FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Child Benefit

Child Benefit

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Benefit posts do tend to provoke reaction. There are so many posted about fraud.

I am sure many will see this as self-interest on my part as I am childless.

Why do we still pay over 12 billion pounds per year in child benefit? Is it to encourage people to have more children?

Yes, I know, those children may help to pay for any state pension I receive when I retire. But would the money not be better spent on, say, education? And is receiving £20 a week really an encouragement to have a child? Is it just that no government is brave enough to abolish this benefit altogether? Do parents see it as a right?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

even as a parent i'm not entirely sure why i get it.. it just goes into the 'pot' and helps with bills etc

not complaining though mind

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I've always supported the idea of child benefit reducing the more children you have, with none being payable after the third.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's to stop children living in poverty. Although the cost of living has risen more than wages and benefits have for most families so it doesn't work.

£20 isn't enough to pay for a child really, you have to have a warm house, feed them, clothe them, keep them clean, wash their clothes. Costs well more than £20 a week.

It's not a right to be given money for having a child, but we can afford it. MPs wages went up and that, in my opinion, says we can afford to pay out for things.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

£20 encouragement to have a child??? Try feeding a 15 year old lad...it wouldn't encourage me to pop out anymore lol

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *isandreTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

to clarify further why i say im not sure why i get it...

if i work (which i do) my earnings are topped up by a 'child tax credit'

if i dont work (ive also been in that situation) id get income support which takes into consideration that i am a lone parent.

so unsure why id need a seperate payment.. couldnt they just combine it into one of the other financial options?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"£20 encouragement to have a child??? Try feeding a 15 year old lad...it wouldn't encourage me to pop out anymore lol "

I really do not think that many (indeed, any sane) person would be motivated by the amount to pop one out. Surely, the vast majority of thinking people consider their curcumstances before having a baby? So why is the benefit paid?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?"

Is it an incentive? Really?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Anyone who thinks that "today's children" will be paying for their pension in a generations time has a large shock in store.

IMO, Child Benefit should a) be less generous and b) stop after a second child.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

While having a child is a right its not an obligation so I dont think there should be any benefits given

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?"

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Anyone who thinks that "today's children" will be paying for their pension in a generations time has a large shock in store.

IMO, Child Benefit should a) be less generous and b) stop after a second child.

Should it be payable at all? If it should be payable, why put a limit on the number of children?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *i015Man over a year ago

Millbrook, Southampton

£20 a week doesn't make much difference but I don't think it should be abolished, just capped to 2 children per family, what should be abolished is the high wages politicians get for doing F*** all when it comes to helping those that need help.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *issHottieBottieWoman over a year ago

Kent

When I was still with my sons dad and he earned a decent wage (I was on maternity pay) I can't say we really needwd it.

Now I'm on my own and finding it very difficult to get a part time time that I can work around my lad (luckily he starts school in September so I'm hoping that will make life a bit easier) I'm very grateful for the extra especially as my ex got sacked from his job for fighting a month ago so I no longer get any help from him.

Would it encourage me to have another child?? NO!! It would need to be £200 before that would be worthwhile lol.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do what china does, maximum kid per family 1, that would sort it lol.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *issHottieBottieWoman over a year ago

Kent

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

That's not true as same sex kids have to share.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"to clarify further why i say im not sure why i get it...

if i work (which i do) my earnings are topped up by a 'child tax credit'

if i dont work (ive also been in that situation) id get income support which takes into consideration that i am a lone parent.

so unsure why id need a seperate payment.. couldnt they just combine it into one of the other financial options? "

That's the idea if the universal benefit that William Hague is making such a slow pigs ear of bringing in....

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

How many 4 bedroom houses are in your area? I urge you to go and find out, there's less than 20 in my town and it's got a population of 30,000 people.

If anything, having loads of kids means you won't get social housing because (legally) you aren't allowed more than 2 kids to a bedroom.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Do what china does, maximum kid per family 1, that would sort it lol."

The opposite of what the thread is driving at mate....?

If there are less and less in future generations. Then not enough working to pay your pension or produce goods and food when you get older!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

It is a slightly facetious remark and not intended to offend anyone but ... I decided to keep some fish in an aquarium. I have looked after them without the expectation of receiving fish benefit. Do people see child benefit as a sancrosanct expectation? My understanding (correct me if I am wrong, as I am no history expert) is that it was introduced after the war to encourage population growth.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *i015Man over a year ago

Millbrook, Southampton

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

How many 4 bedroom houses are in your area? I urge you to go and find out, there's less than 20 in my town and it's got a population of 30,000 people.

If anything, having loads of kids means you won't get social housing because (legally) you aren't allowed more than 2 kids to a bedroom."

In my block all the flats are 2 bedroom and there's a family with 6 kids + both parents, the tenancy agreement states that the maximum number of people allowed in the flat is 6 but the council won't re-house them as they don't have enough places big enough for them

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Do what china does, maximum kid per family 1, that would sort it lol.

The opposite of what the thread is driving at mate....?

If there are less and less in future generations. Then not enough working to pay your pension or produce goods and food when you get older!"

Nobby - but would £20 a week really be an incentive? Maybe the amount should be increased to produce a real incentive?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think it should be payed for the first child only, if you cant feed em don't breed em.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is a slightly facetious remark and not intended to offend anyone but ... I decided to keep some fish in an aquarium. I have looked after them without the expectation of receiving fish benefit. Do people see child benefit as a sancrosanct expectation? My understanding (correct me if I am wrong, as I am no history expert) is that it was introduced after the war to encourage population growth."

More strawman the facetious. Fish could survive without you and without money, so can most animals, they don't use monetary systems you just chose to bring them into yours.

http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/policy/where_it_all_started/

Interesting read.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Do what china does, maximum kid per family 1, that would sort it lol.

The opposite of what the thread is driving at mate....?

If there are less and less in future generations. Then not enough working to pay your pension or produce goods and food when you get older!"
Yes I know pal, what I also meant is that they get more benefit the more kids a family got, so counter productive to the system.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I think it should be payed for the first child only, if you cant feed em don't breed em."

