Child Benefit Cap

[Kenai]

I understand his point.

But, is he going to go after a disabled person who earns 4x his salary because, he's subsidising them as well.
Or an elderly person on a 100k pension claiming fuel allowance.

Most general systems are unfair to some people, or it would be impossibly complicated.

Comparing disability to child benefit is disingenuous at best, people don't choose to be disabled.

Though quite honestly, I think there should be points whereby if you are earning a certain amount as a household/individuals/whatever then benefits should be reduced or cut off, just as a matter of social responsibility.

If someone is earning £100k, they don't need the government to hold their hands as much as someone earning £25k, so it's only sensible they should take the responsible stance and be receiving less handouts. Obviously there are exceptions and there will always be the outlying cases where someone might be so disabled they need to spend £150k a year on mobility aids or whatever.

Whilst a blanket approach where everyone is entitled to the same regardless of income might seem 'fair' at first glance, it is a horrendous waste of money that this country doesn't have spare to be wasting IMO.

 

[Destination]

Debt interest is almost half the deficit in our income versus expenditure.
THANKS GORDON!
If I recall under Major, a very unpopular man at the time, we actually balanced the books until Tony got in, and Gordy started wasting money.

 

[eatcustard]

How about not giving CB to immigrants until they have paid into the system for 5 years minimum.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Which has just been brought up the other day that this could be means tested too and not a universal benefit.

The big problem with means testing everything is it just encourages people to spend now and not attempt to provide for themselves should something go wrong.

Eg the guy who was asking why his employer was making him pay into a pension as well and that he would prefer to spend all his wages now and start to provide for his retirement later.

Everyone seems to want to spend now and either pay back later or provide for their old age later. No sense of self responsibility, assuming someone else (normally the state, ie the majority of the UK) will come along and pick up the pieces for them.

Child benefit should be scrapped for ALL, the money should be rediverted directly and used directly to feed and provide better education and activites for all children. I mean such things as 5 days a week of breakfast, lunch and dinner. Even making holidays and weekends have this food available for those who can't afford it themselves. Ensure the kids are fed all from all backgrounds. Include some clothing such as schol uniforms, supplied from the schools, proper shoes not trainers etc. Include some limited school trips **for all** not just those that can afford.
IE take the child allowance away from parents and use it directly to benefit the kids. I would bet my last £ that the kids from less privaledged backgrounds would see more of this money than they do now when its probably being used to fund fags and booze rather than decent food for them.

 

[Destination]

How about not giving CB to immigrants until they have paid into the system for 5 years minimum.

How about not giving it to citizens either until they've paid into the system for 5 years?
Can't be charged with discrimination that way now can they.
Even 2 years would be a start.

 

[Kenai]

Debt interest is almost half the deficit in our income versus expenditure.
THANKS GORDON!
If I recall under Major, a very unpopular man at the time, we actually balanced the books until Tony got in, and Gordy started wasting money.

Another Guardian image:

Quite incredible how we went from a fairly consistent small deficit with odd periods of surplus to the complete and utter mess we are in now.

 

[Dabbles]

I agree, just wanted to check if thats what your saying.

Fair enough!

But what about those who can't get a job (include those who think living on minimum means its not worth getting a job). If you remove child benefit they just get other benefits to bring them up to the minimum standard thats been put in place.

Anyone can get a job if they are sufficiently motivated. Benefits shouldn't be there as a lifestyle choice, they should be there to catch those who fall through no fault of their own until they are back on their feet. I'd limit benefits to 6 months in any 12.

But at the end of the day we do need future generations. Unless we crack immortal youth we have to have children to ensure the longevity of our species. Some want to argue its a lifestyle choice, I am yet to meet someone with kids who sees it this way. What if those with kids got a tax break would that be unfair? Many would say yes.
To me I would rather subsidise future generations since they will be subsidising me when I am old, providing the healthcare and working to ensure that the UK continues to be able to provide the safe and prosperous living conditions we are all used to.
I can't think of anything worse than having to have such high immigration levels that we would need to support all the "ethnic" UK population if we did not provide most of the next generation ourselves. Imagine 40 years from now, all "ethnic" citizens are over 40 and a high percentage are unemployed. With that level of immigration the immigrants may suddenyl decide, you know what we are fed up of working and paying tax to provide for these ethnics we will actually work to create a government that provides NO support at all, much more like the places these workers would have to come from. Its far fetched but not impossible. People assume those coming here will stay, will pay all they should and will not leave, big assumptions. They will only do that whilst its better than they can get elsewhere.

