Child Benefit

I have a couple of points id like to raise, firstly this is for child benefit right? Is this the child benefit that every family is entitled to whether you're not working or on £100,000 a year?
Should be means tested rather than limiting the number of children per family.
Secondly, there's an awful long time from planning how many little cherubs you can afford to have to when the soul sucking leeches become financially independent, a lot can happen, people lose their jobs,partners leave, become abusive, get Ill or even worse. Should those left alone with children and the children themselves really be made to suffer because of those that abuse the system ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gpick24 said:
I have a couple of points id like to raise, firstly this is for child benefit right? Is this the child benefit that every family is entitled to whether you're not working or on £100,000 a year?
Should be means tested rather than limiting the number of children per family.
Secondly, there's an awful long time from planning how many little cherubs you can afford to have to when the soul sucking leeches become financially independent, a lot can happen, people lose their jobs,partners leave, become abusive, get Ill or even worse. Should those left alone with children and the children themselves really be made to suffer because of those that abuse the system ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The £100,000 is a sticking point. If you have 2 parents earning £49,999 each totalling £99,998 per year you will get full child benefit. If however you have one parent earning £60,000 and the other parent decides to stay at home and look after the children then you get nothing.

If you are in employment and earn between £50,000 and £60,000 you get a percentage of the full child benefit, you can thank the Tories for that. You also have the pleasure of filling in a tax return every year even though your company pays your tax by PAYE. Again thank you Tories.
 
I watched the Panorama programme last night on the subject of the Benefits cap.
In the main those who were featured expressed an 'entitlement' and seemed to be blind to the causes of their so called poverty.
Most of those featured had mobile phones, (and you are going to tell me that a mobile phone is a necessity if you are seeking a job, or claiming benefits...well, that may be true, but most of them seemed to be smartphones.)
There was only one single father who we saw going for an interview...he neither smoked nor drank.
There was one woman who railed at the government for putting her in poverty....she had seven children.All being cared for by someone else.
Where was the father/fathers of these children? Why wasn't some contribution for their care being taken from him?

How is it fair for someone to stay at home and get £20,000per year when there are parents working and not earning that amount?
Those working parents are contributing in taxes(however low a rate) and NI contributions.
Those on benefits do not pay any taxes(apart from those levied on purchases) or NI contributions.

I had only one child and one of the reasons for this was that I couldnot afford more than that.(there was NO child benefit for most of the time my daughter was growing up...and when I was eligible for it I never claimed it. I believed that the funding of my child was MY responsibility, not that of the government.
 
Neil said:
The £100,000 is a sticking point. If you have 2 parents earning £49,999 each totalling £99,998 per year you will get full child benefit. If however you have one parent earning £60,000 and the other parent decides to stay at home and look after the children then you get nothing.

If you are in employment and earn between £50,000 and £60,000 you get a percentage of the full child benefit, you can thank the Tories for that. You also have the pleasure of filling in a tax return every year even though your company pays your tax by PAYE. Again thank you Tories.
Click to expand...
So this is what used to be called family allowance then.
 
Oh well missed the deadline :( better higher the retirement age now cos I'll be working forever :D
 
Margaret Pilkington said:
....there was NO child benefit for most of the time my daughter was growing up...
Click to expand...

You must be really old because child benefit/family allowance/child tax allowances/family income supplement etc has been around in one form or another since 1909 (also between 1798 and 1805 but I know you're not that old :p )

Have a read of this interested page explaining where it all started Where it all started « Policy « Child Benefit
 
The issue I have with family allowance isn`t people on low income claiming for more than 2 children it`s those on high income claiming it when they don`t (or shouldn`t) need it, a family earning £100,000 a year still claiming it is just greedy.
 
gpick24 said:
The issue I have with family allowance isn`t people on low income claiming for more than 2 children it`s those on high income claiming it when they don`t (or shouldn`t) need it, a family earning £100,000 a year still claiming it is just greedy.
Click to expand...

