To think more outrage is needed over Tory threat to child benefit?

[flower68]

According to papers today Tory planned welfare cuts can't be achieved without further cuts to child benefit. George Osborne has refused to rule it out apparently. Such a cut would be massively controversial, hurt lower income families and is potentially politically toxic for the Tories. So why is no-one pushing them for a straight answer?

Well, I'll keep it simple for you. People can't always live where they can afford to and transport in. A large number shop workers/people low paid jobs in London are on some sort of HB as they can't afford to live there on full time wages. Don't support them and those jobs don't get done, or they get done by immigrants who are prepared to accept lower standards of living for short periods of time (bet you wouldn't like that either).

One of the biggest portions of the welfare bill is HB. If you look in other places where it's not available, people get to work. It's complete speculation on your part that people won't get to work and jobs won't get done. people find a way. Your last comment, which seems to imply I am some kind of xenophobe, is just way off.

if you look above I supported CB for low earners, but what I don't support is endlessly supporting people in housing they can't afford. That's simply not working, and costing us vast amounts of money. It's duping us all into essentially lining the pockets of private landlords from public money. Our culture of nimbyism, public housing and HB gives us some of the most expensive housing in the world, and some of the worst tenancy protections. I don't think we can just axe HB. We need to build a huge number of homes so rents and prices come down and housing is affordable. The current system is totally broken.

I had to pay my exh through the CSA or they would have slapped an attachment of earnings on me, why does that not happen all the time?

YY Jayne - why indeed

Dixie people are aware that people on lower incomes also pay tax however the point is if you have a lone parent on 60k they have a take home pay of 42k and will lose cb in full, a couple who are both earning 30k, so the same total gross income, will have a take home pay each of 23.5k a year giving a total income of 47k but they will still get cb. I believe it was brought in badly, badly planned and thought out, doesn't leave people in an equal position, generates bad feeling and divides people but then I suspect that was the intention in the first place.

When I raised concerns about the removal of universal cb for the above reasons I was told I was just being selfish and self serving because I was losing my cb, I didn't seem to be allowed to see a bigger picture because I was affected personally. Fedup makes a very good point that cb is required to qualify for tax credits so if they do limit it to 2 children is that a back door way of limiting tax credits too without ever actually coming out and saying it.

Those saying only have the children you can afford the problem is none of us have a crystal ball to see what the future will hold we think we can trust our partners to do the right thing but no one truly knows how a person will behave in extreme circumstances or what life will throw at us in the way of death disability or illness.

Jayne you can't slap an attachment of earnings on someone who is self employed nor can you slap one on someone who is working off the books and it takes time to track someone down when they change their jobs and then get a new attachment in place so if someone changes job every 6 months they would also escape. CSA also can't deal with a case where the nrp has left the country and I know at least 3 people on MN who that has happened to.

what pauline said.

I know a NRP who deliberately works in a low paid job and won't do more than 25 hours so she doesn't have to pay her ex maintenance :( so it does happen.

However, when money can be taken it should be. My ex only legally has to pay £1000 for three children - he earns more than quadruple that.

I guessed that was the reason, system really is utter shit isn't it. I have two children, looked after them and supported them myself for 6 years, exh never paid anything as he is unemployed by choice and I never approached the CSA anyway. DS moves in with exh, DD stays with me and within one week he had put in the CSA claim! I did counter-claim then for my £5 a week though!

I don't understand why CB still exists. Wasn't it originally created as money that went directly to the mother from the days when women generally didn't work - as a means to at least ensure she had some money to feed/clothe the children. Bit out-dated now no?

I can't see why so many people object to a cap on child benefit for two children, if that is what is being proposed, which I'm not sure it is. It wouldn't be applied retrospectively, and anyone who is old enough to be having children is surely also old enough to realise that children cost a lot of money. If you decide to have three children knowing that you'd only get help with two of them if things go wrong, then you are making your own informed choice. Nothing wrong with that.

This idea that Tory voters only care about themselves is bullshit. I'm sure some Tory biters are selfish, as some labour voters will be as well. But I don't think it's that anyone doesn't care about others, it's just that they disagree on how best to give the help.

I'd rather see childcare be entirely free for families that have two working parents, or in single parent families where the parent works. That way people could have the children they can afford on the wages they earn, and if we still have to have some form of working tax credits then so be it. But at least it would be linked to work, not just having children. It would enable people to take more responsibility for themselves, their children and their choices.

Of course the welfare safety net should be there for when things go wrong and unforeseen circumstances happen, but that doesn't mean giving people free money for as many children as they want whether or not they have any way of paying for them.

