision to have a child is prepared to do (or you would hope so).

I recently came across some research which showed that quantity was more important than quality. Children are happy when mum is somewhere in the background / in earshot and they are just faffing and fiddling around with whatever interests them. That closeness is quality stuff for them, they don't need or want mum's attention zeroed in on them at full strength to feel happy, secure and loved. They just need her around.

fannyanna

Errata wrote: »

I recently came across some research which showed that quantity was more important than quality. Children are happy when mum is somewhere in the background / in earshot and they are just faffing and fiddling around with whatever interests them. That closeness is quality stuff for them, they don't need or want mum's attention zeroed in on them at full strength to feel happy, secure and loved. They just need her around.

Sssshhhh - I was trying to stay happily deluded so that I wouldn't feel like a failure when I become a working Mum :rotfl:

Person_one

Errata wrote: »

I recently came across some research which showed that quantity was more important than quality. Children are happy when mum is somewhere in the background / in earshot and they are just faffing and fiddling around with whatever interests them. That closeness is quality stuff for them, they don't need or want mum's attention zeroed in on them at full strength to feel happy, secure and loved. They just need her around.

I'd add 'and/or dad' to your post but apart from that I agree!

Look at how young babies can be perfectly happy being bounced, held or played with by a stranger but they keep their eyes on where mum or dad are and scream bloody murder if they disappear! I think that instinct probably lasts longer than we realise.

FATBALLZ

Errata wrote: »

I recently came across some research which showed that quantity was more important than quality. Children are happy when mum is somewhere in the background / in earshot and they are just faffing and fiddling around with whatever interests them. That closeness is quality stuff for them, they don't need or want mum's attention zeroed in on them at full strength to feel happy, secure and loved. They just need her around.

Not convinced by that to be honest, when I had a couple of weeks off work recently my young child became very clingy, to an unhealthy extent. Now they're back in nursery they're a lot happier and more sociable. I'm sure you could find 'research' to back up any viewpoint.