Why the limit though? One child, two, three ... Or none? It seems strange to me that child benefit is OK for only X number of children.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Anyone who thinks that "today's children" will be paying for their pension in a generations time has a large shock in store.

IMO, Child Benefit should a) be less generous and b) stop after a second child.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *bi HaiveMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Cheeseville, Somerset

Why not just means test it or stop paying over a certain level of household income?

There will be many who don't need it.

There will be many that do.

Seems daft to pay a millionaire the same child benefit as someone unemployed!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *iewMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Angus & Findhorn

I am happy to contribute to other people's children, they are our future

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think it should be payed for the first child only, if you cant feed em don't breed em.

Why the limit though? One child, two, three ... Or none? It seems strange to me that child benefit is OK for only X number of children."

Why because it encourages some people to breed, and this world is overpopulated. why should they get it when single people get their benefits cut and ex service men are sleeping on the streets.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

More strawman the facetious. Fish could survive without you and without money, so can most animals, they don't use monetary systems you just chose to bring them into yours.

http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/policy/where_it_all_started/

Interesting read."

Thanks. My fish would die if I did not look after them. Not all fish, just the ones I have chosen to put in my aquarium. It was my choice to put them there and I accept that. For the vast majority of parents, the situation is the same.

* Please parents, I am not advocating placing babies in aquariums **

** Baby mermaids excepted

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

That's not true as same sex kids have to share. "

Ok, i accept the example gievn may not be precise, but there does come a point at which it actually does occur. 1 bedroom upto 2, 2 to 3, etc.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I am happy to contribute to other people's children, they are our future

In what way are they your future (forgetting of course the Michael Jackson song)? In what way does paying child benefit better the future? I am not decrying your comment. I am just interested in your specific beliefs.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I think it should be payed for the first child only, if you cant feed em don't breed em.

Why the limit though? One child, two, three ... Or none? It seems strange to me that child benefit is OK for only X number of children.

Why because it encourages some people to breed, and this world is overpopulated. why should they get it when single people get their benefits cut and ex service men are sleeping on the streets."

But I haven't heard one person yet state that the amount on offer is an encouragement to have a child? "Oh, lover, If we have a baby now we will get £20 a week." Not really going to work, is it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

More strawman the facetious. Fish could survive without you and without money, so can most animals, they don't use monetary systems you just chose to bring them into yours.

http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/policy/where_it_all_started/

Interesting read.

* Please parents, I am not advocating placing babies in aquariums **

** Baby mermaids excepted"

Not really. Fish would survive if left to be fish in their natural environment and not forced become pets. Fish are also less complicated in lifestyle and haven't developed as much as humans have.

Although abortion is legal it isn't the first choice of many because they have emotions or are religious. Contraception fails too. People want to have kids as well, for no reason at all except they want kids (yeah it can be more complicated than this obviously, down to emotions, physical make-up and social issues and whatever else).

Child benefits were introduced to keep kids in education and not working as slaves until they were intelligent enough to be the best slaves they could be, and nothing to do with encouraging population growth.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

More strawman the facetious. Fish could survive without you and without money, so can most animals, they don't use monetary systems you just chose to bring them into yours.

http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/policy/where_it_all_started/

Interesting read.

* Please parents, I am not advocating placing babies in aquariums **

** Baby mermaids excepted

Not really. Fish would survive if left to be fish in their natural environment and not forced become pets. Fish are also less complicated in lifestyle and haven't developed as much as humans have.

And child benefit is paid now because ... ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Somewhat controvrsial maybe, but if Child Benefit is to be curtailed or even stooped, isn't it about time IVF was stopped, certainly when paid for out of Public Funds.

I'd rather like a Lamborghini ( and the running costs) myself but i can't seem to get the Council/Govt to help me on that.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

More strawman the facetious. Fish could survive without you and without money, so can most animals, they don't use monetary systems you just chose to bring them into yours.

http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/policy/where_it_all_started/

Interesting read.

* Please parents, I am not advocating placing babies in aquariums **

** Baby mermaids excepted

Not really. Fish would survive if left to be fish in their natural environment and not forced become pets. Fish are also less complicated in lifestyle and haven't developed as much as humans have.

And child benefit is paid now because ... ?"

Government control, bribery?

Oh no, the latter was Brown's child fund money. Lol.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Somewhat controvrsial maybe, but if Child Benefit is to be curtailed or even stooped, isn't it about time IVF was stopped, certainly when paid for out of Public Funds.

I'd rather like a Lamborghini ( and the running costs) myself but i can't seem to get the Council/Govt to help me on that. "

Ah, Lamborghini Benefit. It is only payable for the first two, you know.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And child benefit is paid now because ... ?"

To keep kids out of poverty while in education.

Nice that you don't understand poverty though, very fortunate for you and everyone you know.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"And child benefit is paid now because ... ?

To keep kids out of poverty while in education.

Nice that you don't understand poverty though, very fortunate for you and everyone you know."

What makes you believe that I don't understand poverty? Is that not a bit presumptious? I have said nothing about my financial position. I may be a millionaire. I may be unemployed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And child benefit is paid now because ... ?

To keep kids out of poverty while in education.

Nice that you don't understand poverty though, very fortunate for you and everyone you know.

What makes you believe that I don't understand poverty? Is that not a bit presumptious? I have said nothing about my financial position. I may be a millionaire. I may be unemployed."

Presumptuous yes. But you asked why it's still needed. Presumed you didn't think kids need that money or their families do despite being told otherwise.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *histler21Man over a year ago

Ipswich

"Benefit posts do tend to provoke reaction. There are so many posted about fraud.

I am sure many will see this as self-interest on my part as I am childless.

Why do we still pay over 12 billion pounds per year in child benefit? Is it to encourage people to have more children?