I agree that we need future generations. I think that children are a lifestyle choice, modern contraception is brilliant - if you don't want kids you can decide not to have them. People should be expected to pay for their own choices and that includes for their children.

We need children who will pay into the pot; we don't need an army of children who will never work because their parents don't work and live off benefits, but that's where we're headed. These kids won't subsidise us in old age, they will be suckling working people's tax money from the governments teet their entire lives.

Problem is how you do this, its difficult, you force them to crime or what?

You say "any children born after 9 months time will not qualify for child benefit". Those people who got pregnant before the rules changed won't be affected.

You provide free training (or job placements to get experience) for those on long term jobseekers allowance in their chosen profession and have a cut-off date (say 2-3 years, to allow for training time) when their benefits will stop and then they will have to qualify as detailed above - maximum claim of 6 months dole in any 12, you must have paid in for at least 6 of the last 18 months.

That way you get help for the short term when required, but you are expected to pay in to the pot on average.

Or we go radical, similar to China, maybe a 1 child policy. If you want more you have to put in place a guaranteed way to pay for them, be that a £100k bond or something. If you need to start claiming benefits it starts to be paid from your bond. Once the child is 18 you get back whats left of your bond.
If you have more than one child (without the bond being in place) you lose all state support, if the children need it becasue you cannot support them then they are taken away until you can, have a 2nd (again without bond) and you are forcibly sterilised. The bond value could be increased or decreased as required to support the population demand for children, ie make it more or less achieveable. Plus to ensure its not simply a case of kids for the rich have an opt in lottery monthly giving thousands of free from bond allowances for 1 child families.

That's an option, but it would be very unpopular and our government isn't strong enough to pull it off.

 

[Destination]

The big problem with means testing everything is it just encourages people to spend now and not attempt to provide for themselves should something go wrong.

Eg the guy who was asking why his employer was making him pay into a pension as well and that he would prefer to spend all his wages now and start to provide for his retirement later.

Everyone seems to want to spend now and either pay back later or provide for their old age later. No sense of self responsibility, assuming someone else (normally the state, ie the majority of the UK) will come along and pick up the pieces for them.

Child benefit should be scrapped for ALL, the money should be rediverted directly and used directly to feed and provide better education and activites for all children. I mean such things as 5 days a week of breakfast, lunch and dinner. Even making holidays and weekends have this food available for those who can't afford it themselves. Ensure the kids are fed all from all backgrounds. Include some clothing such as schol uniforms, supplied from the schools, proper shoes not trainers etc. Include some limited school trips **for all** not just those that can afford.
IE take the child allowance away from parents and use it directly to benefit the kids. I would bet my last £ that the kids from less privaledged backgrounds would see more of this money than they do now when its probably being used to fund fags and booze rather than decent food for them.

Just how are you going to provide 3 meals a day all year, school clothing, proper shoes, and school trips for less than £1000 a year for the entire child population?
I actually think your idea is a damn good one though, but then I think some form of national service (non-military, damn make them make the meals for the kids or similar) should be brought in also.

£1.70 a meal, 3 meals a day, 7 days a week, £35 a week before you start on clothes, trips etc. So you've doubled the amount of money you need to pay out.

Now possibly this could be tailored with a cut to other types of payments, as parenst wouldn;t have to feed their offspring.

 

[Destination]

Another Guardian image:
PICTURE
Quite incredible how we went from a fairly consistent small deficit with odd periods of surplus to the complete and utter mess we are in now.

What does excluding financial interventions mean?
Are there a few massive big low spikes not being shown on that graph?

 

[Jokester]

What does excluding financial interventions mean?
Are there a few massive big low spikes not being shown on that graph?

Bank bailouts?

 

[Destination]

Bank bailouts?

Yes, so is that just the ones under labour, or were there other similar things earlier in the 30 year history?

 

[Jokester]

Yes, so is that just the ones under labour, or were there other similar things earlier in the 30 year history?

They were unprecedented as far as I'm aware.

 

[Kenai]

Yes, so is that just the ones under labour, or were there other similar things earlier in the 30 year history?

Raw data only shows a difference since 2008, the difference being 'including' financial intervention shows a smaller deficit. It's still not pretty whichever way you look at it.

