OXFAM says
"Scrapping universal child benefit is not the only way to reduce the deficit"
...
"there are advantages to universal benefits being paid to all parents. Because child benefit is paid to all it is free from stigma, binding rich and poor alike into the welfare system.
There is also a concern that the reform of child benefits will have an adverse effect on women. There is a common belief that resources are dispersed equally within the household. This assumption is not borne out in reality. Child benefits are one of the few state benefits that nearly always go to the mother, meaning that changes to the child benefit system may be another cut which negatively affects women. As we know from our research on income security in Thornaby, poor women in particular appreciate the independent income derived from child benefit.
There are other ways to tax the rich aside from removing child benefit. An alternative approach would be a more progressive taxation system. For example, adding a penny to the higher taxation bracket would raise £780m (according to Treasury calculations) and wouldn?t undermine the principle of universal benefits.
Interestingly, it was also announced in today?s papers that bank bonuses are expected to exceed £7bn this year. This is seven times the amount that will be saved by cutting child benefit. Bailing out the banks added considerably to the national deficit. This highlights that there is money in the economy and that we live in an unequal society where we tolerate an elite few being given astronomical bonuses.
The anti-poverty sector is being forced to choose between universal and targeted benefits, when there are better and fairer options."
On this page