To not be saving child benefit

[cadburyegg]

So we have 2 DC, one 3yo the other 4mo. We claim child benefit for them. It goes into our joint account and helps a little with our daily expenses. I have worked part time since the 3yo was born so it’s helpful.

In laws came over last night and somehow this topic came up. MIL was aghast that we are not saving it up for the children when they are older. We do save for them but only a small amount per month. Her words were “you’re not poor so you should be saving it up for their first car or similar”. Well no we aren’t poor but we aren’t rich.

I thought child benefit was supposed to help with the cost of raising kids not be a saving fund for them? AIBU??

Mine goes into a different account. I only spend it if I need to. That's not up for judgement

PurpleTigerLove what I’m saying is that if they are going to means test it it should be done properly. I’m not saying that when 2 people work they should be penalised, I very much believe that working should pay. But I do think that having the benefit removed because your household earns £42,815 after tax, whilst another household earning £74,030 after tax keeps it isn’t always fair. At least not without looking at it in a little more detail. A lot of other benefits and things such as 30 hours free nursery care are available to households in which both parents work and are (for obvious reasons) not open to households where 1 parent stays at home. I have previously worked with children so know that childcare costs can be much higher than this. However, for a lot of people relying on grandparents etc their childcare costs are 0.
People choose to stay at home for lots of reasons and many don’t choose it at all. As you said single parents lumped into this are also getting an unfair deal.
In lots of areas of the UK the 60K upper limit does not actually go that far nowadays, especially if you actually look at what you get after tax and things like childcare vouchers etc have been taken into account.
It’s also worth noting that this policy was implemented for children that had already been born, so a lot of families (especially those with quite a few children) experienced a significant drop in take home pay. If when it had been brought in they had said all children born from X date I think it would have been fairer, especially to the families with multiple children or who are just about managing.
Basically I’m saying I think the root of the idea that people who don’t need it don’t receive it is fine, but as ever with the government their execution of it has been shoddy at best.

OP it’s none of your MIL’s business what you spend it on. If you were spending it all on Tequila whilst your children went without fair enough, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case at all

Gosh mil, it would be nice to save it, but that would be silly as then they would starve, or go without clothes, shoes, nappies, milk?

Which lets face it is what cb is for. YANBU, yes, great if you can afford it.

I used mine solely to pay for the children's clothes and shoes and school trips - surely if you can afford to put it away for the children when they are older, you don't really need it? And yes, I know everyone is entitled to it

Surely if you can afford to save it then by definition you don’t need it - not talking about keeping it in a separate account to use for child- related expenditure, but actually locking it away in a child trust fund where you can’t touch it.

LilianGish

Everyone's idea of affordability is different. Some people don't drink, smoke, eat out at restaurants, shop for fun etc but still get everything their child needs.

Why should they lose child benefit because they can spend their owners earnings to provide for children due to above frugal ways and save the child benefit?

We earn quite a bit under the threshold, I think it is unfair to suggest we shouldn't have the benefit because we can afford to save it. We have friends who earn more than us (still in threshold) but don't save it because they lead a more luxurious lifestyle than us - and that is up to them to do with their money.

Your finances are no-one else's business. As long as you are comfortable with how it's being used, and your child is not going without things they need then that is fine. Our gets used to pay for gymnastics, brownies, art lessons and swimming, all of which my daughter loves.

I don’t save it for my children be realistcly it does get spent on them? They cost money to clothe and feed? School trips, day trips, eating out and activities? There’s nothzing left too save?

I get a bit extra child tax because dd2 is on higher rate DLA, I also work but still struggle to save anything.

If you can afford to save some then that’s fine but I’m sure a lot of people can’t afford it.

Nope, it goes towards shoes, clothes and nappies atm. Find it very useful for one off costs like shoes when they go up a size!

Will maybe go on clothes or phone bill for them when they're older.
We do save a small amount a month for when they're older but no where near the CB amount.

