Should financial support for bringing up children come out of the public purse?

[Ladymuck]

At a time of recession and massive debt/overborrowing by our Government, I do not believe that it is right that Child benefit should continue to be paid out to parents IRRESPECTIVE of means. Does anyone else feel the same - or am I just being a bit mean? Child Benefit, which is paid to people bringing up children, is currently NOT means tested - so even the well-heeled are entitled to:

?18.80 per week for child no. 1 and then

?12.55 per week for each subsequent child.

This, to my mind, could go towards reducing our national debt.

[Ann]

Child benefit is the only state benefit me or my husband have ever received, having both worked all our lives, it's a benefit we have get as a result of ours and others taxes. We made a decision since their birth to put it into savings and hope that it will support them through college.

So theoretically we didn't need it, but I'm sure we could have spent it anyway. Our children are aware of our plans and hopefully will appreciate our decision. Don't forget those same children will be the ones who get no financial support with high education. What benefit to society if all our graduates start working life burdened with debt?

[????]

I tend to think if you're going to have benefits they have to be universal.

[Huguenot]

Quite true Quids.

On an earlier point, I think it's disingenuous to say that child benefit is getting your own taxes back. If this were truly the case you'd simply ask not to pay them in the first place and hence save on administration fees.

Taxation is a public pool for investment in social objectives agreed by consensus.

The implication when you receive benefit payments is either that you're receiving an amount from the public purse for pursuing a public benefit, or that you're receiving welfare payments as an act of charity.

I don't see the necessity for incentivising children as a public service, this was a post-war policy introduced in 1946 for repopulation from parents who couldn't necessarily afford it.

I don't see that it can possibly be an act of charity, when having kids is a matter of choice abused by many.

[Jeremy]

I would support a means tested child allowance. It's easy to say that you should only have kids if you have the means to support them... but situations can change.

I don't agree with the idea that just because you pay tax, you deserve to claim benefits in return.

[neilson99]

I fail to see the point of "universal benefits" as implied by Quids - so we all pay in to get the same back? Minus the cost of the beuracracy to service? Ridiculous concept. Surely universal means anyone who needs them can get them?

I don't mind paying my taxes to provide a safety net for those who genuinely need it, can't afford the basics and can't access opportunities - in fact I think I have a moral duty to do so. But why should I have to cough up for a rainy day fund for the middle class families of East Dulwich or indeed my aunt and uncle sunning themselves in the Canaries this December while waiting for their winter fuel payments to come through. Get them all means tested.

I quite happily went to Uni and took on the debt, knowing that if I put the elbow grease in I would be earning enough at some point to pay those debts down. Now done thankfully. If I was given a lump of cash by my folks I would've probably spent it on clothes, booze or a gap year "finding myself" in Australia.

[????]

No bureaucracy in means testing...oh no, none.

Universal provision is just a philisophical concept that recognises that we have a society and collective responsibilty and 'help' available for all, contributors or not- why should tax payers subsidise people who can't afford to have children, or pay for healthcare for those with no money is the other side of the coin to universal benefit.

Or, indeed, why should healthcare not be means tested by your logic or general education?

[neilson99]

I'll take your point quids about there being a cost to means testing, no doubt about that.

I get the philosophical concept too - my argument is that as an economic concept universal provision is inefficient and taken to an extreme point, fails; conceptually and practically in actually helping those who really need it. Why would I pay the state ?20 in tax to get ?17.50 back in child benefit? And when I don't actually need the helping hand but instead stick that ?17.50 in a high interest bank account (assuming one day they will exist!) it makes even less sense. I'm sure there are families out there who need it more and could do much better things with double the amount. Morally (always a subjective concept depending ones values)wouldn't the right thing be to give twice the amount to the family who are scraping by on every last penny than fund the next generation bugaboo?

[Huguenot]

I think if you're talking about mean-testing, then you're seeing state payments as charitable. I'm all for charity where it's due and not to those who can afford it.

However, I'm not sure Child Benefit is seen as a charity - it's a service to the state in principle (from '46), and so shouldn't be means tested,as you're getting paid for doing a job.

[Ladymuck]

neilson99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I fail to see the point of "universal benefits" as

> implied by Quids - so we all pay in to get the

> same back? Minus the cost of the beuracracy to

> service? Ridiculous concept. Surely universal

> means anyone who needs them can get them?

>

> I don't mind paying my taxes to provide a safety

> net for those who genuinely need it, can't afford

> the basics and can't access opportunities - in

> fact I think I have a moral duty to do so. But why

> should I have to cough up for a rainy day fund for

> the middle class families of East Dulwich or

> indeed my aunt and uncle sunning themselves in the

> Canaries this December while waiting for their

> winter fuel payments to come through. Get them all

> means tested.

>

>

I quite happily went to Uni and took on the debt,

> knowing that if I put the elbow grease in I would

> be earning enough at some point to pay those debts

> down. Now done thankfully. If I was given a lump

> of cash by my folks I would've probably spent it

> on clothes, booze or a gap year "finding myself"

> in Australia.

Interesting, neilson99...I too wasn't financially dependent on anyone...but succeeded in a different way to you. I couldn't afford to study full-time (mortgage etc.), nor did I wish to incur debt; so I continued to work full-time whilst attending Uni. 3 x a week (6pm - 9pm) and doing assignments at weekends over 5 years. It was blood, sweat and - yes - tears, but success was all the sweeter when it arrived. Well done on paying those debts off, bye the way.

