advertisement


Child Benefit - Why?

Baby boom hump is retiring so we need an influx of working age people to pay for it all. So babies and/or immigration.
 
matthewr said:
Baby boom hump is retiring so we need an influx of working age people to pay for it all. So babies and/or immigration.
Click to expand...


So the solution to the problem of some short sighted idiot in a by-gone government who chose not to set aside money to pay for our retired population, is to have more babies/immigration to create more workers/tax payers to cover it? But this will create the same, but a bigger problem, for the next generation so we'll need yet more babies/immigration to pay for them....and on it goes ad infinitum. When does it stop?
 
Brian said:
Not sure of your point if you have one one there, John.
Click to expand...

My point was it's such a paltry amount of money I can't imagine many people are encouraged to have children by CB.

The reasoning given by governments for CB have varied a lot over the years, but like it or not there is a good argument for its' effectiveness in reducing child poverty.

There are far better targets for saving money in government, but benefit recipients are easy meat for the Conservatives and NewLab.


Brian said:
The 3rd biggest benefit cost in the UK should be taken more seriously than that.
Click to expand...

Someone is having a laugh, so I decided to join in! ;-)
 
thebiglebowski said:
Family allowance was introduced after the war to help grow the population again. I believe the threshold is currently too high and the cutoff should be a family income of around £30k, that way we could always increase the payment amount to lower income families. I don't see why parents earning a combined income of £90k per year should be entitled to it.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this!
 
thebiglebowski said:
Family allowance was introduced after the war to help grow the population again. I believe the threshold is currently too high and the cutoff should be a family income of around £30k, that way we could always increase the payment amount to lower income families. I don't see why parents earning a combined income of £90k per year should be entitled to it.
Click to expand...

I do.

It's because money is only ever allowed to flow toward money.
 
Mullardman said:
I do.

It's because money is only ever allowed to flow toward money.
Click to expand...

That Child Benefit is a Universal Benefit is a long standing policy of the left.

Means testing is expensive and often costs as much as it saves.

There is a lot of evidence that means testing reduces the uptake of benefits, especially amongst the old.

Universal benefits have the advantage of a broad section of society that are invested in and willing to protect them. Means testing means that the most disadvantaged and least well resourced and politically connected are more often the ones concerning themselves with the benefit.
 
It goes to the mum, it's essential to many, pin money to a few but I'd hazard a guess that quite a large number of the squeezed middle are glad of it too.
Not needing it is no reason for depriving the many that do.
 
Still said:
My point was it's such a paltry amount of money I can't imagine many people are encouraged to have children by CB.
Click to expand...


For those that think like that, it's not just Child Benefit that is applicable. If people choose to work the minimum 16 hours, they will qualify for increased tax credits depending on the amount of children they have and they would qualify for a bigger council home or housing benefit (which is also more expensive).
 
The squeezed middle are one of the main reasons for not means testing. You want all of society to be having a moderate number of children, rather than the poorest and richest having many
 
There is plenty of data on the net that shows that the richer people, or a country, get the less children they have.
 
What about a predominantly catholic country that is also wealthy and well educated?
 
"politically connected"

what's that got to do with receiving a benefit?

My wife has some ISA's she's not politically connected to anybody, just taking advantage of a break
 
wacko said:
There is plenty of data on the net that shows that the richer people, or a country, get the less children they have.
Click to expand...
The squeezed middle in rich countries don't feel well off and limit families by necessity - both working to pay mortgage, car loans, child care and so on. The very rich seem to leave a trail of children by a long line of ex-wives
 
cooky1257 said:
It goes to the mum, it's essential to many, pin money to a few but I'd hazard a guess that quite a large number of the squeezed middle are glad of it too.
Not needing it is no reason for depriving the many that do.
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest taking any money from anyone, so I would not be depriving anyone of anything they are currently getting.
 
Still said:
My point was it's such a paltry amount of money I can't imagine many people are encouraged to have children by CB.

The reasoning given by governments for CB have varied a lot over the years, but like it or not there is a good argument for its' effectiveness in reducing child poverty.

There are far better targets for saving money in government, but benefit recipients are easy meat for the Conservatives and NewLab.




Someone is having a laugh, so I decided to join in! ;-)
Click to expand...
It is not a paltry amount, it is the 3rd highest benefit cost in the UK.

I'm not having a laugh if you mean me, I am entirely serious.

The govt are cowards. They are slowly eroding it because they lack the guts to deal with it properly. Giving 12 months notice of it not being paid for additional children gives an acceptable notice, it would continue for everyone currently getting it and for children born in the next year. What is specifically wrong with that proposal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top