Child Benefit - Why?

[Still]

It is not a paltry amount, it is the 3rd highest benefit cost in the UK.

I was referring to the paltry amount for the recipients.
Aren't you at least curious to know other ways we could save public on expenditure without putting the boot in?

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

I had Dave and Ed in mind.

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?

It would significantly increase child poverty.
I consider it cowardly to pick on the most vulnerable in society.

 

[Guest432]

After Vatican 2 birth rates in Catholic European countries have dropped to equal those of Northern Europe.

Vatican 2? I haven't even seen the first film yet

 

[Still]

I don't know the situation in the UK, but in Canada child benefits aren't about encouraging reproduction. They're about helping to reduce the level of child poverty, which apparently sucks at both the individual and societal levels and is thus best avoided.

I have to tell you (from personal experience) you have been misinformed.
There's a fantastic excitement in wondering if you are going to get an evening meal.
Going to bed hungry is a life affirming experience that's difficult to describe.
Getting picked on at school because of the cloths you wear is a brilliant opportunity to hone ones' defensive/fighting skills.
As for living through a N. European winter in an unheated house, it's great fun!

Happy memories …

 

[Daniel Quinn]

Taxation is a historical matrix of confusion in which problems are dealt with on piecemeal year by year basis. Tax relief for children is unarguable. Chb is cheapest way of dealing with it.

Brain stop being so miserable you will be wanting vat on mappers and tampons next.

 

[KC Cantiaci]

There is always the question of an EU immigrant working in the UK getting child benefit/tax credits for children who were born/live in a foreign country and have never been to the UK?

 

[Still]

There is always the question of an EU immigrant working in the UK getting child benefit/tax credits for children who were born/live in a foreign country and have never been to the UK?

Possibly the tax Johnny Foreigner is paying out of their wages balances out any benefits received.

 

[matthewr]

"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

If the recipients of a benefit are more politically connected the benefit is less likely to be lost due to political changes. It follows that removing a large class of recipient from Child Benefit weakens the protection of that benefit.

 

[trancera]

I don't often comment on these threads - they tend to quickly dive into,well you know. While I do agree that some people hardly need the benefits and some are used and abused I'd like to cite a positive example of such things.

A lad I know for various reasons ended up living with his grandmother. She being a pensioner (basic having been a carer too many times) was able to claim CB and tax credits to provide a decent home for him. This included the obvious roof/heat/food/clothing but importantly the less obvious but essential things like the footie boots (which he got good at, local youth team) and pocket money to 'join in' .This helped improve his social skills from essentially hiding away to a normal (even gobby at times of course) teenager.

He was a year behind at school some years ago, particularly the 3Rs - he's currently doing A levels.

 

[Guest432]

That's exactly what it should be for and not to fund childrens pocket money; Just one of these cases negates all the usual moans about foreigners getting family allowance etc.

When I was growing up in the 70's my parents were really skint and family allowance was well needed help. By the time my youngest brother was born they no longer needed it so put it into an account for when he was 18 and he got a nice lump sum when starting college.

On the other hand my brother and his wife were earning about £80k between them when their kids were born and still got family allowance. How can that be a benefit they needed?

 

[KC Cantiaci]

Possibly the tax Johnny Foreigner is paying out of their wages balances out any benefits received.

I don't think it's relevant tbh. If the children do not reside in the UK, why are they included in child benefit/tax credit calculations? It's money flowing out of the country in benefits designed to help make life easier for parents within the country.

But to work it out, if a guy earns a living wage of £7.65 outside of London and works 37.5 hours a week, he'll earn £286.88 a week and pay £34.98 in tax and NI. If he has two children, the child benefit comes to £34.05. That leaves him paying 93p a week tax towards the running of the country.....and he's paying his NI as well so will go towards qualification of a pension. But it doesn't end there as he will most likely qualify for tax/child tax credits so he won't actually be contributing positively to the exchequer.

 

[matthewr]

On the other hand my brother and his wife were earning about £80k between them when their kids were born and still got family allowance. How can that be a benefit they needed?

This has been explained several times already.

 

[cooky1257]

I didn't suggest taking any money from anyone, so I would not be depriving anyone of anything they are currently getting.

If you can't see the unfolding iniquity in your proposal it's not worth discussing the absurdity of it with you.

 

[Guest432]

This has been explained several times already.

