Child benefit and large families

[skinnywhippet]

Just seen an advert for a family which have 15 children www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8972550/Fifteen-children-and-counting....html
I worked out they must be claiming around £8000 a year, tax free, in child benefit. Aibu to be irritated that they can claim such a huge amount, uncapped, regardless of how many children they have?
They seem a lovely family and I'm no at all annoyed with them, but at the government. One family can claim such a large amount, yet my family are not entitled to anything.
I know I am being unreasonable, but I am just fed up with the inconsistency of the government. Why do middle income families always end up being punished?

its to be spent how you want for your children some people save it some people buy food / clothes with it a minority of people will not use it for its intended purpose e.g. to help with home life with children - mine is paid weekly on a monday/tuesday and sometimes if payday isn't until the thurs/fri that money is all we have to last.

Then maybe you should have said, OP, 'My family with children that I haven't even had yet would not be entitled to CB under current rules'.

As it is you come across like you are making it up as you go along.

Oh dear

I also think you should stand for election.

Maybe at a local level first, and then get selected as a parliamentary candidate.

Wecwereherefirst- great point! If your grandmother's family survived with 21 children, WITHOUT benefits, then why do we need them now?

Why do middle income families always end up being punished?

I feel it is unfair to have lots of children when it drains resources ( eg education, free prescriptions, child benefit).

why reward people for having children?

The family probably 'take out' much more than they contribute to the sate money pot.

I find it hard to believe they would have had as many children if they weren't entitled to as much child benefit.

And then:

I do want children at some stage and was trying to work out the implications of maternity leave, benefits etc.

Wecwereherefirst- great point! If your grandmother's family survived with 21 children, WITHOUT benefits, then why do we need them now?
Lack of available opportunities for work, the list is endless. Go work out what you're entitled to and stop having a go at those in receipt of benefits on the one hand and holding your hand out for yours on the other.

skinny I think that you need to reaslise that at 24 with the household income you have at your disposal you are in a very fortunate position and I suspect you don't have to want for very much at all (I apologise if I am wrong) I also suspect that you don't have a single clue as to the lifeline that tiny bit of money each week can be to a family and what it would mean if that money was withdrawn.

I wish you well in your future and hope that things continue to go well for you. However, you should always remember you are only one tragedy away from hitting rock bottom and the stuff you now despise could be all that gets you and your future children through.

I feel the money spent on child benefit could be better spent on improving schools, nurseries etc. This would benefit children universally.

There was something in The Daily Mail a newspaper not long ago about instead of actual benefits, people on beneifts should get these debit card things which prevents them buying "luxury's" such as alcohol. I think they should do that with CB at least then the money would have to be spent on the kids....

I bloody threads like this.

hate I should have said hate threads like this

Well it says they support themselves so I'd take it that all they are entitled to is cb

Yabvu if you think anyone would have 15 dcs for the £13 a week you get per child.

Maybe I should start judging people who 'choose' £52k a year partners.

@ linerunner

Ok, you've convinced me! I was wrong. Clearly cb is considered an essential. Thanks for the debate and for opening my eyes.

I feel that the money spent on child benefit does what it is supposed to do in too many cases to ignore. It gives the woman in a relationship an element of control. And yes, I know it's not just women who get it.

I only have ONE child but I can tell you right now that when I planned my family I didn't think about child benefit.....in fact until I saw the form in the Bounty Pack following birth I don't think it had even crossed my mind.

This family are probably exactly the same.....and with 15 children it'll work out at about £10 per child....not exactly motivating is it?

And while we are on the subject, I suspect very few people plan their families based on what the Government will give them.....and as I am currently on benefits after 30 years of work I can tell you that the money I get is not a patch on what I got in salary.....my Child Benefit goes in tomorrow...DS needs new clothes, I need to shop, £20 will go on electricity and some on petrol. I welcome it. If I had YOUR income then I doubt I'd need it.

All the time people bleat on about not having children if you can't afford to support them. The Radford's can and they still get judged, they support their family through their own business. Until this month child benefit was universal. I don't see what your issue is OP. They work, they pay tax, and they are a decent hardworking family.

I absolutely get that everyone is entitled to question the way the government spends our money.

I get that some people may feel child related benefits could be used differently - ie: channeled into specific needs.

What pisses me off is when people say withholding benefits is a good idea because it stops poor people having kids, then start trying to dress it up as being concerned about how to 'benefit kids universally'.

Listen skinnywhippet - we've all told you - on the figures you put on here - yes you would be entitled to cb

"Family allowance was introduced to encourage people to have children after the war
Wecwereherefirst- great point! If your grandmother's family survived with 21 children, WITHOUT benefits, then why do we need them now?"

Here is a small lesson in Social Policy.

Rowntree discovered that the WC couldn't earn enough to adequately live, money was being made by those at the top, partly because they didn't pay workers enough, so benefits were introduced to alleviate poverty (caused by unfair distribution of wealth).

Family allowance was introduced to keep people out of hospitals/workhouses and institutions that cost more than throwing a pittance at families.

When the blue print for the Welfare State was put together, it was realised that if people didn't have enough food then they would clogg up the hospitals, so we had to have a comprehensive system of welfare.

We couldn't have child laws that state the care that children must have, unless "we" (Government) ensure families have enough to live on.

Either that or they would have to tell the truth about how and why wealth is distributed.

Child benefit is not an essential! The majority of people I have had the conversation with put it straight in a savings account for their dc, or they use it to pay for piano/ballet/swimming lessons.

CB really isn't that much, and if you can't afford children without it, you probably can't afford children.

I don't believe that child benefit is enough to encourage people to have children. It certainly never came into our decisions.

You might be able to apply that argument to some other benefits or tax credits, I don't know, but certainly not child benefit

Ahh, Clouds
Happy New Year to you too.