A couple who each earn 49k will have childcare costs and working costs that a family with a SAHP won't have. I don't agree with child benefit being cut in the way it already has been and it should have stayed a universal benefit IMO, but I don't think that what has been done so far is as bad as some like to make out.

I can't see why so many people object to a cap on child benefit for two children, if that is what is being proposed, which I'm not sure it is. It wouldn't be applied retrospectively

How can you be so confident that it wouldn't be applied retrospectively since the change already made was brought in retrospectively.

I can't see why so many people object to a cap on child benefit for two children, if that is what is being proposed, which I'm not sure it is. It wouldn't be applied retrospectively

I don't think it will have the outcome that people think. The hope is that people would have less children, especially people who can't afford them, but what will likely happen is that people will just have children they can't afford with no way to feed them. Not a nice outcome.

Thanks for the clarification Granny - although I was born after decimalisation. As far as I'm aware, my family was eligible for family allowance until I turned 18. I remember going to the post office to collect it with my mum, and then going straight out to buy new shoes etc. We weren't hard up at all, but that money was clearly intended for me.

I'm glad this thread has taken a different turn to how it was when I left it last night. I'm glad there are other people in the world who can see CB for what it is, and want the same kind of caring society that I do. I maintain that CB should always be a universal benefit.

PrettySeahorses I completely agree with this Frankly, if you support removing universal child benefits, which is an investment in children, then, when you are old, I support those children's right to refuse to pay your pension, to operate on you if they are surgeons, to arrange medical appointments for you if they are administrators, to wipe your backside if they are carers, to deliver food to you if they provide meals on wheels. What goes around comes around.

Agree keepitsimple, and we'll end up paying for them anyway.

As a policy it is half baked because nobody has explained what you do when feckless parents have children anyway, or what happens to a 'hardworking family' with 3 under 5 when

• the breadwinner is knocked down by a bus

• child number 2 and 3 are, it turns out, severely disabled and both parents have to give up their jobs.

• a parent gets a chronic disease that means they have to give up their job and needs a carer.

Are we all limited to 2 children now? What about multiple births?

Fine, have a policy, but you have to be able to talk through the consequences - otherwise you come across as dishonest or stupid.

HelenaDove that was a very insightful article.

Merrymouse, when the breadwinner is knocked down by a bus, we have widowed parents allowance. I get it, it's very generous.

When child no 2 or 3 is disabled or one of the parents gets a chronic disease, they can be supported via disability benefits.

I appreciate that disability and carers benefits aren't high enough and they absolutely should be increased, but that is a separate thread. We don't need to give out child benefit for unlimited numbers of children to provide for people affected by the situations you describe.

I don't receive cb anymore due to our income, quite rightly. I totally support no cb for high earners. But for lower incomes they should keep cb. It's for the child not the parents. It's a way of trying to ensure that children from families with low incomes can get an equal start in life to children from higher income families.

Frankly, if you support removing universal child benefits, which is an investment in children, then, when you are old, I support those children's right to refuse to pay your pension

Well since I will have paid in for 51 years when I get my pension (already done 45) any young person refusing to 'pay' my pension can pay me back a portion of the pensions of their parents, grandparents and possibly great grand parents that I have contributed to.

When you decide to have a child the situation you are in can be very different to the one you find yourself in 15 years later. A lot can change in that time.

It's easy to say 'don't have kids if you can't pay for them'.
Will you also force unplanned pregnancies to be terminated if they are to someone 'poor'? Sometimes contraception fails looks adoringly at mine!

I don't think people will have children if they know that state support will be very limited. A few still might but if there's no monetary gain for producing a child our population would drop. Those that sensibly plan would have the foresight of knowing should anything happen they will only get x so can plan around that by either saving in advance or limiting their families.

So many are quick to blame lack of money on the state but fail to acknowledge that the situation is usually of their own making. Three/four children are always going to be expensive hence why many simply don't have that number.

The child support system could be reforms more but for every NRP not paying there will be a PWC not providing either. If we get strict on PWC then we can really tighten up on NRP but it has to be both not one. Somebody mentioned a NRP working just 25 hours to avoid child support but many PWC work less than this or similar.

The problem with lumping it in with UC is that people who fail to self support will still get it. It sends the wrong message. Just like WTC, people will work the UC to their advantage. Scrapping CB rather than paying to just a set group is fairer and nobody can then moan. It was unfair when it was taken from some and not others, they should have just bit the bullet then and removed it completely.

When child no 2 or 3 is disabled or one of the parents gets a chronic disease, they can be supported via disability benefits.

A recent leaked document showed plans to cut carers allowance and tax some disability benefits. Add removal of child benefit into the mix and families with disabled children could well be bearing the worse brunt of the cuts. I just don't trust the Tories to ensure the most vulnerable are protected from cuts.