I would think the number of people who have children to claim benefit is a 0.00001%.
I’ve not got an issue with benefits like this being means tested, it it needs to be fair, as highlighted it’s a family benefit so should be a family means test. Clearly unfair for a single earner of a couple on 60k not to get it but a couple on £50k each to do so.
The thing with this being means-tested the question is how much does that cost? Are the savings from cutting it for the small proportion affected offset by the costs of the extra administration? I suspect they are. And even if not, it's done in such a crude way that it only looks at individual income not family income, which is unfair (as other people have pointed out).
I would think the number of people who have children to claim benefit is a 0.00001%.
I’ve not got an issue with benefits like this being means tested, it it needs to be fair, as highlighted it’s a family benefit so should be a family means test. Clearly unfair for a single earner of a couple on 60k not to get it but a couple on £50k each to do so.
Unfortunately I think it is higher than that. Whilst it might not make sense to us I don't think the same logic is applied, as those that do it have different 'parameters. If they are saying generations are being brought up by some who don't know how to, then I think it would be really beneficial if more life skills such as budgeting and priorities (roof, food, clothing heat) were taught at school. Far more benficial than algebra and quadratic equations for most. I appreciate some may see this as condescending but for me, it is worth it for the improvemnt it is likely to make to many lives.
On another note, I get that paying housing benefit straight to the claimant is 'empowering' however I feel that once rent arrears reach a certain level they should change to being paid straight to the landlord, or at least a percentage. I am aware of too many examples where the story is that a family has been made homeless etc but when you read the back story, keeping the roof over their head has not been the priority (photos with expensive car and with designer clothes and goods etc).
I realise these comments won't go down well with many but I think we have to some people to be able help themselves - and I do realise it is not everyone who could better prioritise their income in the sorts of situations I am talking about
Child benefit was brought in when predominately the mother would stay at home & the father would work. It was also to help pay towards the "housekeeping" if the male of the species spent most of his wages down the pub/bookies on a Friday once he got paid.....at least this way the children would be fed. (Another reason why the Friday pay packet went to a monthly bank credit).
Also, by claiming CB the stay at home parent would get "credit" towards their state pension.
We currently have very high levels of child poverty for a developed country. We have higher levels of single parenthood (usually women) than when the benefit was introduced, whether that balances out the increased likelihood of two parent families who are both working i don't know. I don't think it is a child bonus for all comers. I know a number of families where both parents work and still bring in incomes below the national average for a single wage (mind you this is Cornwall) whilst trying to bring up one or two children. For me this, together with familes who's only income is (are?) benefits is the target demographic for child benefit, not people on significantly higher than average wages.
In terms of encouraging self reliance it would be a brave person who told these people they weren't trying hard enough.
See so many single parents struggling where a childs other parent contributes the grand sum of fuck all.
About time a lot more was done to ensure if you bring a child into the World you make sure you finance its upbringing rather than leaving it solely to a single parent, the state and charities.
See so many single parents struggling where a childs other parent contributes the grand sum of fuck all.
About time a lot more was done to ensure if you bring a child into the World you make sure you finance its upbringing rather than leaving it solely to a single parent, the state and charities.
Totally agree. But there are ways round not declaring all of your income. CMS do not take into account dividends so make yourself a limited company a pay yourself the minimum you can by way of a salary & more in dividends. Or get with someone else, not work & live off their income. My ex-wife does & she doesn't pay me a penny. Might be legal but to my mind it's not moral.
On housing benefit, I only rent direct to the council on a lease as they guarantee the rental payment. I know too many people who have had issue after issue with unpaid rent. Crazy situation, just need better controls on rogue landlords (of which make up a small %)
On housing benefit, I only rent direct to the council on a lease as they guarantee the rental payment. I know too many people who have had issue after issue with unpaid rent. Crazy situation, just need better controls on rogue landlords (of which make up a small %)
Definitely need to protect tenants frim rogue landlords and equally landlords from rogue tenants. And football clubs from rogue Belgian business men!!
If I’ve worked this out correctly, someone who in a single income family with three kids on a salary of £50k has an income of £52,501 if you factor child benefit.
if their salary increases 10k to 60k, they lose all child benefit and would be charged 40% tax on the extra 10k. So their income would be £53,499.
A 10k pay rise (which would take most people probably a decade to achieve) for what would result in a £998 real rise income.
Tell me about it. Ex-wife used to get this for our 3 kids along with working tax credit & my maintenance (£600 pm). Kids now all living with me I get bugger all. Earn just over the £60k cap. To add salt into the wound ex-wife is "off sick" and not working......so gives me bugger all maintenance.
