ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Government wanting to cap child benefit at two kids(59 Posts)
Not sure what I think of this. More punishment to those who live on benefits. Or will it make people think and have less kids.
I have these proposals:
1. Couples be told on divorce parents have 50% each unless the parents agree otherwise or the court decides otherwise. 50% if your default except where a by is stlll breastfeeding or a child is 13 or older and chooses which parent.
2. Fathers who disappear (more than those who want more contact and are denied it) get weekly emails and calls and texts asking them how many hours of care they are giving a week, perhaps websites devoted to their failures etc., perhaps wage deductions for the childcare cost the mother has had to pay on the 50% of days she had the children when he should where she has worked full time and had to pay for childcare.
Just a general change of ethos.
There has been huge lot in the press about this as many c9ountries have moved o a default 50% time with each parent position and it is working really well and will probably come in the UK too. It means men have to wash socks and do real childcare duties and women get time to work full time more easily and cannot so easily use chidlren as weapons after divorce.
I do know people who have more than two children for the child benefit - one quote I have heard is 'You can't make a living off it if you just have two' . So overall I welcome it. But I agree it isnt that straight forward. Children can't help the fact that they have numpties/wasters for parents and shouldnt suffer for it. (And before people start getting worked up, I know everyone who has more than 2 children isnt a numpty or a waster). There isnt an easy solution but guess it is something along the lines of more vouchers for healthy meals/free nursery time rather than cash to be used for whatever the parent sees fit.
I also take on board what others have said about relationships breaking up etc. I dont pretend to know what the answer is. Other than in that case hound the non-paying party and pound (normally) his ass until he pays...
Capping CB at 2 kids will affect all families who want more than 2 kids, not just the families who live on benefits.
Except of course families who are now considered "rich" enough to not get any CB at all.
I do wonder how it would work though. I know a few families where the second pregnancy has been twins. Are they planning on making an exception for cases like that? Or does the family only get CB for one twin?
And another thread recently reminded me that SAHP's need to claim CB in order to continue earning credits towards state pension entitlement (up until the child's 12). How are the government going to protect this entitlement for SAHP's caring for a 3rd (or more) child under the age of 12?
IF (and so far it is an 'if') these rules are introduced and capped at 2 kids, then in your example purple your friend would only get CB as if they had 2 kids. Ie. £33.70 per week.
Maybe it would be easier for people to comprehend if they said that there is an upper and lower rate instead. People are getting too hung up on 'what if I have a third child? Why is he/she not entitled to CB?' rather than in reality what the govt is saying is that there will be limits to the states contribution towards your children.
To be honest if you earn over £50,000 you don't need child benefit. We don't need it and our combined household income isn't that high. We claim it to protect DHs entitlement to a state pension as he works part time, although realistically we should just be getting our arses in gear and making sure he has a private one, instead of frittering it away on a holiday abroad when DC would be happy in a campsite. We have a 3 bedroomed semi and a small/medium economical car each. Which is plenty. If we could make do with one car even better but sadly we need two. We don't plan to private school but I have confidence in the educational system in this country, and we can always help him. We can afford healthy food and we would be able to afford more of it if we were more careful about what we bought and didnt let stuff go off. We can buy nice presents for Xmas, and maybe he'll have to live without the new DS or whatever is the must have super-expensive toy this year (Might not be that I have no idea!!) but that will teach him a valuable life lesson. We arent just getting by we have a good quality of life, and would continue to do so without child benefit. Anyone who says otherwise - theres something wrong there. The only caveat I would add is I guess in some areas where the cost of living is much higher - I am mainly thinking of London where even a small house is hard to come by for the average income, the cut off could perhaps be a little higher.
purple its a good point but I guess if you have 3 kids you will be claiming child benefit for two of them so that will protect the right to a state pension as much as for those who dont have a third child.
Nigglenaggle - claiming CB only protects your right to a state pension until the youngest child you're claiming CB for is 12.
So say a woman has 1 child when she's 22, and another when she's 24, gets CB for both, and is a SAHM. She gets 'credits' that count towards her state pension until she's 36 (when youngest child is 12). You need 30 years worth of NI contributions or credits to claim a full state pension.
Now suppose she has a 3rd child when she's 38, and wants to be a SAHM for that child too, so she's not going back to work and paying NI through work. If she can only claim CB for the first two children, and there's no mechanism for her to get the 'credits' towards state pension that CB gives her, then she's losing 12 years worth of credits and her right to a state pension is not being protected.
That's my question. How are they going to protect the entitlement of SAHP's to a state pension if they're not doing it through a CB claim?
That's the big fat mess Purple which hasn't been fully answered (AFAIK).
What seems to be recommended at the moment is that if you are a SAHP and your partner is a HRT payer then instead of giving up CB, that you claim it, bank it and pay off the tax bill with it at the end of the year. That way your pension is protected rather than the clusterfuck the govt seem to be making of it.
Yes, niceguy2 - sounds a lot safer than not claiming the money and trusting HRMC and the goverment to remember you're still entitled to the pension credits. But a bit more hassle for the individual, as they'll all have to do self-assessment tax forms.
And there could well be a very similar mess up ahead if CB is restricted to the first two children.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.