Lily Sorry to be a pendant, but Child Benefits were actually formed out of a combination of tax allowances and child benefits.
Child tax allowances were granted for each and every child in recognition of the fact that ?if you were supporting children, your salary had to stretch further.? However, they tax allowances tend to benefit the better off (i.e. those who earned over and above the tax thresholds). Because of the way the tax system used to work, child tax allowances were normally paid to fathers (i.e. on the breadwinner?s paypacket). On the other hand, family allowances were a universal benefit paid directly to mothers. Everybody received the same amount, however much they earned. Family allowances were only paid for second and subsequent children.
In the early 1970s, the then Conservative Government designed a shiny new ?Tax-Credit scheme?. Under this scheme, tax allowances and family allowances would be merged into a new ?Child Tax Credit?. This would be paid, usually, on the father?s wage packet. However ? and I find this part of the story inspiring - women and women?s organisations kicked up such a stink that the Government ended up having to promise that mothers would not lose their right to collect the family allowance, or its new equivalent. This was very much a women?s rights issue. It was also a children?s welfare issue. The CPAG pointed out that benefits paid via women were more likely to end up being spent on children. The Tax-Credit Scheme as a whole was never implemented (too many problems with it). By then though, the proposed Child Tax Credit had become detached from the Tax-Credit scheme. Partly because of the reactions from women, and the poverty lobby, it morphed into Child Benefit. This was ? and is still today - a universal, tax-free credit paid on account of each and every child, paid, paid usually to the mother.
Sorry to go on, but since I am here I will try and answer the earlier question about why all families should get it ? even those greedy rich ones who spend it all on fripperies. As Lily said, and imho I agree, family allowances, tax credits and child benefits emodied the notion that society was and should be, to some degree, collectively responsible for the welfare of its children, that is for the next generation who, as Lily said will hopefully contribute to GDP as they start to work. In the eyes of some, child benefits were an important advance for women also. They made a token gesture towards recognising the work the (usually it was the) mother did, and the career opportunities she would probably have sacrificed to raise those children. Child ?Benefit? is not currently a benefit in the way that we normally now think of benefits. It was universal. Universal benefits are held to be important for three reasons that I can think of. Firstly, as Xenia said, universal benefits confer a stake in society. Second, once any benefit becomes selective or means-tested, it can be whittled away; recipients can, over time, be cast as un-deserving or scroungers. Thirdly, universal benefits for children can be seen as a way of maintaining the work incentives that are damaged by means-tested systems. (ooo, and a fourth, they are simple and everybody that is entitled to them normally claims them and does not feel bad for doing so).
Sorry to go on. If I have x-posted, I apologise. The whole issue has made me very cross [hangry] and this is - honest - my last post on the matter tonight.