I wasn't asking for an explanation of how the entitlement to benefits are calculated, I'm fully aware of that thank you.

Perhaps you should re-read my question before putting on your condescending hat!!

 

[cooky1257]

I don't think it's relevant tbh. If the children do not reside in the UK, why are they included in child benefit/tax credit calculations? It's money flowing out of the country in benefits designed to help make life easier for parents within the country.

But to work it out, if a guy earns a living wage of £7.65 outside of London and works 37.5 hours a week, he'll earn £286.88 a week and pay £34.98 in tax and NI. If he has two children, the child benefit comes to £34.05. That leaves him paying 93p a week tax towards the running of the country.....and he's paying his NI as well so will go towards qualification of a pension. But it doesn't end there as he will most likely qualify for tax/child tax credits so he won't actually be contributing positively to the exchequer.

So £250 a week, less £120 rent, £20 water, £30 gas/elec, council tax £20, then travel to work, £25, that leaves him £35 to feed himself and his kids for a week, no phone, no clothes, no social or leisure...now you understand how important CB really is and what a joke the so called 'living wage' rate is.
.

 

[lordsummit]

Lucky to do that to be honest. £120 a week rent in that London? Council Tax £20? I reckon it's about half a living wage. Maybe only a third

 

[sean99]

I don't think it's relevant tbh. If the children do not reside in the UK, why are they included in child benefit/tax credit calculations? It's money flowing out of the country in benefits designed to help make life easier for parents within the country.

But to work it out, if a guy earns a living wage of £7.65 outside of London and works 37.5 hours a week, he'll earn £286.88 a week and pay £34.98 in tax and NI. If he has two children, the child benefit comes to £34.05. That leaves him paying 93p a week tax towards the running of the country.....and he's paying his NI as well so will go towards qualification of a pension. But it doesn't end there as he will most likely qualify for tax/child tax credits so he won't actually be contributing positively to the exchequer.

The other way to look at this is that the exchequer is subsidising his EMPLOYER. If the employer is large they're probably also creatively avoiding taxes also.

The main problem with tax discussions in UK and USA is that the massive income inequality is the elephant in the room, along with corporate tax avoidance, but the right always come back to the poor bastards just scraping along with "aren't contributing".

 

[cooky1257]

Assumed outside London and CT relief but a miserable existence for him and his kids even with CB. Every penny he gets in top up benefits is actually his employer's profitability subsidy imho.

 

[Brian]

I was referring to the paltry amount for the recipients.
Aren't you at least curious to know other ways we could save public on expenditure without putting the boot in?



I had Dave and Ed in mind.



It would significantly increase child poverty.
I consider it cowardly to pick on the most vulnerable in society.

I agree, which is what the present govt is doing and has been doing.

Would you mind answering my question, John? If child benefit continues as is for those currently getting it, and if it is available for children born upto 12 months from now, what is the problem? It would free up billions for use in many other areas that would help people who need help. Disabled people, elderly people..etc. Surely if people know well in advance of deciding to have another child there will be no child benefit for that new born, the responsibility rests with them?

 

[matthewr]

But to work it out, if a guy earns a living wage of £7.65 outside of London and works 37.5 hours a week, he'll earn £286.88 a week and pay £34.98 in tax and NI. If he has two children, the child benefit comes to £34.05. That leaves him paying 93p a week tax towards the running of the country.....and he's paying his NI as well so will go towards qualification of a pension. But it doesn't end there as he will most likely qualify for tax/child tax credits so he won't actually be contributing positively to the exchequer.

He's an economic actor in the economy. He earns money, he spends money, he contributes to velocity, he does work that is of use, that allows other people to do their work that earns money that is spent, etc. etc. You are making the sort of classic treat the economy like a household budget with some added morality play on top type error.

Or, to put it another way, if we apply the same Micawber like calculation to everyone and get rid of all those only making a marginal contribution to the exchequer, and you just make UK GDP shrink by, say 30%.

 

[matthewr]

I wasn't asking for an explanation of how the entitlement to benefits are calculated, I'm fully aware of that thank you.

Perhaps you should re-read my question before putting on your condescending hat!!

What I meant was that why paying people who do not really need the benefit is actually a good idea and is better for us all collectively has been explained. Which I think does answer your question as to why your brother "needed" to be paid a benefit he didn't need.

I did not mean to be condescending and apologise if I created that impression.