We need lots of children to pay for our pensions when we are old and they are in employment.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *andm288Couple over a year ago

oxford

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

That's not true as same sex kids have to share. "

Only from a certain age max age is when seperate sex children co habit the same room

Simples if your on full benefit

Housing council tax plus income support

My _iew is that you shouldn't recieve any more child / benefits etc as why should the state support your choice to have a bigger family

Just my tuppence worth

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And child benefit is paid now because ... ?

To keep kids out of poverty while in education.

Nice that you don't understand poverty though, very fortunate for you and everyone you know."

Seriously, what proportion of children in education have at least a smartphone, if not another gadget/tablet whatever?

Secondary 80%+ ?

Junior? certainly well above 0%.

You call this Poverty?

More like a poverty of needs/wants.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *isscheekychopsWoman over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

How many 4 bedroom houses are in your area? I urge you to go and find out, there's less than 20 in my town and it's got a population of 30,000 people.

If anything, having loads of kids means you won't get social housing because (legally) you aren't allowed more than 2 kids to a bedroom.

I don't think the word is won't it's more than likely they can't due to lack of larger properties

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Benefit posts do tend to provoke reaction. There are so many posted about fraud.

I am sure many will see this as self-interest on my part as I am childless.

Why do we still pay over 12 billion pounds per year in child benefit? Is it to encourage people to have more children?

We need lots of children to pay for our pensions when we are old and they are in employment."

Have you overlooked the effects of their consumption on the way up?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *isscheekychopsWoman over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

Just to clarify that that different sex children can share a room until one turns 10 and same sex until one turns 18

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *issHottieBottieWoman over a year ago

Kent

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

That's not true as same sex kids have to share.

Only from a certain age max age is when seperate sex children co habit the same room

Simples if your on full benefit

Housing council tax plus income support

My _iew is that you shouldn't recieve any more child / benefits etc as why should the state support your choice to have a bigger family

Just my tuppence worth "

Just out of curiosity. People fall pregnant whilst on contraception (I did but I was employed full time and in a relationship then) so what happens to those that are claiming benefits and fall pregnant by accident? Should they be expected to abort? Or not be able to afford to feed and clothe their child? Or shall we just stop people on benefits having sex altogether just to be sure

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

How many 4 bedroom houses are in your area? I urge you to go and find out, there's less than 20 in my town and it's got a population of 30,000 people.

If anything, having loads of kids means you won't get social housing because (legally) you aren't allowed more than 2 kids to a bedroom.

I don't think the word is won't it's more than likely they can't due to lack of larger properties "

Dear Family

You have 6 kids and 1 more on the way and from 2015 we can only (afford) t house 4 of them.

Please choose your favourites and let us know which ones you intend to keep.

Yrs

Your loving Council

ps please visit our Compliments Policy at www.whatever dot com and be sure to leave us a good comment.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *issHottieBottieWoman over a year ago

Kent

"Just to clarify that that different sex children can share a room until one turns 10 and same sex until one turns 18 "

Thanks cheeky. Was just about to google that. What if there is for example 3 boys? My friend has 3 boys under 5. Can they all be expected to share? (Her and her hubby both work I'm just curious)

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think it is about bravery, although perhaps there should be a cap on it.

However we don't want an ageing population, none of the parties do, not even UKIP.

Therefore if you want to encourage society to go in a direction you need to incentivise it somehow, don't you?

Is it an incentive? Really?

It's certainly not a disincentive. There is much more to it than just Child Benefit per se.

Suppose you have 5 kids and a 4 bedroom house. One more and the council will re-house you in a bigger or even double house. What would you do?

That's not true as same sex kids have to share.

Only from a certain age max age is when seperate sex children co habit the same room

Simples if your on full benefit

Housing council tax plus income support

My _iew is that you shouldn't recieve any more child / benefits etc as why should the state support your choice to have a bigger family

Just my tuppence worth

Maybe cut back on the gadgets/holidays/"fashion items"/drink/partying/whatever. I'm sure there are others. Adjust one's needs to one's resources?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"And child benefit is paid now because ... ?

To keep kids out of poverty while in education.

Nice that you don't understand poverty though, very fortunate for you and everyone you know.

What makes you believe that I don't understand poverty? Is that not a bit presumptious? I have said nothing about my financial position. I may be a millionaire. I may be unemployed.

Presumptuous yes. But you asked why it's still needed. Presumed you didn't think kids need that money or their families do despite being told otherwise."

Provided your household income is less than about £70,000 it is not a means tested benefit. Are there better ways to counter child poverty? I do appreciate that curcumstances can change (believe me) but is paying £20/£13 per child a way of tackling that issue?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Didn't child povert actually go up during 13 years of Nu-Labour?

Maybe it's the (utterly wank) definition that's the cause?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just to clarify that that different sex children can share a room until one turns 10 and same sex until one turns 18

Thanks cheeky. Was just about to google that. What if there is for example 3 boys? My friend has 3 boys under 5. Can they all be expected to share? (Her and her hubby both work I'm just curious) "

There is no law against it

but for council sake

they may award points

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Its an old stereotype encouraged by the right wing media such as the Sun and Daily Mail.

It's to demonize poor and OK sometimes lazy and stupid to divert attention away from the fact they and their rich friends have all the power and pay next to nothing and the politicians let them get away with it as they need their support and a directorship.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And child benefit is paid now because ... ?

To keep kids out of poverty while in education.

Nice that you don't understand poverty though, very fortunate for you and everyone you know.

What makes you believe that I don't understand poverty? Is that not a bit presumptious? I have said nothing about my financial position. I may be a millionaire. I may be unemployed.

Presumptuous yes. But you asked why it's still needed. Presumed you didn't think kids need that money or their families do despite being told otherwise.

Single parents it's £50,000 a year. And yeah every parents is entitled to it, so it's not means tested, but it does mean if you earn a certain amount you'll be taxed for it instead.

So how do you propose families stay out of poverty? Because child benefit isn't enough for many families as it is.