Yr	Inc	Exc
2007	-10,284	-10,375
2008	-21,248	-30,389
2009	-79,984	-103,238
2010	-86,412	-109,099
2011	-60,906	-91,190

Since 2007/08 the Government has made several direct interventions in the UK financial sector
as a response to the global financial crisis. As a result of those government interventions some
banks and other financial institutions which were previously designated within National Accounts
as private companies have been reclassified as public financial corporations. The government
interventions and the inclusion of banking groups, such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds,
within the public sector have had a marked impact on the public sector finances. In recognition of
this the 2008 Budget introduced a measure of public sector debt excluding the temporary effects
of financial interventions (referred to here as PSND ex). A parallel measure of public sector net
borrowing (referred to as PSNB ex) was then introduced in the 2009 Pre-Budget Report.

The measures excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions are intended to show the
underlying state of the public sector finances without temporary distortions caused by financial
interventions, but including any permanent effects from these interventions. The government bases
its fiscal policy on these measures. Therefore, the main statistics in this bulletin also follow this
approach and exclude the temporary effects of financial interventions.

I understand to essentially mean that some banks 'accounts' are effectively now part of the public sector accounts but as it's only a temporary measure, they provide a distortion to the 'real' state of public finances without them. I might be wrong but from what I can glean, the 'excluding' figures are the ones we ought to be worrying about

 

[Muffin`]

Debt interest is almost half the deficit in our income versus expenditure.
THANKS GORDON!
If I recall under Major, a very unpopular man at the time, we actually balanced the books until Tony got in, and Gordy started wasting money.

Labours manifesto in 97 was to continue Tory spending plans until the end of the parliament, so in 2001 the spending began.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Here's a thought for those stating Child Benefit should be means tested and only given to those on or near the poverty line.

Is it only poor/unemployed/state dependent people that we want to help/provide incentives for to have children?

Should we not be encouraging the well educated and affluent to have children? Even if that means tax breaks, universal benefits etc?

 

[Kenai]

Here's a thought for those stating Child Benefit should be means tested and only given to those on or near the poverty line.

Is it only poor/unemployed/state dependent people that we want to help/provide incentives for to have children?

Should we not be encouraging the well educated and affluent to have children? Even if that means tax breaks, universal benefits etc?

Does £20 a week benefit really incentivise people earning in the region of £700 per week already?

Personally, I highly doubt it.

Personally, I doubt many people who would be affected by this change make their decision to have a child based on how many benefits they may or may not get.

 

[Freakbro]

Should we not be encouraging the well educated and affluent to have children? Even if that means tax breaks, universal benefits etc?

I'm not sure well educated and affluent people include state subsidies in their planning on whether to have children or not.

Nor should anyone really, CB is an aid to help with some of the cost (£20 a week?), a tiny fraction of the total cost of raising a child, so I would hardly call it "financial incentive" to have more.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I'm not sure well educated and affluent people include state subsidies in their planning on whether to have children or not.

Nor should anyone really, CB is an aid to help with some of the cost (£20 a week?), a tiny fraction of the total cost of raising a child, so I would hardly call it "financial incentive" to have more.

Well £2500 per year that I get for my three kids (equivalent to £3500 before tax) is nothing to be sniffed at.

 

[Westyfield2]

In my world, 'benefits/welfare/credits/whatever' would solely be to make sure that everyone has a roof over their head and bread on the table. We shouldn't have people out on the streets starving in a civilised country (*cough* India *cough*) but any more than that is up to the individual to earn and not for the state to give out.

Any family where 1 parent alone earns over 50K clearly doesn't need, nay deserve the same help as, say, a single mother earning 20K.

Especially if the other parent is earning as well.

Benefits should be reserved for people who without them would actually struggle to live, not those who otherwise might not be able to go skiing every year.

Have they sorted out the issue with 2 parents earning just less than £50k each getting the benefit but a single parent earning just over £50k doesn't?

+1. Should be done on total household income rather than the single highest income.

 

[Infidelus]

+1. Should be done on total household income rather than the single highest income.

Absolutely. When I first read about parents earning £40k a year still getting benefits, I was utterly speechless.

I'm sorry, but if a family has a combined income of £40k and can't survive, all I can say is ... stop trying to live beyond your means. I have no sympathy for these greedy moneygrabbers.