[Ladymuck]

Universal benefits are great in certain areas, e.g. the State Pension, as they (generally) get through to everyone. However, while a universal child benefit may have been a good idea in the days of encouraging a growth in the population, I do not believe such an incentive is now neccessary in times of over-population, a recession, and massive overborrowing. Cuts are going to have to be made - like it or not, and restricting Child Benefit to those who actually NEED it could save the Country around ?7billion.

[sophiesofa]

I think child benefit should stop after the 2nd or 3rd child - no-one needs more than three and I don't want to have to pay for the child greedy! Although I think there would need to be a provision for people who have twins, triplets etc. because that isn't planned choice.

How do child benefit payments work these days? Does it automatically go into a bank account or do some people (who don't need it) just never collect it from the post office?

[mockney piers]

I'm vaguely in agreement. We're about to have our first child and we can afford it, though it'll not be without it's financial burdens obviously. Do we need child benefit? Probably not, though the income will obviously be useful.

I'd like to see the figures behind the 7 billion savings, im not saying I trust this goverments judgement not one iota, ok I probably am if they're the same people that assured us ID cards would be cheap and tha the olympics would come in at under 2 billion but there you go.

A quick look at the conservatives proposals/justification and you see the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork complaining about single mums and the death of marriage leaves me equally unconvinced that they even know what they want.

Also I'm not convinced that it was intended for population growth. It was part of a socially progressive policy aimed at elimenating poverty, disease and ignorance. I think this pertains evry bit as much to today's ills doesn't it?

[????]

Well, Gordon's announced it's going to be means tested and my missus has just told me that that makes sense entirely so maybe I'll change my mind! Daily Mail headline tomorrow anyone?

[SeanMacGabhann]

website seems to be all about Sarah Brown being the star of the show - maybe the focus will shift by tomorrow

For what it's worth I've been agreeing with quids on this debate

[Huguenot]

Well, iff "..it was part of a socially progressive policy aimed at elimenating poverty, disease and ignorance" then that puts it formly in the charity box, and should consequently be means-tested.

[PeckhamRose]

I do not think that the richer folk in society should automatically get child benefit.

Equally, I do not think that the richer folk in society should automatically get free prescriptions when they reach 60/65.

I think all prescriptions should be free.

I also think that child benefit should be stopped after the 2nd child for those who received it.

But that's me!

[josiebee]

"I think child benefit should stop after the 2nd or 3rd child - no-one needs more than three and I don't want to have to pay for the child greedy! Although I think there would need to be a provision for people who have twins, triplets etc. because that isn't planned choice."

"I also think that child benefit should be stopped after the 2nd child for those who received it.

But that's me!"

The logic behind stopping child benefit at 2 kids seems to be - 'we have access to contraception etc so why should the tax payer have to fund those who want to have kids at over replacement level'...by the same logic surely the the tax payer shouldn't have to pay for the accommodation of those who want to have more than 2 kids? Another possible saving for the government or is that different?

[Pugwash]

We had friends who were very well off at the time that their only child was born, both were high ranking civil servants, and although the wife worked part time during the lad's early years, she went to full time work when he reached school age. Private school throughout his school years then on to university. They tried to decline their child benefit and stated that they were financially sound and did not need the money. After about a year, they admitted defeat and banked the money, after a few years purchased a small 2nd hand car to take son to and from school.

I believe that if a couple's joint income (gross)is over ?100.000 they should not get child benefit. Between ?60,00 - ?100 k should be a percentage of the CB.

Below ?60k (joint gross) full child benefit

Not sure on the number of children question, it is often the mother's only income if her partner drinks or gambles their benefit/wages away.

[Ladymuck]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do not think that the richer folk in society

> should automatically get child benefit.

> Equally, I do not think that the richer folk in

> society should automatically get free

> prescriptions when they reach 60/65.

> I think all prescriptions should be free.

> I also think that child benefit should be stopped

> after the 2nd child for those who received it.

> But that's me!

I don't think it IS just you PeckhamRose. I for one do not believe it is right that CB should be paid out irrespective of means. In fact, the thought that I might possibly be contributing to a well-to-do family's next ski-ing trip makes me more than a little cross.

[arriety]

Its not just child benefit you should be worrying about. Apparently working tax credits for single mothers don't take into account any maintenance paid. So the absent father can ask the mother to claim tax credits on her lower income, thereby reducing the amount he needs to pay her monthly, whatever his income level. So the state could end up subsidising maintenance payments of a rich and errant father. Interesting.

[SteveT]

I think it was called family allowance once upon a time and you received nothing for the first child in those days.

[Milo]

Just a note on the earlier point that child benefit is getting your own taxes back. That would be true if we each paid tax equivalent to our share (1/60,000,000) of the total child benefit bill. But in reality the total child benefit bill is actually paid from progressive taxation on our incomes. Therefor, although the wealthy middle-classes receive some back, they actually contribute a lot more towards child benefit than the less well-off. Quite rightly so in my opinion, in fact I would argue for the continuation of child benefit for that reason alone!

[iaineasy]

I am having my first child and my missus is currently studying for her Phd. I have a very modest income, she has a very modest grant we have very high bills (living around here costs!), I for one will be greatful for the money when it arrives as things are tight, I am sure we could manage without it but we would probably fail a means test as they are set at very low incomes. I think it's a good thing that it's not means tested, we will pay it back as we grow as a family and our earnings increase,it's a small price to pay to help young/new families.

[Mick Mac]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, Gordon's announced it's going to be means

> tested and my missus has just told me that that

> makes sense entirely

Bugger - the child benefit money was my pocket money for beers at the Herne on summer Sunday afternoons.