I could propose some things but i'm for child benefit, unless we get rid of the monetary system or make huge changes to it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *isscheekychopsWoman over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

"Just to clarify that that different sex children can share a room until one turns 10 and same sex until one turns 18

Thanks cheeky. Was just about to google that. What if there is for example 3 boys? My friend has 3 boys under 5. Can they all be expected to share? (Her and her hubby both work I'm just curious) "

By HHSRS standards no 3 children can't share as it will be deemed as overcrowded. However it is deemed reasonable for a family to reside in a property that is only lacking one bedroom

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

This will clear it up

http://www.safekids.co.uk/should-children-opposite-sex-share-bedroom.html

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *B9 QueenWoman over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

Originally child benefit (family allowance) was the only benefit which was paid directly to women. It was meant to aid women whose husbands kept them in penury so they could at least feed their children even if the father decided to piss all the other money up the wall.

As it stands it is an important benefit for one of the most important sectors of society.

Yes some people can abuse that but they can abuse any form of benefit. What do we do as a forward thinking society? Deny everyone? Then we would end up in the bad old days of the Poor Law Guardians.

Personally, I do not begrudge one penny of my tax and NI being used as a safety net for those who are disadvantaged in our society.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"And child benefit is paid now because ... ?

To keep kids out of poverty while in education.

Nice that you don't understand poverty though, very fortunate for you and everyone you know.

What makes you believe that I don't understand poverty? Is that not a bit presumptious? I have said nothing about my financial position. I may be a millionaire. I may be unemployed.

Presumptuous yes. But you asked why it's still needed. Presumed you didn't think kids need that money or their families do despite being told otherwise.

Single parents it's £50,000 a year. And yeah every parents is entitled to it, so it's not means tested, but it does mean if you earn a certain amount you'll be taxed for it instead.

So how do you propose families stay out of poverty? Because child benefit isn't enough for many families as it is.

I could propose some things but i'm for child benefit, unless we get rid of the monetary system or make huge changes to it."

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Originally child benefit (family allowance) was the only benefit which was paid directly to women. It was meant to aid women whose husbands kept them in penury so they could at least feed their children even if the father decided to piss all the other money up the wall.

As it stands it is an important benefit for one of the most important sectors of society.

Yes some people can abuse that but they can abuse any form of benefit. What do we do as a forward thinking society? Deny everyone? Then we would end up in the bad old days of the Poor Law Guardians.

Personally, I do not begrudge one penny of my tax and NI being used as a safety net for those who are disadvantaged in our society. "

I agree with the sentiment but is it that simple? Whether you are on the breadline or relatively wealthy, you have children (in most cases, your choice) and you get paid. Why? I have fish and do not get paid.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Didn't child povert actually go up during 13 years of Nu-Labour?

Maybe it's the (utterly wank) definition that's the cause? "

No.

Kitty Stewart (London School of Economics) who contributed a section on the reduction in relative income poverty, said: ‘Without Labour’s changes to the tax-benefit system, there would have been around 1.8 million more children living in poverty today.

‘Claims that money was thrown into tax credits with little measurable return are simply mistaken, as the evidence shows that the investment paid off, with future benefits still to come.

‘In families most at risk of poverty, such as lone parent households, we observe higher self-esteem, less unhappiness and less risky behaviour among teenagers.

‘That’s not only a good thing for those young people today, but it should mean better life chances in the long-run too.’

Mike Brewer (Professor Economics, University of Essex, and formerly Institute for Fiscal Studies), who contributed a chapter on financial support for children and families, said: ‘It is not accurate to describe the successful reduction in child poverty as just “poverty plus a pound”.

‘The extra investment on benefits and tax credits for families with children between 1997 and 2010 increased incomes amongst millions of families in the bottom half of the income distribution, not just those clustered around the poverty line, providing an unprecedented improvement to the material wellbeing of British families.

‘As a result, child poverty looks to have fallen between 1997 and 2010 regardless of where precisely we set the relative poverty line.’

Alison Garnham, Chief Executive of Child Poverty action Group, said: ‘The verdict is clear that prioritising child poverty across government improved the childhoods and life chances of millions of children and strengthened our economy; but even so, much more needed to be done given the size of the challenge.

‘The warnings for the current government are crystal clear.

‘Under current policies they risk wiping out all these hard-won gains. Unless their strategy improves, their legacy threatens to be the worst child poverty record of any government for a generation.

‘Some critics of the targets to reduce child poverty say we should downsize our ambition and move the goalposts.

‘But that would destroy the life chances of millions of children and force future governments and taxpayers to pick up the bill for the massive and miserable social and economic costs of poverty.

‘As the Prime Minister has said, child poverty is a moral disgrace and an economic waste.

‘Other countries in Europe already have the low levels of child poverty we are targeting, so nobody should make excuses for why we can’t do better for British children.’

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As it stands it is an important benefit for one of the most important sectors of society.

Yes some people can abuse that but they can abuse any form of benefit. What do we do as a forward thinking society? Deny everyone? Then we would end up in the bad old days of the Poor Law Guardians.

Personally, I do not begrudge one penny of my tax and NI being used as a safety net for those who are disadvantaged in our society. "

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *B9 QueenWoman over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

As it stands it is an important benefit for one of the most important sectors of society.

Yes some people can abuse that but they can abuse any form of benefit. What do we do as a forward thinking society? Deny everyone? Then we would end up in the bad old days of the Poor Law Guardians.

Personally, I do not begrudge one penny of my tax and NI being used as a safety net for those who are disadvantaged in our society.

It was found that there were many abused women with well off husbands who were deliberately left without money. That's one reason why it was a universal benefit for all women with children.

Not sure if that's the case now or if it's given to the male in any relationship.

It makes sense to me. It's a way of mitigating neglect of children.

And it can't be means tested - what terrified woman would claim it and declare abuse or neglect? Hence the universal element of the benefit.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?"

What's your proposal?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *issHottieBottieWoman over a year ago

Kent

As it stands it is an important benefit for one of the most important sectors of society.

Yes some people can abuse that but they can abuse any form of benefit. What do we do as a forward thinking society? Deny everyone? Then we would end up in the bad old days of the Poor Law Guardians.

