Make Child Benefit a Means Tested Benefit.

[Whatabonkersworld]

So, the Winter Fuel Payment has been made means tested. According to the government older people have no need for any help to pay their winter fuel bill.
In a dose of reality here's another massive cost saving exercise. The annual bill for Child Benefit is something over £12bn. I suggest Child Benefit also become means tested and only parents who receive tax credits are eligible. Those unemployed would receive a stipend added to their universal credit, but would not be eligible for Child Benefit. This would become a strictly working persons benefit. This would save the country a huge amount of money and will hopefully pay for the inevitable pay increase recommendations for the rail workers and consultants which will shortly be coming round for negotiations.
How how does everyone like them Bananas!

It's still mean testing.

The winter fuel payment has now been scaled back to the very poorest.

All you'll do if you set CHB eligibility at a similar level, is ramp the cost of administering it up still further, and tip more families into poverty. It'll end up costing more than it saves.

Did you campaign for the WFA to be subject to high income charge when the high income child benefit charge was introduced.......

Honestly, we're all about to feel the cuts, and it's CHILDREN you want to target? Good look.

They're going to be taking money off the children's parents by taxing them more so don't worry OP we will all have less.

i don't agree with it being means tested. but wish people would stop with the "well off group" just because you know well off pensioners, doesn't mean all are.

Agreed.

Same principle as the winter fuel payment.

Only parents in low incomes/benefits should get this. At the moment the threshold is too high.

'@terallyOnFire · Today 09:32
Honestly, we're all about to feel the cuts, and it's CHILDREN you want to target? Good look.'

People on on 40K or 50K who choose to have kids really don't need top ups from the state...

It is about fairness, not emotive nonsense.

Voluntary contributions.

The tone of your post is odd, to say the least: manic and overexcited. I am assuming you haven’t thought much about the economics of child benefit, in terms of supporting parents raising future workers and sustaining the birth rate in this country. Limiting it to working parents would cause grotesque levels of child poverty.

Well, when you get to pensionable age and there are too few economically active members of society to fund your state pension, I hope you’ll remember this moment.

People on on 40K or 50K who choose to have kids really don't need top ups from the state...

You make procreating sound like a perversion. We need children.

There will be people who fall between "benefits" and "40k". Some of them with mortgages going up etc. That CoL crisis you might have heard of.

Conversely, there will be people "on 40k or 50k" who - thanks to sky high rents and childcare fees- are "on benefits".

What a brilliant post. Thank you. I love the historical perspective. I think the removal of CB for higher earners has contributed to a growing sense of contempt for the poor amongst the haves in society. It used to be a universal part of life, you were part of the same community. Restricting it makes people question the system.

So true.

We aren't in receipt of any benefits and live solely on our pensions. We found the WFA very handy I have to say. It's often people like ourselves young and old who lose out on these sort of benefits because we just manage.

I think @unlimiteddilutingjuice is channeling Beverisgw himself. Well said. 👏🏻

Bev e ridge.

Both CB and WFA should be universal benefits paid to those who have contributed to the system in the form of tax and NI. Means-test it for non-contributors, with a formula to taper it if people have a partial record.

It's impossible to know who 'needs' things like this, as we all manage money differently, and have different outgoings. Plus, telling others what they 'need' is assuming that there is some sort of acceptable level and nobody on limited incomes should rise above it. If every pound you earn from overtime or manage to put in the bank to save for a holiday (or put into a pension) is taken away by a cut in benefits there is no point in aiming for a better life.

I’d scrap child benefit completely and increase the UC child elements by the equivalent amount.

Child Benefit replaced what was originally Family Allowance. Family Allowance was introduced in 1946 and families didn't get it for the first child but for subsequent children. This was to encourage couples to have more children after so many people died during WW2.

This country is in a much different place now, we don't have a population shortage, just the opposite. What happens when the children of today become the pensioners of the future? Something has to give, with people living longer and advancement in medicine I don't think we should be encouraging people to have large families.

@2dogsandabudgie we have an aging population and decreasing birth rate.

We are currently not having enough babies - the TFR is 1.48.

Exactly this. WFP should be given to families with children under the age of 1 universally before it's given to pensioners universally IMO. Babies need warmth AT LEAST as much as the elderly. Who are far more likely to have the money to fund that extra heat than families anyway

Oh and no I don't have a baby. My kids are older. So I'm not thinking of myself

You think people on the state pension of £220 a week are well off? Let's hope it's not a really cold winter this year.

This country is in a much different place now, we don't have a population shortage, just the opposite. What happens when the children of today become the pensioners of the future?

The population has grown but the population pyramid is top heavy.

That low already? Gosh.