Child Benefit

[Neil]

Originally Posted by gpick24

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.

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.

[gpick24]

Originally Posted by Neil

How do you know the financial situation of someone based on their earnings?

I don`t, but someone earning £2,000 a week shouldn`t need to claim an extra £20 a week but they still can.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Neil

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 )

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

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?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by gpick24

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

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).

[gpick24]

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.

[Margaret Pilkington]

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.

[Greeny]

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.

[Margaret Pilkington]

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'.

[Rowlf]

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.

[Rowlf]

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.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Rowlf

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 did not do my blood pressure any good
Yes, you are right,there was nothing for the first child back then.
There have been many tweaks by successive governments, the best one was where the mother got the money.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Rowlf

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.

Originally Posted by Rowlf

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.

The TVs and the devices(in some cases, though not those last night) may just have been bought before the family fell on hard times.
Those last night had not worked for years. So it is unlikely that their smartphones were from when they were working.

There seemed to be no desire to find work...and they only had to be employed for 16-21 hrs per week to get the benefits cap removed.

The man who got a job with Barclays could not start as he had no child care facilities, but two of his children looked to be in their teens. Had they no grand parents who could fill the gap while the father got home?
Yes, I know that many grandparents still work, but with ingenuity and the will, you can usually find a solution...unless you don't want one.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by gpick24

I don`t, but someone earning £2,000 a week shouldn`t need to claim an extra £20 a week but they still can.

If 1 parent earns £60,000 you get nothing, if both parents earn £49,999 each you get full child benefit.

If you earn £60,000 per year you will take home £818 per week and pay £335 in tax/NI


2 parents earning £50,000 each will take home £1,414 and pay £508 in tax/NI but still get full child benefit.

What I'm trying to explain, poorly it would appear is that a family with 2 parents with one working can loose out with the current child benefit system compared to 2 parents working but earning a lot more money.

[gpick24]

You aren't explaining poorly just answering a question I didn't ask.
This is the bit that I find wrong -

Originally Posted by Neil

if both parents earn £49,999 each you get full child benefit.

Should they really be entitled to child benefit when they are on so much money?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Margaret Pilkington]

They have paid into the system...and while they may not be in NEED of the money it is what they are entitled to.
Those who do not work, but rely on benefits to live, contribute nothing in the way of taxes or NI contributions ( their only tax contributions will be for whatever they choose to purchase with their benefits).
It really is NOT FAIR that some parents will pull their tripes out to feed and clothe their children but earn less than what is being handed to claimants.
You have children, then it is your job to support them and provide for them financially.