Personally, I do not begrudge one penny of my tax and NI being used as a safety net for those who are disadvantaged in our society.

It was found that there were many abused women with well off husbands who were deliberately left without money. That's one reason why it was a universal benefit for all women with children.

Not sure if that's the case now or if it's given to the male in any relationship.

It makes sense to me. It's a way of mitigating neglect of children.

And it can't be means tested - what terrified woman would claim it and declare abuse or neglect? Hence the universal element of the benefit. "

You just tell them when you apply what account you want it paid into

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Didn't child povert actually go up during 13 years of Nu-Labour?

Maybe it's the (utterly wank) definition that's the cause?

No.

‘Claims that money was thrown into tax credits with little measurable return are simply mistaken, as the evidence shows that the investment paid off, with future benefits still to come.

‘In families most at risk of poverty, such as lone parent households, we observe higher self-esteem, less unhappiness and less risky behaviour among teenagers.

‘That’s not only a good thing for those young people today, but it should mean better life chances in the long-run too.’

‘As a result, child poverty looks to have fallen between 1997 and 2010 regardless of where precisely we set the relative poverty line.’

‘The warnings for the current government are crystal clear.

‘Some critics of the targets to reduce child poverty say we should downsize our ambition and move the goalposts.

‘But that would destroy the life chances of millions of children and force future governments and taxpayers to pick up the bill for the massive and miserable social and economic costs of poverty.

‘As the Prime Minister has said, child poverty is a moral disgrace and an economic waste.

‘Other countries in Europe already have the low levels of child poverty we are targeting, so nobody should make excuses for why we can’t do better for British children.’"

It would have been better if the sources you quote had taken all relevant factors into account. Like eg the debt burden of £700bn and rising.

"looks to have" is hardly scientific proof.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Right I worked for DWP for 5 years so I believe I know a little bit more about the benefits systems than the next person.

I'd go as far as saying that it angers me to read people's attitudes towards benefits. People only read about the sensationalist stories printed by the red tops.

To say someone would pop out a child for the sake of getting their £20 a week is ridiculous, I agree that "some" people will keep having kids for all the other benefits that they'd get. Years ago you could claim income support as a lone parent until your child turned 16, what happened when people's kids turned 16, the lone parents claiming income support coincidently then became ill and needed to claim incapacity benefit. Would still be the same amount of money but abusing the system nonetheless, the age of claiming income support as a lone parent has come down drastically, I think it stops now when your child turns 4 and then you have to go onto job seekers allowance as your child should be in school and you "should" be able to find some work.

Child benefit is capped, it reduces with each child born and in households earning 80K* (dependant on the area) there is no entitlement to claim child benefit.

I don't think taking money off the people that need it most is the best way to save money, not when there's other things they could do.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Didn't child povert actually go up during 13 years of Nu-Labour?

Maybe it's the (utterly wank) definition that's the cause?

No.

‘Claims that money was thrown into tax credits with little measurable return are simply mistaken, as the evidence shows that the investment paid off, with future benefits still to come.

‘In families most at risk of poverty, such as lone parent households, we observe higher self-esteem, less unhappiness and less risky behaviour among teenagers.

‘That’s not only a good thing for those young people today, but it should mean better life chances in the long-run too.’

‘As a result, child poverty looks to have fallen between 1997 and 2010 regardless of where precisely we set the relative poverty line.’

‘The warnings for the current government are crystal clear.

‘Some critics of the targets to reduce child poverty say we should downsize our ambition and move the goalposts.

‘But that would destroy the life chances of millions of children and force future governments and taxpayers to pick up the bill for the massive and miserable social and economic costs of poverty.

‘As the Prime Minister has said, child poverty is a moral disgrace and an economic waste.

‘Other countries in Europe already have the low levels of child poverty we are targeting, so nobody should make excuses for why we can’t do better for British children.’

It would have been better if the sources you quote had taken all relevant factors into account. Like eg the debt burden of £700bn and rising.

"looks to have" is hardly scientific proof. "

Read it properly, then reply to me.

This government has cut back on most social welfare and the debt burden had risen, so what went wrong? Cutting welfare didn't help the economy, we also lost our triple A rating.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal? "

I was asking for opinions (and, boy, have I got some.) Is simply scrapping child benefit a reasonable idea or would that be an issue? I do know that introducing means tested benefits can be inefficient in that they often cost so much to administer. But does a household earing £50k a year need it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *B9 QueenWoman over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal?

That household could be led by an abusive man withholding money from his wife and children.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal?

That household could be led by an abusive man withholding money from his wife and children."

Pigs could also fly, in which case most pork farmers could get many more animals to the acre.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal?

Some might, some might not. Depends on their other income and their outgoings.

I do know some people really rely on any money they get (yes even when working) and £20 would make a huge difference to them if they didn't get that money. It's there to make sure the child doesn't go without, end of. And a responsible parent will always put their childs basic needs first.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As it stands it is an important benefit for one of the most important sectors of society.

Yes some people can abuse that but they can abuse any form of benefit. What do we do as a forward thinking society? Deny everyone? Then we would end up in the bad old days of the Poor Law Guardians.

Personally, I do not begrudge one penny of my tax and NI being used as a safety net for those who are disadvantaged in our society.

It was found that there were many abused women with well off husbands who were deliberately left without money. That's one reason why it was a universal benefit for all women with children.

Not sure if that's the case now or if it's given to the male in any relationship.

It makes sense to me. It's a way of mitigating neglect of children.

And it can't be means tested - what terrified woman would claim it and declare abuse or neglect? Hence the universal element of the benefit. "

Either parent can claim child benefit. The claiming parent has to stop the claim if the other parent wants to claim it (say custody of the child went to the other parent for example).

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *isandreTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

I must admit I'm a bit surprised at people who aren't aware such a lot of people are really struggling. £20 a week is massive to them.

I think a household earning £50k still gets child benefit but has to pay tax on it. I may be wrong on that though.

