Child Benefit in UK - scrap or not?

[nnmartin]

another issue I have been following lately has been the Child Benefit debate.

This is where every family/parent in the UK recieves a payment for their child regardless of income. The rate is approximately £20/wk per child.

This seems absurd because a high earner on a 100K salary will still be getting this money off the taxpayer when clearly they do not need it.

the latest argument is over the proposal to scrap the benefit for those earning over £40K per year, seems fair enought to me - why would you need any kind of welfare benefit at all if you are making this kind of salary?

There are glitches in the system because the benefit is calculated per person but even so, why not just abolish this absurd idea which is only kept in place to keep the middle class voters happy?


so the situation is - give benefits to those who are well off and don't need it, but make the poor work for theirs for nothing!

The great Conservative conspiracy!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Given that the birth rate is so low and therefore the number of new tax payers to replace the aging workforce in 20 years is diminished in terms of the ratio; I would suggest it is necessary unless you are willing to tolerate immense numbers of migrants; though for those earning over a certain amount it seems rather unnecessary, though the precise figure I am not sure on as I am not familiar enough with costs and standards of living within different parts of the UK.

 

[nnmartin]

why not just abolish child benefit for all except those who are on a very low income and need it. (say, those earning around 15k/year)?

how could you possibly need an extra government handout if you are on 40K - that is more than enough to support 1 adult and child.

costs of living in UK are similar to those in Australia I would imagine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

how could you possibly need an extra government handout if you are on 40K - that is more than enough to support 1 adult and child?

Unless they are trying to stimulate population growth, I have to agree it is unnecessary to give to those who don't need it. Unfortunately in America though it seems those who try the least or need it the least get the most.

 

[nnmartin]

it is nothing to do with stimulating growth , the child benefit has been around for a very long time.

I believe it was set up originally to promote family values etc.. and now is impossible to abolish because the government that did so would lose the next election.

the rules here seem to be - if you have money you are entitled to even more, but if you are poor you deserve even less as it must be your fault.

something like that anyway, it's just corporate greed and ego masked under the guise of freedom - aka: fascism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

the rules here seem to be - if you have money you are entitled to even more, but if you are poor you deserve even less as it must be your fault.

Sounds no different than here. Large corporate banks got huge sums of tax payer money to be saved from bankruptcy due to mismanagement, some of these companies even still giving lavish bonuses to CEO's, but the people who lost their jobs due to corporate corruption and greed don't get any help when they loose there home because they are lazy and just aren't trying hard enough.

 

[HonestJoe]

I can see both sides of this debate to be honest. There is an argument that bringing up children is a general benefit to society and carries great cost regardless of how much you actually earn so it's not unreasonable for the state to "compensate", for want of a better word, all parents. There are also concerns around the impact of the people just over whatever cut-off is finally decided on.

The argument that people with massive incomes don't need it but can still claim it (which some, though not all, do) is a good one too. Also, poor parents do get additional support above and beyond child benefit, which could be extended to balance what they loose (and potentially more).

It probably is a more political issue than an economic one, which is the key reason no previous government has made any significant move in this direction. It seems wrong to condem the Conservatives when they're the first to take the political backlash of seriously addressing the question.

 

[nnmartin]

the argument often put forward by those in maintaining the current system is that those on a high income should be allowed to keep their lifestyles in 'the manner they are accustomed to'.

how absurd is this especially in the current political climate.

Why should a poor tax payer subsidise the lifestyle of a rich family just so they can maintain their higher lifestyle?

if you have been made redundant from your job because of cuts to protect profits then who will be paying for you to remain in your accustomed lifestyle?

This goes way beyond equality, it is the ugly face of the neo-caste system.

back to the Victorian Britain days!

 

[HonestJoe]

the argument often put forward by those in maintaining the current system is that those on a high income should be allowed to keep their lifestyles in 'the manner they are accustomed to'.

Is it? I can't say I've ever heard that one.

back to the Victorian Britain days!

I don't see what meaningless rhetoric like that achieves other than distracting from any legitimate debate.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think every family should get child benefit. Furthermore, I think that child benefit should be substantial.
A nation should cherish all of its children equally.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think every family should get child benefit. Furthermore, I think that child benefit should be substantial.
A nation should cherish all of its children equally.

You don't cherish someone by simply throwing money at them.

 

[sandandfoam]

You don't cherish someone by simply throwing money at them.

True. But you seem to be ignoring the equality part. Why?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

At one time the ethos of the British tax and benefit system was based on being universal.
In some sense it was giving with one hand and taking with the other, but was smooth and had few problems.
Those on higher incomes had the whole benefits swallowed up in greater taxation.
Those at the bottom paid no tax and got every benefit.
Those in the middle lost some part of universal benefits through taxation.

The problem came later when Benefits were selective and some were based on income.
The people at the top and bottom still did well out of it, but those just above the bottom got no benefits and paid tax.

Child benefit is the only universal benefit left, and the Government has got its knickers in a twist as how to make it fair. The benefit is per child, paid to the wife, the tax is per person based on income.
When universal benefit were the norm, Incomes were combined for taxation.

 

[HonestJoe]

True. But you seem to be ignoring the equality part. Why?

I didn't disagree with that part but since we concluded the money from child benefit has nothing to do with cherishing children, it isn't relevant anyway.

 

[sandandfoam]

I didn't disagree with that part but since we concluded the money from child benefit has nothing to do with cherishing children, it isn't relevant anyway.

We didn't conclude anything. I'm clearly interrupting your conversation with yourself. Enjoy.

 

[England my lionheart]

They call it Child benefit but in reality how much does the Child benefit from it,IMO the money should be put into a fund and when that Child reaches 18 the money should be released to them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

They call it Child benefit but in reality how much does the Child benefit from it,IMO the money should be put into a fund and when that Child reaches 18 the money should be released to them.

You need to go back to when it was set up to understand its purpose.
Many poor wives never saw their husbands paypackets... they got some of what was left after his Friday night trip to the pub. (if any)
That was why the benefit was paid only directly to the wife.
It was sufficient to feed the kids that week.

 

[Panda]

I don't think the wealthy should get child tax benefits. Didn't a recent BBC poll show most people agreed with people who earn over 40k not getting it? The money saved could be given to help the poorest of families.

 

[Asking]

Personally I believe people should aim to live within their means and that means not having families you can't support without relying on handouts. With that in mind I lean towards abolishing child benefit altogther because those on high incomes don't need it and those who can't afford to start a family should perhaps wait until they are in a better financial position.

I often feel that I'm being emotionally black-mailed by those who have children they can't otherwise support and then complain that if their benefits are reduced or taken away the child will suffer. I appreciate that often events in a persons life are beyond their control and they can find themselves in unplanned situations where their income can no longer meet their costs but there are many people who start families knowing full well they have no means of supporting themselves.

 

[McBell]

why not just abolish child benefit for all except those who are on a very low income and need it. (say, those earning around 15k/year)?

how could you possibly need an extra government handout if you are on 40K - that is more than enough to support 1 adult and child.

costs of living in UK are similar to those in Australia I would imagine.

So you are saying to punish the rich simply because they are rich?