Benefits for new parents

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Then try looking at the facts. Child Tax Credits were always clearly labeled by Blair for lifting children out of poverty and not extra money for households with children as you have wrongly claimed. Their intended tartget was always the children and not extra spending money for their parents as a reward for having children.

How long do you think it will be before we see another thread here where someone else asks what extra benefits they can claim, as they can't afford their lifestyle now that their child has left home and CTC and CB has ended?

Oh for heavens sakes! I haven't wrongly claimed! CTC was introduced as support for families with children (policy) with the overarching aim of reducing child poverty (ideology).

Ideology provides governments (and individuals who may wish to vote) with a desired direction of travel. Policy provides the mechanisms to achieve the desired direction of travel. They are two different things, which is what I'm trying to point out to you. Over and over. And exactly what I mean by your wilful blindness. You're clearly intelligent and I'm sure you know exactly what I'm saying.

I just wish you would respond to the policy points I'm actually making rather than with tub thumping ideology to points I never made at all.

I'm not even disagreeing with your main stance. While I think our respective *ideologies* differ significantly, I am far from thinking that tax credits are an unbridled *policy* success.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing. If you have time and/or inclination, here are some IFS (not NuLab or some other partial organisation's) policy discussion documents (download the full PDFs) that lay out in some detail the contemporary thinking behind tax credits at introduction, the history of child-contingent welfare and also the initial reform in 2003. They are interesting.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/1803
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/2043
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/348

Mumto3cheekymonkeys

acl2009 wrote: »

As an expectant mum (first baby due in 4 weeks) I find it very difficult to be understanding of people that have a child because "it's ok I'll get x y and z benefit to help me"

My husband and I had been married 2 years, waited until both of us were on a good stable income, and owned a suitable house before we got pregnant. I would never have a child expecting handouts to help me raise him/her. We have worked out how much our income is going to change with me being on maternity leave and we will adjust our spending accordingly.

We are not entitled to any benefits (other then the standard child benefit) and would never dream of moaning that we aren't getting any handout from the government. In fact when the child benefit threshold was going to be £42k we wouldn't of qualified, did we moan? No, because I honestly believe you should not rely on benefits as a decision to have a baby. The fact that the threshold has been increased means we will get child benefit and this will just be put straight into a junior ISA.

I don't wish anyone to take offence, but as someone who has worked hard and had to wait to start a family I'm afraid it's something I feel strongly about.

I would like to wish the OP all the very best for their new family.

I understand your point and for me personally I most certainly did not think about benefits before I had a baby. I had an unplanned pregnancy and decided to continue with him unfortunately it was not ment to be. after that we decided that we really did want a child and decided to have one, at the time my partner had a very good job and the same after my second son (coil failed). He lost his job and got one just for a wage we were then told by my hv that we were entitled to benefits and this was when we first started to claim. We then decided to try for another baby not thinking about benefits and healthy boy number 3 arrived. I love my children and I have always been very maternal. You are very lucky that you and your husband have a good wage of something I could only ever dream of. At the moment I am working part time and saving so that in 2 years time I will have some savings when I start my midwifery training.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Where did you get that idea from that Child Tax Credits were intended to help the parents to give them more money to spend on themselves? Blair said he was going to 'end child poverty' not 'end poverty of households with children'.

The bold bit is EXACTLY what the govt child poverty targets measure.

They have nothing to do with how much is spent on the child. It is defined in terms of HOUSEHOLD INCOME. Basically a child is in "poverty", as defined by the govt, if he/she lives in a household with less than 60% of median income (adjusted by a fiddle factor to account for household size).

The poverty line for a couple with 2 kids under 14 is £347 a week. So a child is in "poverty" if they live in such a household with an income of £345 a week and parents who never smoke, drink, buy all their clothes in charity shops and always ensure the kids come first.

Yet a child who lives in a household with an income of £350 a week won't be in "poverty", even if their parents drink like a fish, smoke like a chimney, are down the bingo every night and leave the kids with no food.

You may not agree with this definition, and I don't and I doubt Sixer does, but that IS the definition used by the govt to define child poverty. It is HOUSEHOLD income, not money spent on the child.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/income intro.shtml

http://www.cpag.org.uk/povertyfacts/index.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15242103

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

The bold bit is EXACTLY what the govt child poverty targets measure.

Of course it is MEASURED on the parent/s income or government welfare limits. All income based welfare payments are based on the household income and how many adults and children there are.

For those able bodied peolple of working age, the income needed (set by government) is fairly low; but when there is a child/ren, that is where child tax credits come in, to stamp out child poverty . Child poverty; not parents poverty as the government have their own limit for adults to live on still be able to afford the utility bills. Child tax credits is not an extra top-up for the parents to spend on themselves or their bills, as a reward for having children.

How widespead is this, parents using their child tax credits on themselves? The posts from some parents on this thread, are worrying.

just_trying

No one has said it's a reward for having children. Some people have said it helps them get by with LIVING expenses within there household. What do you mean using it themselves do you actually mean bringing there children up ?.

**Patty**

moneypenny.......can you explain this one then?

If CTC is purely to be spent on the child (as a means to lift children out of poverty/whatever) then why......does the CSA (another Govt dept) class it as *Household Income* when calculating maintenance?

retromother

We ended up reducing our outgoings and I gave up work and became a full-time parent, allowing me to cook from scratch and not have to pay childcare etc.

It's a big commitment, but so worth it! And really we don't miss the extra money, because to be honest it just got wasted on takeaways, childcare and petrol!

The best advice I can give anyone expecting - reduce your outgoings today and put away as much as possible, pay off any debt, do what you can to get into the best financial position possible. It gives you freedom of choice.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Of course it is MEASURED on the parent/s income or government welfare limits. All income based welfare payments are based on the household income and how many adults and children there are.

No they aren't. For people with children, tax credits make no distinction whatsoever between 1 and 2 parent families (except that 2 parents need to work more hours for WTC and more hours to get childcare). No account whatsoever is taken of the financial needs of a second adult in tax credits, even though a 2 adult household needs 30% more money and has a 30% higher "poverty" line as defined by the govt than a single parent family.

Reason is that giving single parents relatively more than they need actually reduces the poverty measurement, because single parents are more likely to be out of work. Couples out of work will be in greater poverty, but there are relatively less of them so the unfairness of the system reduces the "child poverty" numbers.

For those able bodied peolple of working age, the income needed (set by government) is fairly low; but when there is a child/ren, that is where child tax credits come in, to stamp out child poverty . Child poverty; not parents poverty as the government have their own limit for adults to live on still be able to afford the utility bills. Child tax credits is not an extra top-up for the parents to spend on themselves or their bills, as a reward for having children.

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.

How widespead is this, parents using their child tax credits on themselves? The posts from some parents on this thread, are worrying.

How do you define spending on the child? 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".

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?

Mumto3cheekymonkeys

**Patty** wrote: »

moneypenny.......can you explain this one then?

If CTC is purely to be spent on the child (as a means to lift children out of poverty/whatever) then why......does the CSA (another Govt dept) class it as *Household Income* when calculating maintenance?

Very good point! :beer:

MissMoneypenny

samwich1979 wrote: »

The CB i receive pays for nappies, wipes, clothing and food for my child, also if there is any left over it goes towards the bills, eg: electric, gas or water and DO NOT tell me i should not be doing this!!! If i couldn't pay for those bills my child would suffer, so therefore it is of benefit to him that i can do this.

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