Benefits for new parents

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Errm, you do realise people can look back on your posts, don't you?

Why, are you going to the police because someone used CTC to pay household bills :rotfl:

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

They are intended to reduce child poverty as defined by the govt. Now go back and look at the definition of child poverty, which doesn't care whether the parents spend all the CTC money on booze, fags and bingo and leave the kids to starve.

You forgot those parents who get themselves a mobile contract each thanks to their child's welfare payments.

Joking apart, it truly is disgraceful that Blair chose Tax Credits over Frank Field's ideas to make sure the money got to the children. Life really is a lucky bag for children as they don't get to choose their parents.

zagfles wrote: »

How do you define spending on the child?

I would say it was something they can do that they would get if their parents had money. The state is replacing that loss for them. i.e. One poster on this board recently said she used her child's money for dance classes.

zagfles wrote: »

When the last govt were switching from WFTC to the new tax credits they made a big deal out of paying CTC to the "main carer" (or "mother" for short as often used by Gordon Brown). They produced stats and reports to show that the "main carer" is more likely to spend money "on the child".

I do love the way these reports are rolled out to fit the purpose. Recently the government said they did a study and found that similar types married each other, for their immigration cuts. If this recent study is true, then both parents are just as likely to spend their child's money on themselves or both parents will make sure the money is just spent on making their child's life better. What happens to the lives of the children of the former parents?

zagfles wrote: »

But the definition of spending "on the child" included buying sweets to rot their teeth and crisps and chocolate to get them fat, but not paying the mortgage to keep a roof over their head or the gas bill to keep them warm.

What do you think is more important, sweets or a safe warm home?

I would like to think that parents will be paying most of the utility bills from their money as they would have to pay these even if they didn't have children. Welfare for a roof over their head, is LHA, HB or SMI welfare payments, not the child's CB or CTC.

Children tend to run around more and really don't need as much heating as a parent that might be sitting down watching tv. A parent can easily make up games and obstacle courses in the house to keep children warm or have tent games (duvets) while the children are watching TV. Children add their own games and ideas too.

I really believe the way to get these children out of the poverty their parents live in, is to get to them at an early age for education and social skills, when they are a blank canvas. Yes I know some parents' will spent time with their children to educate them, but what about the children whose parents don't do this? Even when they go to school, they are only there for a few hours. Every child deserves this help, even if their parents are unable or unwilling to give it.

I walked past a primary school the other week as the children were coming out. One mother was chatting on her mobile, had a baby in a pram and when her little daughter came out, the little girl just hung onto the pram as her mother walked, still taking on her mobile. Another little girl was being collected by her grandfather, she hung onto his hand and was chatting away to him about her day, while he laughed and talked to her too. That first little girl deserved this too.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

Why, are you going to the police because someone used CTC to pay household bills :rotfl:

Try reading what I wrote; which was about being able to read previous posts. Take some more water with it:D.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I would like to think that parents will be paying most of the utility bills from their money as they would have to pay these even if they didn't have children. Welfare for a roof over their head, is LHA, HB or SMI welfare payments, not the child's CB or CTC.

My household bills are far higher than before we had children, because we live in a bigger house. A one bed flat may be OK for a couple, it's not for a family. And once you're above income levels for LHA/HB etc CTC and CB are often the only benefits. So why shouldn't they be spent on bills which increased due to having children? Or should children sleep on the sofa or the floor in a living room of a one bed flat just so they can go to dance lessons?

I walked past a primary school the other week as the children were coming out. One mother was chatting on her mobile, had a baby in a pram and when her little daughter came out, the little girl just hung onto the pram as her mother walked, still taking on her mobile. Another little girl was being collected by her grandfather, she hung onto his hand and was chatting away to him about her day, while he laughed and talked to her too. That first little girl deserved this too.

And the next day it might be the other way round. You seem to assuming so much from such a brief encounter.

Mumto3cheekymonkeys

So would you say me spending £20 per month for my son to be on a football team a waste of his money?

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Try reading what I wrote; which was about being able to read previous posts. Take some more water with it:D.

Sorry I missed your point. But I think that makes it about 7-1 in this thread

Mumto3cheekymonkeys

infact I prob spend about £120 a month on all 3 boys for doing certain sports, these include football, swimming and martial arts (ok they just throw there weight around but they enjoy it) would this be ok as it is money spent on the children or would you say no as we are clearly not in poverty?

