MSE News: Chancellor: child benefit cut will go ahead

RedSky

Verdi_Fan wrote: »

They do not own plasma screen TVs and other extravagent electronic devices. They do not smoke or go to the pub. It is totally counterproductive of the Chancellor to remove their Child Benefit, which is what he intends, as my grandchildren may now have to enter the State school system.

I'm sure you can appreciate it is impractical to assess individuals' lifestyles when determining who should or should not receive Child Benefit.

Verdi_Fan wrote: »

Why doesn't he simply continue to pay Child Benefit to those mothers whose earnings are nil or under the 40% threshold.

"Broken Britain" is also "Bankrupt Britain". The gov spend more money than they earn, something has to give.

Verdi_Fan wrote: »

As to those of you who snipe that all those over the threshold don't know how lucky they are and must be rich, I am disgusted with your attitude. When your children's class sizes are over the legal limit, perhaps you will reflect on why this is occuring.

Not all of us "snipe" and I'm sure if many were fortunate enough to be in a position to be able to choose private education over state education then they would also appreciate, amongst other things, the benefit of smaller class sizes. Unfortunately it is not an option for most.

Verdi_Fan

Hi All,
I'm new to this "posting" facility, and thought that my first "post" hadn't worked. Hence the 2nd similar one. For this, I apologise.
I don't apologise, though, for the fact that my grandchildren (at the moment) go to private schools. I still maintain that removing Child Benefit for those parents who financially just manage to relieve the State of vast expense each year in the education of their children, is financial and electoral suicide for the Government.

Marisco

Verdi_Fan wrote: »

Hi All,
I'm new to this "posting" facility, and thought that my first "post" hadn't worked. Hence the 2nd similar one. For this, I apologise.
I don't apologise, though, for the fact that my grandchildren (at the moment) go to private schools. I still maintain that removing Child Benefit for those parents who financially just manage to relieve the State of vast expense each year in the education of their children, is financial and electoral suicide for the Government.

So you reckon that those who can afford to send their kids to private school should be "reimbursed" for it? If your family are really interested in saving the state money, then they should be quite happy, that not only are they saving the education dept money, they will also be saving the DWP money as well! But we all know it's got nothing to do with saving the gov money don't we?:D

RedSky

Verdi_Fan wrote: »

I don't apologise, though, for the fact that my grandchildren (at the moment) go to private schools. I still maintain that removing Child Benefit for those parents who financially just manage to relieve the State of vast expense each year in the education of their children, is financial and electoral suicide for the Government.

I would not expect you to apologise but instead be proud that your children have prioritised their spending to better your grandchildrens' futures. What I find difficult to comprehend is why you regard Child Benefit as the tipping point for whether your children can afford private schooling or not. I very much doubt Child Benefit contributes much towards the costs associated with private schooling.

Also when you consider why Child Benefit was originally introduced, I don't think private schooling was the government's intention.

Verdi_Fan

Unsurprisingly, everyone has a "tipping point" and I think that the removal of this bit of help might just be the final straw. Of course it isn't a huge amount of money compared to the school fees, but as everything else has gone up drastically recently, it could be the last nail in the coffin of those who limit the size of their families in order to do their best for a small number of offspring.
Side-tracking slightly, I am a member of U3A, and wrote 2 years ago to the National Mag. suggesting that ALL Child Benefit be removed, to encourage smaller families and a sense of responsibility. I expected a load of flack.... However, over the following year, numerous replies were published, every single one on my side; one man even wanting the parents of every child born to pay £10,000 per annum INTO the system, to cover education and health costs. This would certainly reduce the population quickly and make people think of their responsibilities and not their "rights"!! I am not quite as right-wing as to advocate that. I simply feel that there must be a fairer way for all to share the costs whilst we are in a recession, and the present propsed way George Osborne has in mind is neither fair nor cost-effective.
Actually, I feel that the best course of action is to revert to the old Family Allowance. My parents got this during WW2. It was for the first child only, and not means tested.

clearingout

so basically you want only the rich/those who earn well to be able to have children?

You ignore, of course, the fact that many people could afford to have their children but circumstances are such that they change when you least expect it...accident or illness, disability, divorce, death....all common enough to be happening to people you know, today, right now. Should their children be removed from them because they can no longer afford them?

I don't consider it my right to have children. But now I have them, they are 100% my responsibility. That's not my choice, but rather my !!!!less ex-husband's choice, a man who has changed beyond all recognition. I often say it, but worth saying it again - my children went overnight from being in private school to being eligible for free school meals. Not my choice and not my fault. All three children very much wanted, born within a long-term, stable relationship/marriage. Child Benefit won't be removed from my household simply because I don't earn enough but it is a worrying move, and one which will have an affect on countless parents in similar situations to mine. It doesn't make any of us irresponsible or focused on our 'rights'. We are trying to get by, the same as anyone else.

mumps

Verdi_Fan wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, everyone has a "tipping point" and I think that the removal of this bit of help might just be the final straw. Of course it isn't a huge amount of money compared to the school fees, but as everything else has gone up drastically recently, it could be the last nail in the coffin of those who limit the size of their families in order to do their best for a small number of offspring.
Side-tracking slightly, I am a member of U3A, and wrote 2 years ago to the National Mag. suggesting that ALL Child Benefit be removed, to encourage smaller families and a sense of responsibility. I expected a load of flack.... However, over the following year, numerous replies were published, every single one on my side; one man even wanting the parents of every child born to pay £10,000 per annum INTO the system, to cover education and health costs. This would certainly reduce the population quickly and make people think of their responsibilities and not their "rights"!! I am not quite as right-wing as to advocate that. I simply feel that there must be a fairer way for all to share the costs whilst we are in a recession, and the present propsed way George Osborne has in mind is neither fair nor cost-effective.
Actually, I feel that the best course of action is to revert to the old Family Allowance. My parents got this during WW2. It was for the first child only, and not means tested.

I thought family allowance was introduced in 1945?

goodcommonsense

mumps wrote: »

I thought family allowance was introduced in 1945?

You are correct. The law was passed in 1945, and payments began in 1946.