Tories consider limiting child benefit to three children

[mark66]

Wait, what are you exactly saying here?

I am saying that I support the notion that cuts are required and that child benefit shouldn't be paid to everyone.

What I think is completely wrong is that my family gets nothing, as I earn just over the limit (£60k), whereas other families can and do earn up to £100k and get it all?!

 

[lemonade]

Your post said we need more children born to sustain the population (because right now it is swinging towards an ageing populace) but then said immigration is an issues.

It was worded in a way that implied that indigenous children are somehow better? I may have read that wrong though.

No that was in reference to people suggesting we are overpopulated and that we need to curb population growth. I was just saying it is better to control immigration, because you dont want to control birth and increase aging population.

 

[krooton]

Remove child benefits, but also remove VAT from any child-related items?

Nappies, school uniforms, baby food, etc.

 

[cheesyboy]

National averages are official statistics, they generally have to be used in lieu of hard evidence from anonymous forumites like yourself.

£400/month of nursery fees for two days a week is pretty ****ing hard evidence, let me tell you.

I would disagree, having two cousins with three kids. They said specifically the third child wasn't such a financial increase.

It depends on circumstances, but there's a difference (of about £1,000/month of nursery fees, as I've said) between having an extra child, and having two come along at once. A third child if one parent is already not working doesn't cost that much extra. But a lot of Hard Working Families (© Tory party) don't have the luxury of a stay-at-home parent.

 

[cheesyboy]

Remove child benefits, but also remove VAT from any child-related items?

Nappies, school uniforms, baby food, etc.

There is already no VAT on any of those.

 

[krooton]

There is already no VAT on any of those.

Good to know! Not that I ever plan to have kids

 

[antijoke]

I am saying that I support the notion that cuts are required and that child benefit shouldn't be paid to everyone.

What I think is completely wrong is that my family gets nothing, as I earn just over the limit (£60k), whereas other families can and do earn up to £100k and get it all?!

Well I'm sorry but something isn't adding up here.

Using the governement calculator the payment for child benefit is the same regardless of earning 60k or 100k, which funnily enough after the tax charge to pay = 0.

 

[cheesyboy]

Well I'm sorry but something isn't adding up here.

Using the governement calculator the payment for child benefit is the same regardless of earning 60k or 100k.

Two parents on £50k each gives a household income of £100k, and you keep all of the child benefit. One parent on £60k, and you lose all of it.

Interestingly, if you have 8 kids then for every £1 you earn extra between £50k and £60k, you actually take home less money - a marginal tax rate of over 100%!

 

[Dolph]

What if, as a couple, you were both earning good amounts (say £50k each) and decided you could afford 4 or 5 children.

Then 10 years down the line, the husband is killed in a car accident and the wife is made redundant because her employer moved all it's jobs to india.

Now, is this single mother with 5 kids, not deserving of some state support?

If they were earning that much and not planning for future eventualities, then it makes you wonder if they were being overpaid

I would expect, for example, a household with a combined income of £100k to be in a property of their own, with appropriate provisions to settle the mortgage in the event of a death. I would also expect them to have some savings, investments and probably other protections too. Of course, with our current skewer benefits system, this sort of personal responsibility is actively discouraged, so perhaps I am giving people too much credit.

This doesn't mean, however, that I don't think she deserves some support from the state, indeed, this is exactly the sort of safety net scenario the welfare state should he used for. It is probably disingenuous therefore to use this situation to argue for the continuation of the current setup when the current set up would be far less help to her than a single mother with 5 kids who has never worked, or does a token 16 hours a week at minimum wage in order to get tax credits...

 

[antijoke]

That is assuming the split is an equal 50/50 in wages, which is not outside of the realms of possibility I agree, but without knowing their income split it's a bit hard to say either way in fairness.

Yes that stinks.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Well I'm sorry but something isn't adding up here.

Using the governement calculator the payment for child benefit is the same regardless of earning 60k or 100k, which funnily enough after the tax charge to pay = 0.

For an individual earner.

Two earners with £50k each will get the full child benefit. However, if one partners earns above £60k, then the couple get no child benefit at all, regardless of the income of the other partner (i.e. even if it was zero.

So - couple with and income of 2x£50k - full child benefit.
Couple with 1x£60k + £0k = no child benefit.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

This doesn't mean, however, that I don't think she deserves some support from the state, indeed, this is exactly the sort of safety net scenario the welfare state should he used for. It is probably disingenuous therefore to use this situation to argue for the continuation of the current setup when the current set up would be far less help to her than a single mother with 5 kids who has never worked, or does a token 16 hours a week at minimum wage in order to get tax credits...

Fair enough Dolph. It's just when I see the statement "single mother with 5 kids" bandied about with no thought it sets of my QI alarm.