Worked since age 16 (started work 3 days after my final O level) & never claimed anything. So those waspie women can fuck off as well. My pension age has been "pushed back" too.....but I'm not out there protesting about it.
No - you are on here moaning about it. I am sure Johnson reads CL, so things will change now...
Actually, sounds like a very annoying situation Golfie, I can understand why you are peeved. .
In a country with an ever increasing population and a serious lack of housing, you have to question the sense in paying child benefit at all.
It would of course be a serious vote loser to remove it.
I don't think removing child benefit would stop people breeding. It would just mean that poorer children would be poorer still.
When I worked in suplementary benefits many years ago, child benefit was taken into account 100% as an income, so it made no difference to the poorest people.
To put it simply, if they were assessed at needing £200 a week to live, and their single parent allowance, or unemployment benefit was £100, they would be entitled to £100 SuppBen. But, if they had £25 a week child benefit, then that was knocked off the £100, so they would get just £75 a week in SuppBen. Child benefit was of no use to them at all.
The simple way to get rid of child benefit is to phase it out. You just say any kids born 9 months from today won't be entitled, no one gets it taken off them if they are already getting it, or were expecting it when they got pregnant, and anyone then deciding to knock out a sprog knows they won't be getting it before they jump between the sheets...
If I’ve worked this out correctly, someone who in a single income family with three kids on a salary of £50k has an income of £52,501 if you factor child benefit.
if their salary increases 10k to 60k, they lose all child benefit and would be charged 40% tax on the extra 10k. So their income would be £53,499.
A 10k pay rise (which would take most people probably a decade to achieve) for what would result in a £998 real rise income.
In a country with an ever increasing population and a serious lack of housing, you have to question the sense in paying child benefit at all.
It would of course be a serious vote loser to remove it.
I don't think removing child benefit would stop people breeding. It would just mean that poorer children would be poorer still.
When I worked in suplementary benefits many years ago, child benefit was taken into account 100% as an income, so it made no difference to the poorest people.
To put it simply, if they were assessed at needing £200 a week to live, and their single parent allowance, or unemployment benefit was £100, they would be entitled to £100 SuppBen. But, if they had £25 a week child benefit, then that was knocked off the £100, so they would get just £75 a week in SuppBen. Child benefit was of no use to them at all.
The simple way to get rid of child benefit is to phase it out. You just say any kids born 9 months from today won't be entitled, no one gets it taken off them if they are already getting it, or were expecting it when they got pregnant, and anyone then deciding to knock out a sprog knows they won't be getting it before they jump between the sheets...
I don't think that I would want to live in a society where we just abandoned the most vulnerable children.
Comments
On another note, I get that paying housing benefit straight to the claimant is 'empowering' however I feel that once rent arrears reach a certain level they should change to being paid straight to the landlord, or at least a percentage. I am aware of too many examples where the story is that a family has been made homeless etc but when you read the back story, keeping the roof over their head has not been the priority (photos with expensive car and with designer clothes and goods etc).
I realise these comments won't go down well with many but I think we have to some people to be able help themselves - and I do realise it is not everyone who could better prioritise their income in the sorts of situations I am talking about
Also, by claiming CB the stay at home parent would get "credit" towards their state pension.
In terms of encouraging self reliance it would be a brave person who told these people they weren't trying hard enough.
About time a lot more was done to ensure if you bring a child into the World you make sure you finance its upbringing rather than leaving it solely to a single parent, the state and charities.
On housing benefit, I only rent direct to the council on a lease as they guarantee the rental payment. I know too many people who have had issue after issue with unpaid rent. Crazy situation, just need better controls on rogue landlords (of which make up a small %)
if their salary increases 10k to 60k, they lose all child benefit and would be charged 40% tax on the extra 10k. So their income would be £53,499.
A 10k pay rise (which would take most people probably a decade to achieve) for what would result in a £998 real rise income.
Crazy really.
Actually, sounds like a very annoying situation Golfie, I can understand why you are peeved. .
To put it simply, if they were assessed at needing £200 a week to live, and their single parent allowance, or unemployment benefit was £100, they would be entitled to £100 SuppBen. But, if they had £25 a week child benefit, then that was knocked off the £100, so they would get just £75 a week in SuppBen. Child benefit was of no use to them at all.
The simple way to get rid of child benefit is to phase it out. You just say any kids born 9 months from today won't be entitled, no one gets it taken off them if they are already getting it, or were expecting it when they got pregnant, and anyone then deciding to knock out a sprog knows they won't be getting it before they jump between the sheets...
Oh hang on.