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?

What a disgusting thread.

The point of child benefit is that every child under a certain threshold is offered a decent chance to have warm clothes, decent food and healthy nappies. It's not a benefit for parents but for kids. It used to be called family allowance and I can guarantee that all your parents will have claimed it for you. Not means tested, not subject to the fluctuations of your working hours, or the market. but a bit of help for every family - at least that's how it was till recently.

We are the sixth largest economy in the world. The proposed cap means that families with three kids get, what, £46 a week? That's really a drop in the ocean when compared to pensions, trident, educating prisoners - things that you right wingers seem to value more than the future adults of the country. That £46 is school uniforms, books, family days out, a months leccy.

We're a wealthy country. We can afford this. Don't be so fucking miserly.

verybluebananas.

I also blame labour for not sorting the fucking child maintenance system

They fucked that right up

It should be have a child or the court orders bailiffs to remove gods and of your married your and your new wife's income should be treated jointly just like mine is with my new husband when they are taking my income into account

I feel it's wrong that children suffer for having feckless parents. They did not ask to be born or suffer poverty. Most five year olds can't go and get a job. Even people who get a job do not escape poverty.

It seems crazy that my five year old gets free school meals, but we lose child benefit.

I just don't see the issue here. If state expenditure has to be trimmed, but you don't want to take benefits away from the poorest and most vulnerable, then trim them from people who are less poor and less vulnerable.

WRT to capping child benefit, wouldn't the logical way be to cap it for the resident parent? As in, you can claim child benefit for 2 children that live with you.

There might be a tiny minority who'd have more children and then live in multiple households with the children separated out so as to be eligible for CB but I don't see many people being keen on that.

Just to make it clear i dont have DC but i think Child Benefit should be left alone.

The note saying there wasn't any money left was there because the in work benefits were unsustainable.

Cutting cloth needs to be done by everyone and the harsh truth is people need to take responsibility when reproducing.

It's an investment in the future though Madame.

Cuts like this are extremely short termist and may prove incredibly expensive in the long run.

Totally agree Madame. It's not sustainable.

How does the opinion that CB is used by poor parents to provide decent food and clothing for children tie up with the hand wringing over all the children currently in dire poverty, barefoot and starving ?

Either CB makes a difference already. Or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, or parents are choosing to spunk the money on fags/booze/drink/drugs/Brighthouse than a proposal to ensure ALL children on beenfots get two free hot meals a day can only be a very good thing, no?

It was Thatcher who brought in the CSA.

Scrap it entirely in, say, 10 months time. Level playing field for everyone and no arguments over the number of children it should be capped at, whether men can have an infinite number of children by different women etc etc.

Agree with Madam completely

Scrap it entirely in, say, 10 months time. Level playing field for everyone and no arguments over the number of children it should be capped at, whether men can have an infinite number of children by different women etc etc.

Yes. And invest that money DIRECTLY to children in need to ensure they actually DO get enough to eat.

Well if your opinion is really that there are only two extremes and never the twain shall meet then I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.

But do you really think it's either all money that goes on saving kids from poverty or money that gets pissed up the wall by scrounging feckless parents who can't control their urges? Don't you think there are plenty of families on 20-35K who really value their cb and allocate it properly to their child's needs? Fuck, I didn't realise I could go down town and get wrecked while my sons dirty nappy sagged by his knees.

Yes. And invest that money DIRECTLY to children in need to ensure they actually DO get enough to eat.

How?

The conservatives were very clever in how they have approached cb. It was very obvious they would look to do this.

Child benefit was brought in in post war Britain as a universal benefit. It meant mum had a bit of money in case dad drank/gambled his wages away.

50k earners were annoyed by the change. It is disgraceful that a couple earning £49999 each still get it, yet a single parent on 60k doesn't.

However the people affected by the change are is a small percentage of the electorate. They may be annoyed but had a relatively small voice.

Bingo cb no longer a universal benefit - obstacle overcome. Successive governments can now reduce/change at will.

BMW6, that's the best way forward. Rather than reward the reckless and penalise those who can actually afford their children just stop it for all. Everyone then is treated the same and it may even encourage some to actually stop and think if they can afford children before having them.

An investment overshadowed and wiped out by the interest you need to pay on the money you need to borrow to keep paying that benefit.

Good point well made Manatee

I think cb should Not be capped, but the changes for high earners seem fair enough. People do not have children to claim a few pounds a week. However I was astonished at the woman in a smart shop recently who whilst paying announced "farty pants is buying it for me with her cb"!!!

While interest rates are at an all time low?

This is just divide and conquer political tactics.

Free school meals (breakfast and lunch) would at least give kids 2 meals a day, no need to worry about benefits being spent on fags or dog food. Ensuring the meals the kids got weren't Turkey twizlers and curly fries too.

Uuuugh this is such a hard topic though! I've changed my opinion on this about 3 times just reading this thread.

I have to say though, I've mostly always been of the mindframe that £20 a week for pretty much everyone is such a strange thing to do. For those at the top, do they really need that £20 a week to feed and clothe their children? Probably not. And if they do well i'd like to show them a thing or two about how to run a budget and live within their means. And for the people at the bottom, if they really are in poverty then i'd rather see the £20 a week (which isn't very much when we're talking about kids who have nothing?) spent on ensuring every child has free baby food, hot dinners, suitable clothing, nappies, toothpaste etc. why not have a sort of babybox system like the findland thing where once a week or month £160 worth of "supplies" are sent to those who needs them?
Half the cap, so the people at the bottom get double. That way only the people who are in need get it, no one can be accused of spending childbenefit on fags/booze/days out, and its a pretty full proof way of eradicating poverty from a foodbank/ no clothing standpoint.
As for housing and fuel poverty, well they're still fucked but thats why I'm not an MP

I don't understand tax credits etc. I don't understand why the govt don't scrap all cb and tax credits and put the personal tax allowance up to 20k or whatever. Low earners wouldn't pay any tax and the massive government department sorting it all out wouldn't be needed.

Anyway there must be some reason why they don't do it