Government considering cap on child benefits

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
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
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.
 
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
 
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....
 
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.
 
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?!
 
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,
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..................
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
I think apart from education to 18 and healthcare more than 2 children and you should work out how to pay for them yourself.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top