Sixer

I'm going way off-topic now, but I just did some digging for the US. Chose the US because it's a country that's a) famous for having few welfare benefits in comparison to the UK/Europe and b) operates child-contingent support through the tax system, not the welfare system.

Figures might be 2011 or 2012 - I just looked quickly.

Families are entitled to a $1,000 (£616) reduction on their tax bill per dependent child per year. There is a taper for this but it doesn't begin until an income threshold of $55,000 (£34,000) for single parents and $110,000 (£68,000) for couples.

Families are also entitled to a reduction in their taxable income of $3,700 (£2,281) per child per year. This deduction can be taken for children in education until they are 24 years old, so right through uni. Not sure what their basic income tax rate is and can't be arsed to look further, but that's going to be worth something in the region of £500 assuming tax rate of between 20% and 30%.

So we're looking at £1,200ish per child per year.

Families are entitled to a tax credit worth between 20% and 35% (percentage depends on income) of any childcare costs for children of 12 and under.

Food for thought, non?

kingfisherblue

My bills are higher since having children. I spend more on electricity (washer and tumble dryer are both on far more frequently, not to mention the TV, CD player, phone chargers, Wii console, much more hot water for showers, etc - not all at once though!)

Food bills are higher for four than for just myself. Cleaning things are needed more frequently - you have no idea how much loo roll my 12 year old can get through :rotfl:

You tend to need more towels, more furniture, more petrol (for getting the kids to various clubs, as well as school).

I don't separate my CTC and CB from 'my' income. It all goes into the household pot. Out of that pot comes all the expenses, including the above. The pot also pays for clothing, shoes, books (my kids are keen readers, especially my son who has special needs), club subs (Deaf Club is great for both my boys, and my younger son loves Airfix Club, which teaches patience, attention to detail, helping others and following instructions - although he doen't think about this, he just enjoys going). The pot pays for an inexpensive family holiday once a year, days out, housing costs (including insurance - the kids' belongings are insured as well as mine ), TV licence (the kids watch more TV than I do), and anything else that is needed.

It doesn't pay for cigarettes or alcohol, as I don't smoke or drink. I rarely go out without my kids (does volunteering as a Brownie and Rainbow leader once a week count? ).

My family have an income that is pooled and pays for everything that we need as a family. If that means that one child needs new shirts part way through the school year, then he gets them. If it means that I have to buy a new pair of slippers because mine are worn out, then I don't stop and worry that it might be tax credits that pays for them. When my disabled child wants his Mr Tumble comic, or my other son needs to pay his Airfix club subs, or my daughter points out that she has used the last of the shampoo, it all comes out of the family pot.

Just imagine how difficult it would be to ascertain how much CTC should be used towards their housing, or if one of the children shouldn't have a new book that you know they will gain a lot of enjoyment and knowledge from because their portion of CTC or CB has already been spent on their new shoes. It would be unworkable for most of us.

zagfles

Sixer wrote: »

I'm going way off-topic now, but I just did some digging for the US. Chose the US because it's a country that's a) famous for having few welfare benefits in comparison to the UK/Europe and b) operates child-contingent support through the tax system, not the welfare system.

Figures might be 2011 or 2012 - I just looked quickly.

Families are entitled to a $1,000 (£616) reduction on their tax bill per dependent child per year. There is a taper for this but it doesn't begin until an income threshold of $55,000 (£34,000) for single parents and $110,000 (£68,000) for couples.

Families are also entitled to a reduction in their taxable income of $3,700 (£2,281) per child per year. This deduction can be taken for children in education until they are 24 years old, so right through uni. Not sure what their basic income tax rate is and can't be arsed to look further, but that's going to be worth something in the region of £500 assuming tax rate of between 20% and 30%.

So we're looking at £1,200ish per child per year.

Families are entitled to a tax credit worth between 20% and 35% (percentage depends on income) of any childcare costs for children of 12 and under.

Food for thought, non?

And as well the above, in the US married couples have the choice of filing jointly for tax, which effectively gives them a big tax cut when one of them doesn't work, or when one has has a much higher income than the other, for instance if one works part time. Which for obvious reasons is effectively another tax cut for families, since couples with kids are more likely to have a spouse not working or working part time.

Families on average incomes in the UK are taxed far more heavily than in most countries.