The thing about taxes and benefits is that they need to be easy to administrate and collect in order to be worth it. Child benefit fits that criteria.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal?

Some might, some might not. Depends on their other income and their outgoings.

Just a thought. I do know that circumstances change but would a responsible parent not make sure that he or she had sufficient income before making such a major committment?

I was a dog owner and made sure that I had sufficient resources to pay for her food, upkeep and vets bills before committing myself to taking her on.

That was without taxpayer funded Dog Benefit.

Facetious to an extent but ... What do folk think?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal?

Some might, some might not. Depends on their other income and their outgoings.

Just a thought. I do know that circumstances change but would a responsible parent not make sure that he or she had sufficient income before making such a major committment?

I was a dog owner and made sure that I had sufficient resources to pay for her food, upkeep and vets bills before committing myself to taking her on.

That was without taxpayer funded Dog Benefit.

Facetious to an extent but ... What do folk think?"

Another strawman. Here's mine: We put down unwanted dogs, are you proposing we put down kids when we can't afford them?

What sufficient income should they have then and when are they supposed to get rid of their kids after their circumstances change?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal?

Some might, some might not. Depends on their other income and their outgoings.

Just a thought. I do know that circumstances change but would a responsible parent not make sure that he or she had sufficient income before making such a major committment?

I was a dog owner and made sure that I had sufficient resources to pay for her food, upkeep and vets bills before committing myself to taking her on.

That was without taxpayer funded Dog Benefit.

Facetious to an extent but ... What do folk think?"

How many goldfish could your dog eat each day?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

child benefit should be stopped for all new claimants! why should hard working tax payers finance all the council estate baby farms up and down the country ? if you cant afford to bring up kids dont bloody well have em.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal?

Some might, some might not. Depends on their other income and their outgoings.

Just a thought. I do know that circumstances change but would a responsible parent not make sure that he or she had sufficient income before making such a major committment?

I was a dog owner and made sure that I had sufficient resources to pay for her food, upkeep and vets bills before committing myself to taking her on.

That was without taxpayer funded Dog Benefit.

Facetious to an extent but ... What do folk think?

Another strawman. Here's mine: We put down unwanted dogs, are you proposing we put down kids when we can't afford them?

What sufficient income should they have then and when are they supposed to get rid of their kids after their circumstances change?

We certainly try not to put down unwanted dogs. And I believe the same is true of children. Universal credit, if administered correctly, might be the solution ... But is child benefit the right way? I really am just enquiring as to why we pay a set amount (or any amount) to parents who decide to bring children into this world.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"child benefit should be stopped for all new claimants! why should hard working tax payers finance all the council estate baby farms up and down the country ? if you cant afford to bring up kids dont bloody well have em. "

Seems like a good idea.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ig1gaz1Man over a year ago

bradford

as stated by _b9 queen child benefit was instigated due to the mothers quoting the fathers pissed it up against the wall yet the government wanted the children to have an education for the work place due to our industrial age in the work place better education or known better as trainee or apprentice within there required fields the starting age of then in the above jobs was 14-15 year old changed by 10 years too 15

child benefit is means tested if you claim income support or jobseekers otherwise you would get 180.00 instead your dropped down to 150.00 a week as its taken into account by income support

"Just to clarify that that different sex children can share a room until one turns 10 and same sex until one turns 18 "

that rule changes if you have step children involved and is different depending on the area that you live in as i found out due to my son in my care was a step child

the one ting that has changed is mothers caring for the children that they bring up they now get there stamp paid for in the period that they are caring for children this also applies to men who are a lone parents as well

as at one time they didnt get there stamp paid for whilst they was bringing children up therefore they was given less pension when they got to pension age

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What do you mean by "get rid of the monetary system." Are you proposing that we scrap the cash system and go back to bartering? Is that not a rather radical solution to the alleged issue?

What's your proposal?

Some might, some might not. Depends on their other income and their outgoings.

Just a thought. I do know that circumstances change but would a responsible parent not make sure that he or she had sufficient income before making such a major committment?

I was a dog owner and made sure that I had sufficient resources to pay for her food, upkeep and vets bills before committing myself to taking her on.

That was without taxpayer funded Dog Benefit.

Facetious to an extent but ... What do folk think?

Another strawman. Here's mine: We put down unwanted dogs, are you proposing we put down kids when we can't afford them?

What sufficient income should they have then and when are they supposed to get rid of their kids after their circumstances change?

So glad i have two meets tonight...

It's for the children, so they don't need to work and can go to school.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ig1gaz1Man over a year ago

bradford

if thats true why dont we knock the child tax credits on the head as well as the working tax credits

as these are the new payments that most people dont need

i disagree with taking away the child payment as its there for the child and not for the parents to spend or piss it against the wall

as a single parent myself the money in the income support was shared in the household the child money was spent on the children on what they needed including school trips that have become more expensive even though some trips are free a price tag of 15.00 per child is somewhat extortion when the venue is free to go into the place

thats my opinion

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A baby farm ? Because it's a council estate ? Talk about tarring people with a brush. People's circumstances change. What about the parents with a child, the Dad got injured in an accident so can't work. They lose their house. They are put into adapted social housing? The ex soldier with a family made redundant from the army, no longer eligible for armed forces housing and applies for social housing. We seem to have this mis guided perception that council estates are full of single mothers , immigrants and no one works ! That's just the propaganda we are fed! The reality is far different !

Child benefit made no difference to my decision to have children. Perhaps when Universal Credit comes in, if they ever manage it, it will get added to the melting pot.

The issue is, as always , if you penalise the parents, by stopping it after so many children, it's actually the children that are most affected.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

There does seem (on the basis of the majority of posted replies) to be a general expectation of child benefit. Really, this is not a benefits fraud post. I was just wondering why parents expect to be paid for having a child? Yes, it may be selfish. I pay for many things that are of no self-interest to me, including children's education (though I can see a potential benefit there). But paying a set amount to a person because, and just because, they have a child? Is it right? Does it achieve a function in society?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There does seem (on the basis of the majority of posted replies) to be a general expectation of child benefit. Really, this is not a benefits fraud post. I was just wondering why parents expect to be paid for having a child? Yes, it may be selfish. I pay for many things that are of no self-interest to me, including children's education (though I can see a potential benefit there). But paying a set amount to a person because, and just because, they have a child? Is it right? Does it achieve a function in society?"

