# Government considering cap on child benefits



## amy_b (18 November 2011)

from radio 2 news this morning - 
'&#8206;the government is considering a cap on child benefits. the cap will be four children' 
....*FOUR KIDS*?!!!!!!!  
im handing my notice in, my reason will be 'to pursue a career in child bearing!!'
RIDICULOUS!!!


----------



## Aoibhin (18 November 2011)

why is 4 rediculous? i have 3 (not all through choice!)

i do however agree that the child benefit requires an overhall, cap on number of kids paying out OK, household salary limit too IMO (have freinds who both earn over £64k a year & get CB for their 2 kids on top)


----------



## amy_b (18 November 2011)

absolutely NO problem with people having four kids! have as many as you like! but people that cant afford to pay for the kid/s they have having up to four subsidised by the government, Im not such a fan of! I think a cap at 2 is fair?!
thats mental about the people you know being paid CB!!


----------



## Aoibhin (18 November 2011)

i know wrong isnt it, CB is paid out on every child at present regardless of familys income.   i wonder some months how we manage 3 but we do & without the NEED to rely on CB ect...  that goes into the account for school trips/hobbys/MORE shoes, all the nicer things that the kid might want to do. 

sorry if i came across harsh in my reply above but ive had someone have a go a me for having 3 kids under 5 (i tend to get defensive now)


----------



## amy_b (18 November 2011)

mental! I agree with you, there should be a cap on parents income aswel! 
thats a better way of using it IMO rather than nice new clothes or nights out that the rest of us cant afford!
and sod the people that have a go at you.


----------



## skint1 (18 November 2011)

In my humble opinion it isn't that benefits are too high, they are not, it is that wages are too low until we can fix that we're going to get issues like this all the time. 

It seem to me that for some (usually poor and with no support from a man) women it really is a wise career move to decide to breed, and in order to make that pay enough to do more than subsist  you need to have at least 3 kids, anything below that is not lucrative enough, even allowing for the housing benefit and council tax benefit. I always wonder if the women having the big families consider it in those terms or if they just keep having kids because they like having big families.

eta- I am only referring to single women not in work, although family tax credit is also nothing to be sneezed at


----------



## EmmasMummy (19 November 2011)

skint1 said:



			In my humble opinion it isn't that benefits are too high, they are not, it is that wages are too low until we can fix that we're going to get issues like this all the time. 

It seem to me that for some (usually poor and with no support from a man) women it really is a wise career move to decide to breed, and in order to make that pay enough to do more than subsist  you need to have at least 3 kids, anything below that is not lucrative enough, even allowing for the housing benefit and council tax benefit. I always wonder if the women having the big families consider it in those terms or if they just keep having kids because they like having big families.

eta- I am only referring to single women not in work, although family tax credit is also nothing to be sneezed at
		
Click to expand...


If you are well off, or dog poor you are in a better position in this world.  If we earned pennies we would get our rent paid and CT paid and be left with more than we are after we are paid.  If we were paid more we woul dbe able to not live in a **** hole. but we are in the middle bracket.  We do not earn enough to buy a house - max mortgage we could get is £120k, up here that gets us a 1 bed flat, just - but too much for any help (not that we really need it) but we are surviving, not living.  My best chance at owning a house is if my parents pass, and so I can see myself in the next  20-30 years leaving employment to nurse them.

So there is a chance that financially we will not be able to have a second child, and whilst not a necessity, it has started to upset me as there are only 4 older kids at LO nursery with no siblings, and she keeps asking me where her sister is, and can x be her sister and going on that she wants a sister.  I really want ot have another,but that will mean we will be down £700 a month.........but still earning too much for any help and will possibly put ourselves into poverty.................

We are right in the middle .


----------



## ClassicG&T (19 November 2011)

If you cannot afford kids, why have them!? nothing wrong with child benefits but when people have waaaay to many kids and complain they cant afford them you just think "maybe you should have thought it through before you jumped into bed with your new lad".

and we have a population problem, too many people. put a limit on how many kids you have for ONE generation and you will quarter if not half the population.


----------



## scrunchie (19 November 2011)

wewillshowyou said:



			If you cannot afford kids, why have them!? nothing wrong with child benefits but when people have waaaay to many kids and complain they cant afford them you just think "maybe you should have thought it through before you jumped into bed with your new lad".

*and we have a population problem, too many people. put a limit on how many kids you have for ONE generation and you will quarter if not half the population.*

Click to expand...

And how will that happen?

Forced abortion? Murdering excess babies? Enforced sterilisation?

What about rape victims? IVF mothers who have multiple births? Twins?

