Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Child Benefits

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
As you may or may not know, the rules of child benefits are changing, and it could reduce the entitlement of child benefits to about 1.2 million families. From January 2013 families where one parent is earning over £50,000 per annum will no longer be able to claim the total amount of child benefit.

This may seem to you a fair decision, but consider this: a two-parent family, with each parent earning £40,000 a year will still be entitled to claim full child benefit, compared with a single parent earning £51,000 a year, who can no longer claim full child benefit, even though the total household income in considerably less than that of the two parent family.

Upon discussion among TheSite leaders, we all felt that this was a little odd; how could this be fair?! A couple of people leaned towards wanting to limit the amount of children that you could have before one was no longer entitled to claim child benefit at all - perhaps so that the money would be distributed in a fairer way. However, this could seem unethical, as it would require parents to seriously consider whether they could afford to have another child or not - would this be fair, or would parents carry on going ahead with having children they couldn't afford to bring up in a reasonable manner?

So, we'd like to hear from you - do you think that this new ruling is a good way of cutting down on benefits? Do you think it should be done differently? Let us know by replying to this post! Can't wait to hear your thoughts!!

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When it comes to setting a limit or a cut off point for anything, there will always be trouble in people falling either side of the line. I tend to agree with the errings that maybe the number of children should be limited rather than this cut off point, however if there was a better way of sorting out the limit on earnings I would change my mind.

    If we are going to point out that 2x 40k earners keep the limit, yet a single £51k earner doesn't, don't we have to realise that its still someone earning twice the national average of wages, well more than twice.

    The bigger question in my mind is why the state has to support people who have children? I agree that we should, but even I find it difficult to argue why. There are hard working people who struggle to make ends meet and the benefit can and often does make the difference to peoples ability to afford having a child. If we are to go down the line of if one person is entitled to it then why not everyone? I think the state should be there to support those who need it and allow people within reason to have the same chances as others. However perhaps the root problem is societies insatiable need to have something just because someone else has it.

    I really am not making much sense here, but letting my mind free in this thread. Perhaps the problem in solving issues like this is that we're damned if we take emotions into account, and then accused of being emotionless if we don't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The notion is correct, the implementation is piss poor.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Finola wrote: »
    This may seem to you a fair decision, but consider this: a two-parent family, with each parent earning £40,000 a year will still be entitled to claim full child benefit, compared with a single parent earning £51,000 a year, who can no longer claim full child benefit, even though the total household income in considerably less than that of the two parent family.

    Also consider, though, that the household with two incomes is a household with two taxpayers, so they'll be putting a hell of a lot more into the system than they are taking out. Or should we expect our middle-earners to just give, give, give without even getting a token amount of support?

    I do think that child benefit should be capped at 2 kids. I don't think it's anyone's right to have a big family, and I don't think it's a good message to blindly support the popping out of more and more children without having the means to support them.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Kaff wrote: »
    I do think that child benefit should be capped at 2 kids. I don't think it's anyone's right to have a big family, and I don't think it's a good message to blindly support the popping out of more and more children without having the means to support them.
    Mostly agree, but not all children are planned and I don't think people should be forced to abort for financial reasons when they don't want to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »
    Also consider, though, that the household with two incomes is a household with two taxpayers, so they'll be putting a hell of a lot more into the system than they are taking out. Or should we expect our middle-earners to just give, give, give without even getting a token amount of support?

    Two earners will pay less tax than the single income though. Two x personal allowance and not in 40p bracket at any point.

    This actually directly affects me. I have no problem with the idea of losing out, I do object to the ludicrous way that the maths on this has been done, as per the example given. Shit happens though and I *am* earning damned good money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mostly agree, but not all children are planned and I don't think people should be forced to abort for financial reasons when they don't want to.

    Anyone who think that CB is enough to pay for kids clearly doesn't have any. :)
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,228 Skive's The Limit
    The whole thing seems absurd. Should have got rid of child benefits altogether and rolled it into child tax credit which is means tested already.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Two earners will pay less tax than the single income though. Two x personal allowance and not in 40p bracket at any point.

    Good point well made! Got my pregnobrain in at the minute. Although to be honest I think that CB should remain non-means tested, and money saved by capping the number of kids eligible and maybe also reducing the amount as the children grow up and working options for the parents are increased.

    As far as unplanned pregnancies go - abortion is not the only option. There is always budgeting to make your £33-a-week benefit for two kids stretch to three instead, or good, old-fashioned getting a job? And contraception (including sterilisation) is free, so tbh I don't see it as an excuse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think its a pointless and crap way to try and raise revenue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It wouldn't be raising revenue, it would just be giving away less money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    benefits arent giving money away. We all pay into the system all the time. A lot.

    Its shit when its working class and middle class families who are the most affected, when its the rich and the big corporations that both caused the mess, and are still avoiding taxes left right and centre.

    Im less bothered about the cuts than i am about the fact that the rich arent facing them
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This might seem like a stupid question, but why isn't it based on total household income? Were they not originally planning on cutting it after the 3rd child?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    benefits arent giving money away. We all pay into the system all the time. A lot.

    Its shit when its working class and middle class families who are the most affected, when its the rich and the big corporations that both caused the mess, and are still avoiding taxes left right and centre.

    Im less bothered about the cuts than i am about the fact that the rich arent facing them

    Yes I understand how taxing works, you mentioned about raising revenue, which I just pointed out that it wasn't. All the government would be doing is paying out less. Although it is a touchy point and we should be concerned about what the government do with the tax we pay, but when it ends up in their coffers it isn't ours anymore.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote: »
    Were they not originally planning on cutting it after the 3rd child?


    This scares me....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only giving child benefits for two kids....

    How much some of the poorest kids are gonna suffer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If someone has 3/4/5 kids, how far will the £13 a week extra for subsequent children really make a difference? I understand that whenever someone draws a line somewhere, there will be people either side which will complain about it where ever it is drawn. Though I wonder if it is really the states responsibility to endlessly pay out no matter how many children someone has.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    If someone has 3/4/5 kids, how far will the £13 a week extra for subsequent children really make a difference? I understand that whenever someone draws a line somewhere, there will be people either side which will complain about it where ever it is drawn. Though I wonder if it is really the states responsibility to endlessly pay out no matter how many children someone has.

    Well, it certainly won't be drawn when those children become the tax payers of the future, the Govt won't say "Oh well, we will only tax two of them", will they?

    We are heading to a position, within the next 20 years, when those over 65 will outnumber those coming through as workers and future taxpayers. This is an economic nightmare scenario. We don't pay taxation and Nat Ins to pay for our *own* pensions and future health service, we pay it so that the current pensioners and patients can draw on it.

    Child Benefit is a drop in the ocean and if reducing it means a reduction in the birth rate then it's very much a negative impact.

    At least, that's a perspective which should be considered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except for a large enough increase in young people to support the elder generation, won't be down to a larger youth paying taxes. It will be down to a sturdier economy, being able to leave families more in a position to afford increased numbers of children. Yes CB is a relative drop in the ocean, so therefore I think the capping of it wont effect the number of children that much. Also, like I said in the putting faith in a better economy, it would be more prudent to do so as if we have an explosion of young people, when they hit 65 we will then end up with a large chunk of oldies once again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Child benefit seemed to be about the only benefit that had got things right in giving it to everyone who had whatever the benefit was for (in this case children).

    Yes, higher income households might not 'need' it, but you can be sure they'll spend it and in doing so keep cash circulating in the economy. Th higher salaried households pay far more into the system than they get out, I don't see why this should also be taken off them, especially in such a poorly thought out way.
Sign In or Register to comment.