It's like anything though, some people are poorly and use the NHS loads , I don't begrudge it as it all evens out in the end. If we stop child benefit , how much does that save ? What do you want the money to go on instead ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I am not advocating anything. I am just enquiring. Maybe it might be better spent on our education system? Or our housing? Or the NHS?

It is a lot of money just (just?) to pay out to every parent, is it not? 12 billion pounds.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ig1gaz1Man over a year ago

bradford

" Because it's a council estate ? Talk about tarring people with a brush. People's circumstances change. What about the parents with a child, the Dad got injured in an accident so can't work. They lose their house. They are put into adapted social housing? The ex soldier with a family made redundant from the army, no longer eligible for armed forces housing and applies for social housing. We seem to have this mis guided perception that council estates are full of single mothers , immigrants and no one works ! That's just the propaganda we are fed! The reality is far different ! "

also a council estate house is much cheaper in rent compared to a private landlord

what would cost 88.00 or 92.00 in rent on the estate is actually saving the tax payer

whilst the private system the rent is 120.00-130.00 a week rent and you want to believe propaganda

the ex council system is now bringing it into line with the private sector oh and the above quotes are for the same house in the same street and both 3 bedrooms

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

also a council estate house is much cheaper in rent compared to a private landlord

what would cost 88.00 or 92.00 in rent on the estate is actually saving the tax payer

whilst the private system the rent is 120.00-130.00 a week rent and you want to believe propaganda

the ex council system is now bringing it into line with the private sector oh and the above quotes are for the same house in the same street and both 3 bedrooms "

All good feedback, but child benefit? That is what the post is about.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools. "

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

I like Child Benefit, it makes logical sense to me.

For the first 12 yrs of my working life, I paid for it, but didn't need it. Once we had children, especially for the period we were down to just my wage, we were poor and needed it. In a few more years we will no longer get it, but still pay for it.

So, over my lifetime, it feels cost neutral to the state, I simply am borrowing from my past/future self, when we were flush.

Those people who are unable, or choose not to have children, may feel they will benefit from our children when they are older, but nevertheless I am still grateful for them paying towards the system.

I am unsure whether the current system of clawing it back from the better-off is worth the additional admin cost, and am happy to leave that decision to others.

Mr ddc

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?"

What's my _iew on child benefit being paid to households on incomes less than 80K per annum and decreasing with each child? Hmm my _iew is let them have it, it certainly isn't an incentive to have a child for anybody regardless of their level of intelligence. The people that play the system know how much they're entitled to, they know how much they'll get from income support, child tax and the increase in housing benefit, those benefits there are the big guns, the reasons they pop out the kids, they don't do it for the £20 a week child benefit.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

I don't understand. It is not an incentive, and I am not sure we need incentives to increase our population, so why is paying people to have children a good thing? Genuinely puzzled.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

I don't understand. It is not an incentive, and I am not sure we need incentives to increase our population, so why is paying people to have children a good thing? Genuinely puzzled."

If you read above , I don't think anyone with children had them for child benefit purposes !

I did 5 rounds of IVF for one child and a 6th for the second costing about £20k, child benefit wasn't my motivator ! I'm sure it's very few peoples ! I was just thankful to end up having children at all.

It's a small amount compared to other benefits , tax credits , housing benefit, is far higher for larger families . But not everyone is motivated by money! If it's removed, so be it, it's appreciated in my house but not the be all and end all.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

I don't understand. It is not an incentive, and I am not sure we need incentives to increase our population, so why is paying people to have children a good thing? Genuinely puzzled."

It began as an encouragement to have kids post WWII and importantly it was paid to the mother.

There's no longer any need to increase the population but you wouldn't want to be the Chancellor who abolishes Child Benefit.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"I must admit I'm a bit surprised at people who aren't aware such a lot of people are really struggling. £20 a week is massive to them.

I think a household earning £50k still gets child benefit but has to pay tax on it. I may be wrong on that though.

The thing about taxes and benefits is that they need to be easy to administrate and collect in order to be worth it. Child benefit fits that criteria."

If one of the parents/guardians is paying higher rate tax then the full child benefit is clawed back through the tax system. That is ALL of it, not just the tax on it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

20 pound bearly covers baby milk and nappies,why would they run in for another?

Child tax credits,i have heard some say they will have another child to get that

sickened me.

Her

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"20 pound bearly covers baby milk and nappies,why would they run in for another?

Child tax credits,i have heard some say they will have another child to get that

sickened me.

Her"

Because its not just £20 is it, its all the other hand outs. Baby milk is free so is breast milk, and they can shop around for the cheapest nappies.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

I've heard, no proof mind, that some child deaths go unreported in order to secure ongoing Child Benefit payment.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

I don't understand. It is not an incentive, and I am not sure we need incentives to increase our population, so why is paying people to have children a good thing? Genuinely puzzled."

It's not, and never was, about paying people to have kids. The main point about Child Benefit, which was also in the Family Allowance which it replaced, is that it is paid to the primary career of the child, regardless of the partner's earnings.

In most cases this makes little difference but in some it can be crucial. For this reason alone it's worth keeping.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"20 pound bearly covers baby milk and nappies,why would they run in for another?

Child tax credits,i have heard some say they will have another child to get that

sickened me.

Her

Because its not just £20 is it, its all the other hand outs. Baby milk is free so is breast milk, and they can shop around for the cheapest nappies."
For single mothers on benefits the milk is free, and as for putting cheap nappies on their backside is false ecomony, whatever walk of life.

Her

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"20 pound bearly covers baby milk and nappies,why would they run in for another?

Child tax credits,i have heard some say they will have another child to get that

sickened me.