 

[SpeedFreak]

Two parents on £50k each gives a household income of £100k, and you keep all of the child benefit. One parent on £60k, and you lose all of it.

Interestingly, if you have 8 kids then for every £1 you earn extra between £50k and £60k, you actually take home less money - a marginal tax rate of over 100%!

I know I shouldn't complain as we are pretty lucky, but when I moved through this bracket I saw hardly any benefit to my pay. 42% marginal tax rate, 9% student loan repayment (granted it is nearly paid off now), 7% pension contribution and almost 23% in unwound child benefit (daughter and twin boys - £190 per month benefit).

I know there is overlaid relief in the pension mixed in but I didn't feel that much better off after a £10k rise. Out of the £833 per month I must have seen about £200.

 

[LordSplodge]

This doesn't mean, however, that I don't think she deserves some support from the state, indeed, this is exactly the sort of safety net scenario the welfare state should he used for.

Are you saying that only the former well off who fall on hard times are worthy of the social security safety net?

 

[Dolph]

Are you saying that only the former well off who fall on hard times are worthy of the social security safety net?

A safety net isn't a net you just jump into

I am saying that there is a difference between helping people whose circumstances change, and protecting people from the consequences of their choices. We should not be encouraging people who cannot afford families to have one by compensating them for their choice, certainly not when they keep repeating the poor choice.

If we want people to have large families, then we should encourage all people to have large families, not just those already heavily dependent on the taxpayer. I can't go to the bank for a larger mortgage just because we have another child, and yet that is the ludicrous situation available to those on benefits.

 

[cheesyboy]

A safety net isn't a net you just jump into

I am saying that there is a difference between helping people whose circumstances change, and protecting people from the consequences of their choices. We should not be encouraging people who cannot afford families to have one by compensating them for their choice, certainly not when they keep repeating the poor choice.

If we want people to have large families, then we should encourage all people to have large families, not just those already heavily dependent on the taxpayer. I can't go to the bank for a larger mortgage just because we have another child, and yet that is the ludicrous situation available to those on benefits.

That's all well and good, but the reality is that people have children regardless of the financial situation.

[In fact, that's not quite true. The only way consistently shown to keep people from having more children (Chinese authoritarian rules aside) is to make them wealthy. Wealthier people have fewer children.]

In any case, with poor people having children regardless of circumstance (seen the world over), it serves no benefit to anyone to ensure they live in poverty. Poverty consistently produces worse outcomes for productivity of its graduates (i.e. those brought up in poverty are much lower performers). As a country, what good does it do to consign these children to such fate?

 

[Moley]

I have English friends who live in Normandy who have three kids. In France the benefits system is setup to support families who have up to three kids and no more. People over there DO change their family planning based on the benefits system and over here people likely would too.

 

[Domo]

Two parents on £50k each gives a household income of £100k, and you keep all of the child benefit. One parent on £60k, and you lose all of it.

I complained to our MP about this. Here's his response!

Thank you for your email. We have had to make some tough decisions in the past two years to balance the budget which has meant that people across the board have experienced cuts. It is right - although of course difficult for those affected - that those who are better off in society make a contribution to dealing with the deficit.

The principle we believe is that it is not right to ask someone who is earning £20000 or £25000 to pay for someone who is on £80000 or £100000 to get child benefit. We have made sure that 90% of families will still receive the benefit, with 85% getting the full amount.

Whilst I understand your concern, basing child benefit on household income would require a full means-testing regime which would bring many complexities and administrative problems. We looked at a measure based on household income but concluded it would mean bringing eight million households into the tax credit system and impose a much greater administrative burden. It would effectively mean increased spending on child benefit and distribution which is currently one of the simplest and cheapest benefits to administer.

If there is anything else that I can help you with please let me know.

Best wishes,

Jeremy Hunt

 

[Dolph]

That's all well and good, but the reality is that people have children regardless of the financial situation.

[In fact, that's not quite true. The only way consistently shown to keep people from having more children (Chinese authoritarian rules aside) is to make them wealthy. Wealthier people have fewer children.]

In any case, with poor people having children regardless of circumstance (seen the world over), it serves no benefit to anyone to ensure they live in poverty. Poverty consistently produces worse outcomes for productivity of its graduates (i.e. those brought up in poverty are much lower performers). As a country, what good does it do to consign these children to such fate?

No child lives in poverty in the uk unless their parents deprive them of basic needs. I do not advocate no support, quite the opposite as I advocate a citizens income policy, but I also do not support rewarding bad choices.

 

[Domo]

Controversial statement there. I suggest you read this:
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we...is_poverty/child_poverty_statistics_facts.htm