Child benefit is for everyone not just for the chav babyfarms. I've always thought it should be means tested and limited. If they decide to go ahead with capping it at 4, I'm in full agreeance to that.


----------



## rockysmum (19 November 2011)

I will admit to not knowing much about this, but I understood that things such as child benefit were taken into account when people are paid other benefits.

Surely that will mean if you are living on benefits a reduction in child benefit will not make any difference as other benefits will be increased.  

If thats true then the only people to suffer will be those who are working.  The higher income people who can actually afford that many kids will hardly notice.  The only ones to really suffer will be the ones on lower wages who actually bother to work rather than live on benefits.

If all of the above is right, please tell me if its not, would that be yet another incentive not to bother getting a job.


----------



## mon (19 November 2011)

Cap to two apart from special circumstances eg twins as plenty of ways of stopping having kids, this country has a large enough population anyway.


----------



## perfect11s (19 November 2011)

four is too many, cap it at 2  why should we subsidise breeding!!! the worlds and this countrys population is rapidly becoming unsustanable, and   maybe we should only allow child benifits for people who dont claim other benifits and or have a job???? that would help  working people
and not the feckless underclass.......


----------



## FMM (19 November 2011)

OK.  And now from the other side of the coin.

I am a single parent bringing my child up on my own - I am in the higher tax bracket. This means in 2013 I will lose the child benefit of around £80 a month.

This is the same child benefit that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD WHO LIVED IN ENGLAND AS A CHILD got.  Irrespective of whether your parents needed it financially or not - it was just given to them.    You don't even have to apply for it - once your birth was registered your parents just got the money. So for those of you who say that it should be removed from those who didn't need it, and whose parents were in the higher tax bracket - would you consider paying it back to the government now? 

I took out a mortgage taking that £80 into consideration.  I also assumed (wrongly) that my salary would increase in line with other costs - it hasn't (the same as many others) - so the removal of that £80 is actually going to make quite a difference to me and many other single parents who earn just into the higher rate tax bracket.  

Finally.  If two people living together earn slightly under the cap (currently around £42,000) they can earn £84,000 and still receive child benefit.

I can (as a single parent) earn, £43,000 and LOSE the child benefit.

Oh - one more thing. When you have two parents, you need far fewer external child care facilities.  If one parent can't do pick up, then the other usually can.  You don't have to pay for the child to stay at school or go to another carer whilst you are at work busy earning your higher rate tax money.  So the single parent who is a higher rate tax payer is knocked yet again.  

I can live with the benefit being removed, PROVIDING families who go way over the £42k limit don't get it either.



How is that fair?

This whole discussion makes me mad to boiling point

And as far as having four children or more - good luck to you!!!!!  It is not even a matter of cost, it is more a matter of time!!!


----------



## FairyLights (19 November 2011)

The whole benefits system needs a massive overhaul and minimum wage should rise to £8.50 an hour.


----------



## Tinseltoes (19 November 2011)

I can understand why they want to cap ctc and cb after 4 kids,as a lot of people do take advantage. 
I know someone who has 8 kids and neither of the parents work,they have a better life than most people I know who are working.They dont pay rent/council tax. 
I dont work but my hubby does and we cannot afford to buy our own property.
I do get mad at these people who wont work and keep having loads of kids and the goverment gives them loads of money. Grrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Orangehorse (19 November 2011)

The whole pointn of child benefit was that it was paid, in cash, directly to the mother.  Even in well families, where the husband might be earning a lot, it didn't mean that he was giving his wife a lot of housekeeping money (this was back in the days when a mother didn't necessarily have to keep working after having a baby).  It was not means tested as it was considered not cost-effective, simpler and cheaper just to give it to every mother.


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (19 November 2011)

If You Cannot Feed Them Dont Breed Them.Iit seems a Career move a rake of Brats by Numerous fathers = House furniture and Benefits for Life this is the whole problem with this Country through taxation Penalise those that will Work and give the money to those that wont work


----------



## Piglet (19 November 2011)

I think we are very lucky in this country, friend of mine now lives in South Africa (I know her choice she married a South African) and they have just had a baby, she gets NO benefits, had to pay for the bed in the hospital, injections etc. Sometimes we do rather take for granted the benefits, NHS etc in this country


----------



## christine48 (19 November 2011)

They should stop a lot of the benefits then maybe people would get off of their backsides and look for a job!


----------



## marmalade76 (19 November 2011)

I think this story actually related to child tax credit rather than child benefit and an excellent idea IMO, although I think the cut off point should be lower at two children.


----------



## skint1 (19 November 2011)

FMM said:



			OK.  And now from the other side of the coin.

I am a single parent bringing my child up on my own - I am in the higher tax bracket. This means in 2013 I will lose the child benefit of around £80 a month.

This is the same child benefit that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD WHO LIVED IN ENGLAND AS A CHILD got.  Irrespective of whether your parents needed it financially or not - it was just given to them.    You don't even have to apply for it - once your birth was registered your parents just got the money. So for those of you who say that it should be removed from those who didn't need it, and whose parents were in the higher tax bracket - would you consider paying it back to the government now? 

I took out a mortgage taking that £80 into consideration.  I also assumed (wrongly) that my salary would increase in line with other costs - it hasn't (the same as many others) - so the removal of that £80 is actually going to make quite a difference to me and many other single parents who earn just into the higher rate tax bracket.  

Finally.  If two people living together earn slightly under the cap (currently around £42,000) they can earn £84,000 and still receive child benefit.

I can (as a single parent) earn, £43,000 and LOSE the child benefit.

Oh - one more thing. When you have two parents, you need far fewer external child care facilities.  If one parent can't do pick up, then the other usually can.  You don't have to pay for the child to stay at school or go to another carer whilst you are at work busy earning your higher rate tax money.  So the single parent who is a higher rate tax payer is knocked yet again.  

I can live with the benefit being removed, PROVIDING families who go way over the £42k limit don't get it either.



How is that fair?

This whole discussion makes me mad to boiling point

And as far as having four children or more - good luck to you!!!!!  It is not even a matter of cost, it is more a matter of time!!!
		
Click to expand...

Hey if it were up to me I would set the cap a lot higher than that, and I'd do it on household rather than individual income.  I was a single parent with one child myself (but  earning around £19k) always earned too much to get much in the way of Family Tax Credit as when my daughter was young they didn't take childcare into account at all, so the child benefit was a real life saver to me. My daughter is 20 now and I still miss it,  but I would cap it at a much lower point than 4 children.


----------



## Northhorse (19 November 2011)

If the world is over-crowded, why are we paying people to have children?  As for being in the "higher tax bracket" and moaning about the loss of BENEFITS!!!  I earn less than 20k, get nothing by way of benefits and pay the taxes that give you those benefits!
Oh - and I had one child as I could'nt afford any more and to suggest paying back benefits received 15 years ago is simply insulting.


----------



## Endrete (21 November 2011)

The increase in the population in this country and the developing world is due to an ageing population.  

If we, as a nation, stop having children who is going to be paying taxes in 20 - 30 years time? Where will our state pension payments come from?  Remember that the taxes we are paying now go toward the pension payments of people who are retired now.  Our taxes dont get 'saved' for us to use later.  Less children, more old people, no money.  Maybe we should be encouraging proper retirement plans for EVERYONE, not relying soley on the government.  

Just a thought....


----------



## perfect11s (21 November 2011)

Endrete said:



			The increase in the population in this country and the developing world is due to an ageing population.  

If we, as a nation, stop having children who is going to be paying taxes in 20 - 30 years time? Where will our state pension payments come from?  Remember that the taxes we are paying now go toward the pension payments of people who are retired now.  Our taxes dont get 'saved' for us to use later.  Less children, more old people, no money.  Maybe we should be encouraging proper retirement plans for EVERYONE, not relying soley on the government.  

Just a thought....
		
Click to expand...

  Great post !!!! yes and if you are in debt borrow more money  that's  the answer


----------



## marmalade76 (21 November 2011)

Eeyore.1 said:



			I think we are very lucky in this country, friend of mine now lives in South Africa (I know her choice she married a South African) and they have just had a baby, she gets NO benefits, had to pay for the bed in the hospital, injections etc. Sometimes we do rather take for granted the benefits, NHS etc in this country
		
Click to expand...

Ahh, but..... 

My neighbours have moved here from SA (she & kids had dual citizenship, he had to apply to remain). Over there they were rich, had a large house, their own pool and employed servants. Over here all they can afford is a 3 bed ex-council semi with a 100k mortgage.

.....swings and roundabouts??


----------



## Maesfen (21 November 2011)

Not aimed at anyone personally but if you can't afford them, don't have them.  I'd stop all child benefit at a stroke and those already on it would be phased out earlier or if that's too harsh for some of you it would only be paid until they went to secondary school.


----------



## FMM (21 November 2011)

Northhorse said:



			If the world is over-crowded, why are we paying people to have children?  As for being in the "higher tax bracket" and moaning about the loss of BENEFITS!!!  I earn less than 20k, get nothing by way of benefits and pay the taxes that give you those benefits!
Oh - and I had one child as I could'nt afford any more and to suggest paying back benefits received 15 years ago is simply insulting.
		
Click to expand...

I believe you miss my point entirely.

YOU WERE GIVEN CHILD BENEFIT WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD SO YOU DID RECEIVE BENEFITS!!!  Then, when the children "you" are paying for get older, THEY will be paying benefits for the next generation.  Everyone had it, everyone gets it, then everyone pays for it.  Until now.

And I was not suggesting that YOU pay back benefits - where did I say that?

I see you live in Scotland.  I have no idea on house prices where you live, but where i am currently living, you would be looking at £180-£250k for a fairly average house.  So if you are a single parent with no income from a partner or ex, you would NEED to be earning a fair whack in order to get a mortgage and have somewhere to live.  I am moving to be nearer my family, and down there, I have seen two bedroom flats for £300k ...  salaries are worth more in some areas of the country than others in terms of buying power, yet everyone is taxed the same.

As a higher rate tax payer I will be paying waaay more tax than those on a marginally lower salary.

I, like many others, BUDGETTED to ensure that I live within my means. To then remove chunks of money that have been given to EVERY child in this country for decades will have a fairly major impact. 

As far as subsidising me over the past 10 years - I had been under the impression that my own large tax bill had been doing some of my own subsidising!!!

I am not asking for your sympathy - I am merely stating that the way the government is removing child benefit is unfair for single parents who a higher rate tax payers.


----------



## perfect11s (21 November 2011)

Maesfen said:



			Not aimed at anyone personally but if you can't afford them, don't have them.  I'd stop all child benefit at a stroke and those already on it would be phased out earlier or if that's too harsh for some of you it would only be paid until they went to secondary school.
		
Click to expand...

 Maesfan for PM !!!!


----------



## LynneB (21 November 2011)

Some of the posts here are incredibly insulting and confusing child benefit with mothers who are deemed as "spongers" living off benefits.  That isn't the case, every mother in the UK receives child benefit even if they work and earn over 100k per year (or are Royalty on much more!).  Some of those who are stating people shouldn't have them if they can't afford children, certainly took their child benefit when their own children were growing up.  Are some of you so morally wonderous that if you were given child benefit when you become parents that you would give it back out of principal?  I think not, you would take it and spend it as you see fit. For those who don't need it, put it in an account for your child each week so they have some college money or a deposit for a house when they grow up.


----------



## Maesfen (22 November 2011)

I've been trying to find out what the rate was for CB until 1989 when son left school but no joy from Google.  However, if it would make you feel better, then yes, I'll pay back all the CB I had for one son which was only £1 a week for some years - which we did put away for him and the paltry amount went towards his first car.  However at those rates I don't think it was quite enough for a deposit on a house even then.  Besides, I've paid more than what I ever got from CB in tax so I don't think I actually owe anyone anything from my handout.


----------



## FMM (22 November 2011)

Maesfen said:



			I've been trying to find out what the rate was for CB until 1989 when son left school but no joy from Google.  However, if it would make you feel better, then yes, I'll pay back all the CB I had for one son which was only £1 a week for some years - which we did put away for him and the paltry amount went towards his first car.  However at those rates I don't think it was quite enough for a deposit on a house even then.  Besides, I've paid more than what I ever got from CB in tax so I don't think I actually owe anyone anything from my handout.
		
Click to expand...


If child benefit had held the same value as a percentage of (rising) average earnings as in 1979 (around 5.2 per cent), in April 2006 children would have been getting around £22.85 per week, as opposed to the £17 per week which is what they actually received.

For reference
1979 - £4 a week
1984 - £7 a week
1991 - £9 a week
1998 - £11 a week
2007 - £17 a week
2011 - £20 a week


----------



## Magicmillbrook (22 November 2011)

I agreee the whole benefit system needs an overhall.  As a working family our CB is realy useful, particulalry as I have had no pay rise for 3 years now.  I thinks its unfair that joint incomes havent been taken into account when capping the wage limit at which it is paid

I think its great that we have a safety net in the form of benefits - in this current economic climate anyone of us could be made unemployed.  Its the folks who make a career of being on benefits that need to be stopped and I am not sure how that can be done.  I personaly think that if you are unenemployed you should get no increase in benefit if you choose to have more than one child whilst on benefit. Probelm is how would you enforce it.

I had my first daughter when I was a teenager.  I waited 18 years until I was in a strong enough finacial position to have a second.


----------



## Faithkat (28 November 2011)

FMM said:



			This is the same child benefit that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD WHO LIVED IN ENGLAND AS A CHILD got.  Irrespective of whether your parents needed it financially or not - it was just given to them.    You don't even have to apply for it - once your birth was registered your parents just got the money. So for those of you who say that it should be removed from those who didn't need it, and whose parents were in the higher tax bracket - would you consider paying it back to the government now?
		
Click to expand...


Ah, not so, I'm afraid.  Child benefit FOR THE FIRST CHILD was only introduced in the mid 1970s.  My son was born at the end of 1969 and we didn't get any "benefit" for him for quite a few years
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8041636/Child-Benefit-history.html

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/beveridge-report-child-benefit.htm


----------



## Spudlet (28 November 2011)

Who is penalised by this - the 'feckless parents', or the children, which after all have no control over who their parents are or how much money they have?


----------



## FairyLights (28 November 2011)

Child Benefit was brought in circa 1970 to replace Working Mans tax allowance. In ye olde days women were expected to give up work when they married and certainly when they had a child. [Children born out of wedlock were a rarity and mostly were put up for adoption.] . The womans husband paid less income tax as a married man then as a single man as the now had a wife and children to feed and clothe. It was decided circa 1970 to abolish this and pay the mother some money instead,so the husbands income tax went up, or simply didnt reduce at marriage. The idea being that the mother was more likely to spend the money on the children than the father was,who was accused of spending the tax rebate in the pub. I think it was Margret Castle who brought this in. Very insulting to a lot of fathers if you ask me,accusing them of drinking the money away.


----------



## Kat (28 November 2011)

This is all tinkering round the edges. It costs a load of money, gets everyone worked up and acheives nothing other than diverting attention. 

Child benefit is a pointless benefit and should be scrapped. It and all other "benefits" that are paid to those in employment should be scrapped and replaced with a tax allowance. 

What the government is doing is taking tax off you in your pay, then shuffling it about and giving it back to you after they have spent a load of cash moving it about and assessing whether you qualify for it etc. Pointless.


----------



## perfect11s (28 November 2011)

KristmasKatt said:



			This is all tinkering round the edges. It costs a load of money, gets everyone worked up and acheives nothing other than diverting attention. 

Child benefit is a pointless benefit and should be scrapped. It and all other "benefits" that are paid to those in employment should be scrapped and replaced with a tax allowance. 

What the government is doing is taking tax off you in your pay, then shuffling it about and giving it back to you after they have spent a load of cash moving it about and assessing whether you qualify for it etc. Pointless.
		
Click to expand...

 Arr But if you are a labour goverment you canot have enough feckless welfare dependents or penpushers thats votes dont you know!!!! thats why they (the leftys) hated the sale of council houses , because it lifted people up and gave the pride and selfsuficencey ..thats why labour let in so many immigrants it depresses wages and keeps the hoipol down and dependent on the state and the poorly paid imigrants need beninfits and are reliant on state handouts too and will vote acordingly as will the lazy penpushing pubic sector because they know a labour gov sprays money around at the public sector and quangos.....


----------



## FairyLights (28 November 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Arr But if you are a labour goverment you canot have enough feckless welfare dependents or penpushers thats votes dont you know!!!! thats why they (the leftys) hated the sale of council houses , because it lifted people up and gave the pride and selfsuficencey ..thats why labour let in so many immigrants it depresses wages and keeps the hoipol down and dependent on the state and the poorly paid imigrants need beninfits and are reliant on state handouts too and will vote acordingly as will the lazy penpushing pubic sector because they know a labour gov sprays money around at the public sector and quangos.....
		
Click to expand...

BRILLIANT POST As is KristmasKats.


----------



## Silent Knight (28 November 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Arr But if you are a labour goverment you canot have enough feckless welfare dependents or penpushers thats votes dont you know!!!! thats why they (the leftys) hated the sale of council houses , because it lifted people up and gave the pride and selfsuficencey ..thats why labour let in so many immigrants it depresses wages and keeps the hoipol down and dependent on the state and the poorly paid imigrants need beninfits and are reliant on state handouts too and will vote acordingly as will the lazy penpushing pubic sector because they know a labour gov sprays money around at the public sector and quangos.....
		
Click to expand...

Back fired though last time. Paying the lazy didn't work beause they couldn't be bothered to vote. 

Think the labour left a ticking time bomb for the Tories. All the future jobs fund places that were due to end last Summer etc. I'm sure they will be claiming to be able to  'save' us from the bad men trying to balance the books and cutting our child benefit


----------



## perfect11s (28 November 2011)

Ringworm the Red Nosed Reindeer said:



			Back fired though last time. Paying the lazy didn't work beause they couldn't be bothered to vote. 

Think the labour left a ticking time bomb for the Tories. All the future jobs fund places that were due to end last Summer etc. I'm sure they will be claiming to be able to  'save' us from the bad men trying to balance the books and cutting our child benefit
		
Click to expand...

 Yes sadly and people are stupid enough to vote for them!!! however cameron is far from perfect and looks like the cuts and savings are just enough to bail the boat out get us into deeper water!!! I think the real answer is to get out of the EU that would save us from most of our problems like imigration , paying into the eu and getting nothing but bussiness killing red tape and dictats .. taxes could be lower and we would be more competive in the world markets some of which are growing like mad for instance Brasil and India...and we could get some if not all of our fishing rights back under our control think of the jobs that would create....


----------



## FMM (28 November 2011)

Faithkat said:



			Ah, not so, I'm afraid.  Child benefit FOR THE FIRST CHILD was only introduced in the mid 1970s.  My son was born at the end of 1969 and we didn't get any "benefit" for him for quite a few years
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8041636/Child-Benefit-history.html

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/beveridge-report-child-benefit.htm

Click to expand...

It wasn't called child benefit before then, but there was still an allowance for having a child.


----------



## MagicMelon (29 November 2011)

sharon1959 said:



			I can understand why they want to cap ctc and cb after 4 kids,as a lot of people do take advantage. 
I know someone who has 8 kids and neither of the parents work,they have a better life than most people I know who are working.They dont pay rent/council tax. 
I dont work but my hubby does and we cannot afford to buy our own property.
I do get mad at these people who wont work and keep having loads of kids and the goverment gives them loads of money. Grrrrrrrrrrrr
		
Click to expand...

I think a cap at 2 or 3 kids is reasonable.  Ditto the above - as part of my job I see a lot of different types of houses and different classes of people.  I have seen so many couples (or single parents) with a zillion children who dont work.  I agree, they seem to live pretty cushy lives!  They always get given houses big enough for all their children (which they live in for free) and certainly dont seem to struggle - they normally have 1 or 2 decent enough cars and have the usual luxuries like Sky TV etc.  That IMO isn't fair.  Why are we paying these people to breed?  I have never claimed benefits (even job seekers allowance when I couldn't find a job for a year after uni) and dont believe anyone should be encouraged to do so.  A colleague has just begun working full time (just getting divorced from her husband who earns a decent salary), she has 2 children (10 and 13), she told me she's only very marginally better off working full time than not working at all (as her benefits have been greatly decreased/removed).  How is that encouraging people to go back to work or make sure they can afford to have children in the first place?!


----------



## Miss L Toe (29 November 2011)

Its  not only the CB to be considered,  each child in education costs the tax payer about £5K, per annum, which is why I get annoyed when I see them unemployed [and unemployable] after fifteen years of sponsored education!
I don't have any kids, so really the government should be paying me!
I keep meeting parents who tell me how well their kids are doing at council sponsored events, fair enough all children should have a good basis for their futures, but locally we were asked to pay £40 per horse to enter a school comp, plus £12 per class, so all in all it would cost about £140 pounds plus diesel, and we provide the horses!
We are going to a local jumping night instead, £12 per class, saving £80 just for that one event, so really its hardly a level playing field,


----------



## Faithkat (29 November 2011)

FMM said:



			It wasn't called child benefit before then, but there was still an allowance for having a child.
		
Click to expand...

Not for the first child, there wasn't.  I ought to know as it involved me and I never received anything in the way of benefits/allowances/call it what you will until he was 6 (in 1975)!!


----------



## Miss L Toe (29 November 2011)

Faithkat said:



			Not for the first child, there wasn't.  I ought to know as it involved me and I never received anything in the way of benefits/allowances/call it what you will until he was 6 (in 1975)!!
		
Click to expand...

PS In the race for perfection there should be a winning post.


----------



## noodle_ (1 December 2011)

personally i think if you have kids you should pay for them.....

Scrap all child benefits and give it in differnt forms - such as workers/working tax credits etc....

I dont have kids through choice.... and it pees me off im paying for everyone elses.


----------



## Pedantic (1 December 2011)

About time, maybe those with machine gun fannys will think a bit before having kids they can't afford and we end up paying to keep them, don't know if they noticed but the world is in a bit of financially difficulty at the minute, plus housing jobs food energy is all getting a bit short, 4 kids is enough for any family, it's not as if we need factory and cannon fodder for wars like in the dark ages, nobody is saying you "can't" have more, just "your" gonna pay for them yourself, excellent.


----------



## MadisonBelle (1 December 2011)

Maesfen said:



			Not aimed at anyone personally but if you can't afford them, don't have them.  I'd stop all child benefit at a stroke and those already on it would be phased out earlier or if that's too harsh for some of you it would only be paid until they went to secondary school.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree..................


----------



## DragonSlayer (1 December 2011)

~Shrieks hysterically yelling~

'.....think of the children! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!'...


----------



## Alec Swan (1 December 2011)

I want a new Ferrari,  I wonder if the State will buy me one.  Surely I'm entitled to it. 

I couldn't give a tuppeny stuff whether a family have 4 children,  or 44,  providing that they don't expect me to support their tribe.

The whole world's gone mad.  When I was young,  we had what we could afford.  Now?  It's "Don't worry,  society will pick up the pieces,  when it all goes wrong for you".  

Remove all child benefit,  for any woman who manages to get pregnant,  after tomorrow morning,  and then watch our expanding population fall.  Carry on as we are,  and this tiny Island will become London,  with a field in between it,  and Birmingham,  and every other city.

We cannot continue as we are.

Alec.


----------



## skint1 (1 December 2011)

I agree that we cannot continue as we are but we can't withdraw benefits all together overnight that would be cruel.  I think a cap is a more reasonable solution, if you want to share your capped child benefit/family tax credit (which I also think should be included)  between 2 or 22 kids that is up to you.  

Long term I personally believe we need more every day type jobs in this country and those jobs need to be secure and  pay a living wage, we also need more social housing of some kind and not just for desperate cases, so that people whether married single childless or not can have decent secure homes, this would be better for everyone in the long run and I believe it would save money in the long run.


----------



## perfect11s (1 December 2011)

skint1 said:



			I agree that we cannot continue as we are but we can't withdraw benefits all together overnight that would be cruel.  I think a cap is a more reasonable solution, if you want to share your capped child benefit/family tax credit (which I also think should be included)  between 2 or 22 kids that is up to you.  

Long term I personally believe we need more every day type jobs in this country and those jobs need to be secure and  pay a living wage, we also need more social housing of some kind and not just for desperate cases, so that people whether married single childless or not can have decent secure homes, this would be better for everyone in the long run and I believe it would save money in the long run.
		
Click to expand...

 Sadly idleness is rewarded, and there is a limitless amount of educated motivated migrants that are willing to work and better themselves. The way forward is to make work pay and get the welfare back as a safety
net for people who canot work or as a leg up to help them get back on their feet, not just so they can breed the next generation of work shy feckless chavs no questions asked.....


----------



## ofcourseyoucan (1 December 2011)

if you cant afford to feed them dont breed them..


----------



## Goldenstar (1 December 2011)

I think apart from education to 18 and healthcare more than 2 children and you should work out how to pay for them yourself.


----------



## scrunchie (1 December 2011)

I don't want to sound like a raving conspiracy theorist loon but can nobody here see why the government pay things like child benefit etc?

The big world players see a big population as a mark of wealth and power. After all, you can't go to war without any cannon fodder. They are basically paying you to have children to ensure the country's future. It's got diddly squat to do with the welfare of the "common people". 

A single people and childless couples are nothing more than a source of income. That's why there's few handouts or tax breaks out there for them.

But now, someone has counted the recorded population and suddenly the government are panicking. How will we feed so many etc? Tbh it's something they should have thought about a lot sooner.


----------



## Fantasy_World (1 December 2011)

Cap should be on 2 children in my opinion. Having the benefit system that we do in this country just encourages people to have sprog after sprog. I think if people TRULY had to pay for THEIR own children then they may not be so keen to part the legs, and pop one in and another thing out.
The child benefit system is not means tested at the moment but I think it should be.
A good overall of the CB is needed.
Have it as a means tested benefit and also cap it so it's payable for a maximum of two children only.


----------



## Shazzababs (6 December 2011)

Gonna get lynched for this, but I've always thought that this would be a good idea:

Get rid of all Child Benefits\Credits and instead funding\subsidising child care from 8am to 6pm for all children under 12 whose parents desire it.  With the amount of sessions\level of subsidy you get based on both the fewest number of hours any adult in the household works and the household income.  

Therefore people on benefits who are home all day can look after their own kids, and those who want and do work get help with child care WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK.  Yes it would be expensive, but I'm sure lots of people would find it easier to get work which would reduce the benefits bill.


----------



## Quadro (6 December 2011)

Sorry but i don't think we should have child benefits at all. Having children is a choie that should be made when you are in a suitable finnancial place. 
In this day and age there is no excuse for "accidents" we have plenty of contraception choices at various steps along the way!
Q


----------



## Goldenstar (6 December 2011)

KristmasKatt said:



			This is all tinkering round the edges. It costs a load of money, gets everyone worked up and acheives nothing other than diverting attention. 

Child benefit is a pointless benefit and should be scrapped. It and all other "benefits" that are paid to those in employment should be scrapped and replaced with a tax allowance. 

What the government is doing is taking tax off you in your pay, then shuffling it about and giving it back to you after they have spent a load of cash moving it about and assessing whether you qualify for it etc. Pointless.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on Money paid to the government losses energy as passes through the system far better let people keep more of their own money and decide how to spend it, it's a form of government control.


----------



## Miss L Toe (9 December 2011)

skint1 said:



			I agree that we cannot continue as we are but we can't withdraw benefits all together overnight that would be cruel.  I think a cap is a more reasonable solution, if you want to share your capped child benefit/family tax credit (which I also think should be included)  between 2 or 22 kids that is up to you.  

Long term I personally believe we need more every day type jobs in this country and those jobs need to be secure and  pay a living wage, we also need more social housing of some kind and not just for desperate cases, so that people whether married single childless or not can have decent secure homes, this would be better for everyone in the long run and I believe it would save money in the long run.
		
Click to expand...

What about single childless people, why should they not have social housing? They have no back up.
A living wage? thought that the minimum wage was there to do that?
As a self employed person I can assure you that I cannot run a business and employ people with all the costs involved: suppose I have to pay "mats" and "pats" to people who are unable to support themselves but decide to have kids anyway.... my business would die there and  then, and I would be unable to pay my way in the world.
To my way of thinking "every day type jobs" describes most of the lower paid jobs in the PS, and though we don't want to "put these people down" they are the average persons, those who have graduated from school with a few GSE's and have little chance of becoming MP's, Top Bankers, Senior Civil Servants and CEO's of large companies.


----------



## DragonSlayer (10 December 2011)

Pedantic said:



			About time, maybe those with machine gun fannys will think a bit before having kids they can't afford and we end up paying to keep them, don't know if they noticed but the world is in a bit of financially difficulty at the minute, plus housing jobs food energy is all getting a bit short, 4 kids is enough for any family, it's not as if we need factory and cannon fodder for wars like in the dark ages, nobody is saying you "can't" have more, just "your" gonna pay for them yourself, excellent.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on!


----------



## stacey_lou (11 December 2011)

They shouldn't pay out for more than 1, first being a mistake if you have no way if paying for it but more than that your taking the pi$$. if could afford to keep my horse I wouldn't have one, simples, bug child allowance for those actually paying thier stamps fair enough


----------



## stacey_lou (11 December 2011)

Btw typing on iPod so some mistakes above lol


----------



## SO1 (11 December 2011)

Having a horse is completely different to having a child, if your circumstances change you can sell your horse or PTS, which you could not do with a child.

I think it is a tricky one as I think it will be the children who will suffer from the caps not the parents. 

Any caps should be bought in slowly maybe say that any children born from 2012 onwards so say that anyone who already has a large family on a low income or benefits can get the benefit but those who have a fifth child born after 2012 would not get it.

I also think that more should be done to get absent parents to contribute financially to their children and contribute more. I know some people say they do not want to get ex partners to contribute to bring up the child for whatever reason but they are happy to accept help from the state. 

I appreciate FMM might want to use her child benefit so she can afford a bigger mortgage so she can live near her family, i would like to live near my family too, but it does not seem fair that she can get can use tax payers money to enable her to get a bigger mortgage to live near her family when lots of childless people can't get the same thing. I do agree with her that the system for deciding the cap on incomes is not fair as it should be based on family income not on individual's income. 

I do wonder how many people who get child benefit actually need it to pay for the basics to keep a child, bearing in mind that there are also child care vouchers for those who are working and need to pay for childcare. 





stacey_lou said:



			They shouldn't pay out for more than 1, first being a mistake if you have no way if paying for it but more than that your taking the pi$$. if could afford to keep my horse I wouldn't have one, simples, bug child allowance for those actually paying thier stamps fair enough
		
Click to expand...


----------



## stacey_lou (12 December 2011)

But if I couldnt afford to keep my pets I wouldnt of had them in the first place. There are always options to not have children, but then I guess I was bought up with you dont even think about having children untill you can support them financially.

Whats wrong is a friend of mine her and her partner both work, she has a little boy who is a year old who she recieves I believe family allowence for as I know most people do. She lives at home still he lives at home but between them with current prices on rent and Electric and gas ect cannot afford to rent privately.

They have asked the local council for a council house for which they contribute to the rent but in a scheme which is called 'affordable renting' she has worked since she was 15 like most of us and always paid her stamps and has been told she is not a priority and in on the lowest grade.  

This in its self is annoying has contributed all her adult life now being 26 to taxes ect and yet people who have never paid a penny and arent even paying towards their rent out of their own pocket are more of a priority.

But the worst part the advise she was gieven by the council in order to get a house quicker is and this will make you laugh...... Have another baby and we will have to find you somewhere!!


----------