Her

Because its not just £20 is it, its all the other hand outs. Baby milk is free so is breast milk, and they can shop around for the cheapest nappies."

It's paid until 18 though isn't it when in education. Baby formula isn't free to most people ,it can be subsidised at times . Breast milk is, I agree.

Most parents do the best they can for their children ! Don't use them as cash cows. Yet again , the small minority are focused on , rather than the vast majority of good parents.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"20 pound bearly covers baby milk and nappies,why would they run in for another?

Child tax credits,i have heard some say they will have another child to get that

sickened me.

Her

Because its not just £20 is it, its all the other hand outs. Baby milk is free so is breast milk, and they can shop around for the cheapest nappies.For single mothers on benefits the milk is free, and as for putting cheap nappies on their backside is false ecomony, whatever walk of life.

Her"

When my son was born I started off using expensive nappies then a friend recommended boots own make which were much cheaper and just as good.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

I don't understand. It is not an incentive, and I am not sure we need incentives to increase our population, so why is paying people to have children a good thing? Genuinely puzzled.

In most cases this makes little difference but in some it can be crucial. For this reason alone it's worth keeping."

When Family Allowance was introduced it WAS about paying people to have babies to replace the population lost in WWII. Popularly known as baby boomers.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

Child benefit made no difference to my decision to have children. Perhaps when Universal Credit comes in, if they ever manage it, it will get added to the melting pot.

The issue is, as always , if you penalise the parents, by stopping it after so many children, it's actually the children that are most affected. "

Although not doing anything could encourage them to carry on with bad habits and bring more children into poverty. Difficult really to know what's best.

But either way I really don't think £20 a week is much motivation for anyone to do anything.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

£20 a week may not seem much but if you are on benefit its still quite a lot of money.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"20 pound bearly covers baby milk and nappies,why would they run in for another?

Child tax credits,i have heard some say they will have another child to get that

sickened me.

Her

Because its not just £20 is it, its all the other hand outs. Baby milk is free so is breast milk, and they can shop around for the cheapest nappies.

It's paid until 18 though isn't it when in education. Baby formula isn't free to most people ,it can be subsidised at times . Breast milk is, I agree.

Most parents do the best they can for their children ! Don't use them as cash cows. Yet again , the small minority are focused on , rather than the vast majority of good parents. "
Sorry i missed a bit out lol, free to parents on benefits, yes i agree, some do their utmost best out whatever they have, the small minority do spoil it for others.

Most single mothers get tarred with the same brush, some woman have not asked for the father to run off, however some do it on purpose to claim these benefits i have heard them.

Her

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

I don't understand. It is not an incentive, and I am not sure we need incentives to increase our population, so why is paying people to have children a good thing? Genuinely puzzled.

In most cases this makes little difference but in some it can be crucial. For this reason alone it's worth keeping.

When Family Allowance was introduced it WAS about paying people to have babies to replace the population lost in WWII. Popularly known as baby boomers."

No. It was to replace child tax rebates and allowances that had been around in one form or another for getting on for 200 years.

As tax rebates could only be paid to people who paid tax and paid more to people on higher tax rates (earning more) it was felt a better idea to scrap them and pay an allowance to the primary career.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"£20 a week may not seem much but if you are on benefit its still quite a lot of money."

But hardly enough to motivate someone to pop a kid for it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"£20 a week may not seem much but if you are on benefit its still quite a lot of money.

But hardly enough to motivate someone to pop a kid for it."

Depends how intelligent they are though and like I said its not just the £20 its all the other hand outs and they know they wont end up sleeping on the streets like single people and ex service men.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

I don't understand. It is not an incentive, and I am not sure we need incentives to increase our population, so why is paying people to have children a good thing? Genuinely puzzled."

They aren't paying people to have children though, if you think like that what about incapacity benefit or ESA as it's now called, they are paying for people to have illness' or disabilities, job seekers allowance is paying people not to work, it's not even pay it's not a wage it's the minimum amount the government says that a person needs to survive on.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"£20 a week may not seem much but if you are on benefit its still quite a lot of money.

But hardly enough to motivate someone to pop a kid for it.

Depends how intelligent they are though and like I said its not just the £20 its all the other hand outs and they know they wont end up sleeping on the streets like single people and ex service men.

I'm not saying that some aren't motivated by the thought of never having work and living a life on benefits. I just don't believe that this universal benefit at £20 would be the deciding factor.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"£20 a week may not seem much but if you are on benefit its still quite a lot of money.

But hardly enough to motivate someone to pop a kid for it.

Depends how intelligent they are though and like I said its not just the £20 its all the other hand outs and they know they wont end up sleeping on the streets like single people and ex service men.

I'm not saying that some aren't motivated by the thought of never having work and living a life on benefits. I just don't believe that this universal benefit at £20 would be the deciding factor."

yes I think I have got that now. thanks.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"So many people I'd like to give a dry slap to on this thread. Ignorant, uneducated fools.

Why? I hear your objection but what is your _iew?

I don't understand. It is not an incentive, and I am not sure we need incentives to increase our population, so why is paying people to have children a good thing? Genuinely puzzled.

They aren't paying people to have children though, if you think like that what about incapacity benefit or ESA as it's now called, they are paying for people to have illness' or disabilities, job seekers allowance is paying people not to work, "
I think you'll find there's quite a lot of people who would say you're right, why pay them to be unemployed, I'll etc.
" it's not even pay it's not a wage it's the minimum amount the government says that a person needs to survive on.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm a hard working tax payer who lives in social housing. When I was pregnant, I was married but wasn't expecting my husband to dump me and fuck off to oz. Should I have had an abortion or given him up for adoption because I suddenly became a single parent?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Thing is people don't choose to have disabilities and stuff but they can choose not to breed its not that difficult not too.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

Of course not. But you would have got the same amount of Child Benefit regardless. You maybe getting mixed up with other benefits which, as a single mother you would be entitled to.

And that's the real question here; should everyone get Child Benefit at the same rate regardless of their need?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I am happy to contribute to other people's children, they are our future

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic