Philip off This Morning

[NorthernWreck]

Just said that he thinks Child Benefit for higher earners should be cut, and then he went, incredulously "I mean, I get child benefit! It's nuts!"

AIBU in thinking that you don't get CB unless you actually apply for it?
You don't have to apply for it if you don't need it, do you?

Of course we shouldnt all go to uni.
But bright kids from ANY social background she have the chance, and to have the chance to study what they want, regardless of future projected income.
Some of our greatest talents have come out of this system, and now we will see a procession of thick but rich people being churned out of colleges, because the bright poor kids will be put off by the debt.
My dad went to uni with a wife and two kids, because he was clever, and he wanted to be educated. That could never happen now.

"should" have the chance I mean.

You won't start paying back student loans until you earn over £21k and then only on the proportion of your wage that is over £21k so should not stop anyone going to uni. I certainly will not stop my DC's going even though we are not higher earners. It would be ridiculous.

As far as I know it's pretty hard NOT to claim Child Benefit.

It seemed to me part of "registering" the child, and then opens up other options for them (such as Child Trust Fund, if they were born within certain dates) and, as has already been said, protects NI payments for the payment to whom it is paid.

Mine goes towards paying my nursery fees so that I can work and pay tax and keep up my meagre pension.

Or on booze and fags. I can't remember. I'm drunk with affluence.

i had to apply - fill in form, post it etc

no one was chasing me to do it. you definatly have to physically apply - its not automatic or hard not to

Just to say that if you look at the Beveridge Report (occupational hazard) it specified that child benefit (then Family Allowance) was originally paid to the man. The purpose was to make good nutritional problems in children and was originally only paid to children under school age. It was extended further in the 1950s to encourage families to keep their children in education. I think it was Barbara Castle in 1975 who brought about the change whereby benefits (under the 1975 Child Benefit Act) was to be paid to mothers for the reasons listed by other posers below. Sorry to be a pedant - social policy lecturer hat on!

so what is rich? How much is rich? Your sister 'earns a lot, is she rich then? you then you go on to say that ,

'If my sis does claim it, well, she lives in London, her partner earns a lot less than she does, and I wouldnt think they are loaded at the mo. Loaded compared to me, yes, but not in the grand scheme of things.'

so make up your mind, she's loaded but not loaded or is it different her being a high earner because she is your sister?

But it isnt automatically paid to mothers now Diege?

sozzled, I think you are somewhat missing my point.
My sister is quite a high earner, yes. Compared to someone earning hundreds of thousands a year she isn't.
If I were her, I wouldnt claim CB, because I wouldnt really need it.
I wouldnt claim any benefit I didn't really need.
All I seem to read lately is crap about how certain sections of our society are un deserving of help and welfare. My problem is with the hypocrisy of having one benefit in particular be "OK" to claim, when other benefits are considered shameful.

so, what is rich then, how much and what about all the other circumstances? At what point would you hand back CB and say no thanks?

Good question sozzled.
I think if I get to the point where I have a stable place to live, enough to live on and pay into a pension.
Thats it really.
If Housing benefit was available to everyone regardless of income, I certainly wouldn't claim it if I could easily pay my rent with my wages, so why should I claim CB if I can raise my kid easily without it?

I mean, I hear a lot about how people should work hard for what they get, and if they dont have enough, try harder etc, so why is it OK to say "well I have a lot, but if I take this state benefit I can have just a tad more"?

Yes Catgirl, automatically paid to mother now unless you specify otherwise. It was thought originally (Beveridge) that the husband had 'better financial management skills' than the wife and hence had a better take on how money should be spent . It wasn't until the 1970s that the penny dropped that, in many cases, the money when paid to the man, wasn't actually making it as far as the child...

I applied for it two weeks ago and anyone could claim - there was no "automatic" default to the mother

just a box for name of claimant and a question asking if you were the childs parent

in the sort of relationship where the mother would need to keep that money separate it seemed there was nothing to ensure it went to her unless she got the form and filled it in requesting it be paid to her

Sorry yes, you're right (applied for it myself 9 weeks ago). I think what I meant was that previously (circa 1950s) the money was automatically paid to the man, but come 1975 and the Child Benefit Act the 'route' through which benefit was paid changed and then paid to the mother. Now as you say (as with most benefit claims, including the defunct CSA) it is the specified 'parent' that is the considered claimee.

A friend of mine didn't claim child benefit because she felt she didn't need it but her son has now run into all sorts of problems now he has left school. He wasn't issued a national insurance number and when he got his first job and realised he needed one they have had a dreadful time trying to get one for him. They were told this was because no child benefit had been claimed for him so he didn't exist in the system.

MeDented

One of the reasons Child Benefit is a universal benefit is that it gets everyone registered and in the system- the fact that there's a cash prize for registering your child incentivises it!

It was strange of your friend not to claim and have it paid directly into another account- a charity or a friend in need, even the treasury! When you apply you can nominate any account.

I will lose it when the capping changes come in, I will really miss it. I don't earn, so claiming it has been my only personal money, and has been spent on emergencies eg. a new boiler. It has also accounted for those unpaid years in my NI record.

I am not cross to lose cb come next year, it is only right that they reassess the situation but until they do why would I turn away free money? If someone stopped you on the street each week and handed you £20 would you turn it away? Or would you think "ooh handy" . The fact you might spend it on food, and I on baby music classes or a bottle or two of wine, or charity donation is irrelevant. At the moment it is on offer to everyone and the recipients can use it how they wish. Lucky them if they can afford to save it or give it to charity, lucky the others to actually receive it for what they need. Someone refusing the cash doesn't mean you will receive extra, so what does it matter what they do with it. Fwiw I was thinking of donating mine from this year to Save The Children...surely that's better than refusing it and letting it sit in the govt coffers.

Also. Those who pop it into savings...that's not a stupid or selfish thing. What if they lose a job, earnings fall, need a safety net, suddenly that CB hoarding made sense.

coraltoes - If someone stopped you on the street each week and handed you £20 would you turn it away? Or would you think "ooh handy" Someone refusing the cash doesn't mean you will receive extra, so what does it matter what they do with it

Won't that also apply to other benefits though.If someone gives you £20 a week on benefits essentially you need to turn it away or you are committing fraud. It is not fair of the government to give "free money " to people who don't need it. How you define someone who doesn't need it though is harder. However I think if you are using it for savings that implies you have enough. What about that woman who lived in poverty to save her benefits. Her aim was to have security in old age then got told to repay it all as she had too much money in savings Even though the money saved was what she was entitled too. How is that fair?

No because to commit fraud you are lying about your entitlement. For cb we are not.

Child benefit was paid to parents in recognition of the fact that children cost money.
Those guidelines have changed because a) the govt have no money and b) benefit culture has changed over the years.

They are taking away something that was originally for parents, didn't matter how much money they had.

my husband earns over 42k but doesn't give me any.

I get £80 a month

helpyourself
Yes that's what I was trying to add to the discussion, for those that think wealthy people shouldn't be claiming child benefit, the system at the moment isn't really geared up for that, as my friend discovered. My friend now regrets not applying because of the problems it has caused but thought she was doing the right thing at the time.

You can't be better off not working than working. You will always be a little better off working.
I am watching carol McGiffin and her ilk on Loose Women the stupid fucking cow.
Why why why why are people under this impression that "people on benefits" are automatically "people who don't work"??
The MAJORITY of people claiming benefits are WORKING!!!
It is not this black and white divide between working and not working.

Oh God, she is onto single mums now.
I think I need my own gun purely to shoot carol McGiffin with.

Oops, that was for another thread. But I still mean it.

Well said northern