How do you know the financial situation of someone based on their earnings? Means testing for child benefit was ruled out years ago as being too expensive and complex to administer.

It's not that many years ago the equivalent of child benefit was only available to working families. Maybe that's the answer as a way of helping working families with child care costs so they can stay in work.
 
Neil said:
You must be really old because child benefit/family allowance/child tax allowances/family income supplement etc has been around in one form or another since 1909 (also between 1798 and 1805 but I know you're not that old :p )

Have a read of this interested page explaining where it all started Where it all started « Policy « Child Benefit
Click to expand...

No I am not really really old,but some government changed the rules at one point and we were not eligible(for the life of me I cannot think what the reason was) but then another government came in and we became eligible to a paltry amount(it would not have kept a kid in bubble gum) so I never claimed it.
I have claimed only twice in my life....dole during the three day week and a period of three months sickness benefit after a major op.
I paid into the system from the age of 15 to 55.
These people on this program last night have been drawing benefits as an entitlement without any appreciable work history.

Benefits should NEVER be a hand out...only a hand up.
It should not be more lucrative to be on benefits that be in work.
Why would you turn out for 40 hours a week if you thought the government would give you £20,000 per year?
 
gpick24 said:
Secondly, there's an awful long time from planning how many little cherubs you can afford to have to when the soul sucking leeches become financially independent, a lot can happen, people lose their jobs,partners leave, become abusive, get Ill or even worse. Should those left alone with children and the children themselves really be made to suffer because of those that abuse the system ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I know from personal family experience that circumstances can change, that illness and disability can come into the equation...and the children should not suffer.
But if someone tells an interviewer that they spend £40 per week on fags and beer, but they can't pay their rent and go seeking a hardship payment, then I am sorry but they are NOT putting the needs of the children first.
This family were under threat of eviction. Neither parent worked or had done so for a long time.
They needed to learn how to budget I could feed a family well with fresh food for the money that chap spent on fags and beer(ok some of the stuff might have been whoopsied, but they would be eating stuff more substantial than a frozen pizza).
 
I`m sure most of us know people like that but not everyone who claims family allowance is, and is this the way to cut that out? I doubt it myself.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that everyone is like that, but I was saying that it should never be more lucrative to be on benefits than to go out to work.
There are many families who claim tax credits that they have EARNED by working.
I was brought up to believe that if you don't work then you can't expect there to be grub on the table.
I grew up poor, there were seven children in our family, but my mum worked at three jobs to feed us when my father was too ill to work because of war injuries.
 
Don't forget the grandma who has her four grandchildren , she drives a car and I think she said she gets £400 plus a week and is moaning she is hard put to as being a relative to the children should give her different benefits, feels like shooting herself as she is too old for all this. Why did she take the children in then. Oh yes, she only spends the benefits on the children .......in arrears with the rent , cant afford it.
 
It appeared that she did not consider putting a roof over the heads of her grandchildren something which was for them.
She said she had nothing to live for...er, well what about the children that you accepted responsibility for?
I don't get it at all, most of those in the program were shown driving around in what appeared to be well kept vehicles(apart from the builder with a band hand, four children and a £40 fags and beer bill).

It is NOT the responsibility of the tax payer to fund a lifestyle which many of us would aspire to.
There was very little evidence of budget responsibility in those featured in the programme, but a lot of tears. As my mother always says 'Scrike, you'll pee less'.
 
Well I am glad I did not see the programme Margaret because it would have sent my blood pressure through the roof. As for Neil saying Family allowance or like has been around since 1909 . I was an only child and left school in 1960 and my mother was never given any money and she always paid a full stamp. I think there may have been payments for a second child but definitely not for a first.
 
It seems to me that a vast majority of those on benefits have their priorities wrong. Large TV sets, big cars, cigarettes and booze all seem to rank higher on their agenda than healthy food ,clothes and shoes for their children. With the likes of Lidl and Aldi selling fresh veg and fruit for 29p I see no reason why they cannot feed a family and still pay their rent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top