What's the Future of Child Benefit?

onlyroz

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Back on track:

How about withdraw child benefit completely. Re distribute the funds paying for childcare such that it is FREE for working parents.

I'm not a fan of benefits but those that pay people not to work are the worst (thanks Tony + Gordon) money should be used to support people who want to get on.

Ps working tax credits don't for me count as an in work benefit - they are an incentive to do minimal work and not try harder

Fine once kids reach school age, but what about those parents who would prefer to stay at home while their kids are toddlers?

It's all fine going on about fe-ckless parents and welfare dependency, but ultimately kids don't choose to be born, and we should ensure that every child gets a decent chance in life regardless of the sort of home they are born into.

We really should be viewing children as a precious resource, rather than a tiresome burden.

Dansmam

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Back on track:

How about withdraw child benefit completely. Re distribute the funds paying for childcare such that it is FREE for working parents.

I'm not a fan of benefits but those that pay people not to work are the worst (thanks Tony + Gordon) money should be used to support people who want to get on.

Ps working tax credits don't for me count as an in work benefit - they are an incentive to do minimal work and not try harder

Hey mistermeaner, I can't believe I'm saying this but you are so right (as in correct) in this post (my instincts are pretty much left, but I'm not a joiner of any club that'll have me, though I may insist they let me in :rotfl:) we'll have to agree to differ on tax credits which I see as benefits robed up as something worthy for those who see benefits as for lesser mortals. Free childcare was a distant dream way back when my children were children, but that's where the child benefit mainly went as I recall.
Someone on here reminded us child benefit is for children. That's how I treated it, while working for their futures. Paid off for us all, you included though we've never met and might well quarrel if we did. I can assure you, they will be funding a lot of stuff for all of us, you included obv... I paid my bit forward and child benefit was a big part of helping me do that.
Simples. We fund everyone who's born, they fund everyone who's born later, people who have the luck to be born here fund the next lot. What's not to like as long as you can predict from the womb where you'll land on earth.
Whoops.

Dansmam

I have thunk further. I happened to be in a relationship where there was a bit of cash for bread. If I'd not, the benefit would have gone on cash for bread. I withdraw my unalloyed enthusiasm for purely childcare benefits.

remorseless

Blue22 wrote: »

Yes the population is growing but not from too many children being born. Its rising partly due to immigration but mainly due to people living longer.

To have a stable population each woman needs to have on average 2.1 children, it hasn't been that since 1970.

it is almost there, there is at least one child per woman.

Population is living longer so infrastructure needs to cope with the elderly as well, can't rush them to the grave!!!!

Beside, as I read often [is it a myth then?] that schools are overcrowded, and given that the UK population is growing, does the UK actually need to have more babies?

Say the UK goes back to population size of the 70's (50 mil), would it be that bad?

What if every family was this size?

[Deleted User]

michaels wrote: »

If someone can come up with anything money saving on kids extra curricular activities I would be grateful to hear it though.

Well.. we are members of a gym, that runs free classes for the kids (drama, arts, sports) - and the annual cost per child is the equivalent to sending them to a terms worth of after-school activities.

Wife's commute isn't too bad unless the M25 snarls up

The schools are currently under quite a lot of pressure after the step up in child births since 2002 (see previous graph). This has come after about 30 years of stable birth rates.

SkyeKnight

The increase in population and increase in number of children being born are what we have chosen, presumably because it is felt we don't have enough children of our own. UK born women (and that includes those whose parents are born abroad) are having less children than ever - way below replacement rate. The increasing birth rate is purely down to our choice to have more and more non-UK born people in the country.

Choosing to have less children is not going to decrease the UK population one iota as we are deliberately importing people. Will it decrease the world population? Possibly not even that as many people come to the UK so that they can send money home to their families making them and their children more likely to survive.

Blue22

remorseless wrote: »

Say the UK goes back to population size of the 70's (50 mil), would it be that bad?

Yes it would be bad unless you were considering bumping off a few million pensioners.

Mistermeaner

Via a different route we reach the same conclusion

BobQ

cakeforbrains wrote: »

The origins of the government providing money for children can be traced back to the early 20th century when an income tax allowance was made for workers who had children in the household. This mainly benefited the waged middle classes who earned enough to pay income tax. In 1945, following the Beveridge Report, the Family Allowances Act was passed, which saw actual money being given to all families with children, as opposed to tax breaks.

This is not correct. In 1945 through to the 1970s Family Allowance was never paid for the eldest child or the only child in a family. The allowance went to the 2nd and later children at a flat rate

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Having a child is a matter of choice. As a taxpayer, I would already accept that I have to contribute to free health care (for child and mother) and free basic education for that child. But I draw the line at that and dislike the concept of paying people to have children. Over the last decade or two, the obscene amounts of child tax credit has become ridiculous.

It's about time we encouraged people to work out the costs of parenthood (not difficult) and make their own provision in the same way we have to for cars and other 'stuff'.

I agree.

The original aim of Family Allowance was was to combat nutritional problems for children in poorer families after WWII when we still had food rationing and food was relatively expensive. We have moved on a lot since then.

Another reason for FA was to encourage working class children to remain in further education and increase the skill levels in the economy. In 1944 the school leaving age was raised to 15. It was only raised to 16 in 1972. FA was paid to children who stayed in full time secondary education. In poorer families, there was considerable pressure to send the children off to work rather than stay and take the School Certifcate at 16 (subsequently replaced in the 1950s by GCE O Levels). I think we have to be careful that any changes do not affect the development of the knowledgeable and skilled young people we desperately need.

BobQ

Blue22 wrote: »

'Children are not simply a private luxury. They are an asset to the community, and the community can not afford to leave the provision for their welfare solely to the accident of individual income'
Eleanor Rathbone 1940

http://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG-Child-Benefit-Fit-Future-0806.pdf

remorseless wrote: »

Made maybe sense in 1940, population was a little bit less...



...do we still need to incentivate to make children?

That is not what the quote means. It is just pointing out that the nation needs to have children for its future growth and development and that society as a whole benefits from children when they grow up.

Obviously if you condemn children to live in poverty because of the poor choices of their parents, they will probably grow up with a big chip on their shoulder. I accept that their is a balance to be struck but however !!!!less the parents, blaming or punishing their children will probably backfire.