Not at all unreasonable!!!! The CB amount is a drop in the ocean compared to ongoing child rearing costs, why shouldn't you use it in whatever way suits your situation? Ours goes towards every day living expenses and I still fully intend to buy the DCs first cars (somehow!) when the time comes! What's it to your MIL anyway?! 🤷‍♀️

We always put it in a separate account, so it wouldn't be used for everyday things like food shopping, but was there and could be used for extras like Scout trips, school trips or family holidays.

Mine just goes into my account and it seems daft to try to label any particular expenditure as linked to a particular source of income. We have money in from earnings and child benefit, and we enjoy a reasonable quality of life with enough slack for some luxuries, treats and holidays, plus putting some money into savings (some for us, some in DCs names) and overpaying the mortgage a little.

It makes no sense to say which of these things is "what I spend the child benefit on"

We mange this while being nowhere near the threshold for losing child benefit because our expectations for what counts as a reasonable quality of life isn't hugely expensive.

That said, a couple earning the same amount but with no kids would have a much higher disposable income despite getting no CB as CB obviously comes nowhere near to the actual cost of raising kids. My kids are likely to repay the exchequer very many more multiples of what is given for them in CB with the tax they eventually start paying so I don't think it's remotely unreasonable for our household income to be supplemented by this modest amount as the taxpayer's contribution to us raising the next generation of taxpayers.

Lots of gp's save for their gc first car, lessons etc. maybe suggest they start saving grin]

I don't save it - I've only just started claiming it since becoming a single parent (we were not eligible while STBXH lived with us for complicated reasons). And no, I'm not saving it. We're living on one income, not two, and we need it. I'm very, very glad to have it.

My MiL said the same to me... I told her it was how we paid for the pony 🙈

It should just be scrapped, then there's no government funded savings pots etc.

Since it's no longer universal it essentially rewards some parents and leaves the ones paying the most tax feeling robbed and that their children don't matter. Either make it back universal or scrap it for all, after all the costs of the child should sit with the parents alone.

My mum used ours to pay the rent. Ime having a roof over your head is a great benefit, child or otherwise

We are definitely not huge earners by any means but we don't struggle for money as thankfully we don't live in an expensive area and our living it's are fairly low.

However our child benefit gets spent on food and bills. We won't think about putting money aside for our children's future until the days of childminder/nursery/before and after school club are over and our mortgage is paid off.

Once we are in a position to plan for our retirement we will include saving for our children in that plan. On mat leave with my first so that will be a long way off!!

What's the difference between saving the £80 a month that child benefit provides and saving £80 a month from your own salary for your children - if it all goes into one pot?

I don't yet claim CB because DD hasn't been born but yes, we're entitled to it because we're under the threshold but no, once maternity leave has finished, it would be spending it for the sake of it. If those circumstances changed then the saving would stop and it would be used.

As long as it's then used for the benefit of the child - at any age, then I really don't understand the problem with saving, everyone's circumstances are different.

Going back to the original question though - of course your MIL was being unreasonable, it's completely up to you how that money is used and she shouldn't have any judgement on that. I'd have been really upset as well as angry about her comments.

Despite the name, it is not the child's benefit it is a benefit for parents.

I just think of it in terms of household income and outgoings. It doesn't make any sense to allocate specific income with specific expenditure or savings.

Nobody is making a profit out of their kids. What is the difference between saying you have saved your child benefit and paid for the kids clothes out of your own money and saying you paid for the clothes with the child benefit and saved your own money? It's all a household pot.

Thanks everyone. I’d love to be able to save that amount a month but it’s simply not feasible.

Unfortunately my mil is all about status and doesn’t like to think we claim any kind of benefit. She also wants us to buy “nicer” cars!

Mine comes in monthly as I was working full time (on mat leave) when we applied. I use the 82 to bulk buy nappies and get a shop.

I'd have preferred it weekly when she was a baby as she going thru a tub of formula in less than a week and my mat pay was monthly.

Thing is about having a cut-off for it, is that again the reason that it was introduced was that some men did not give their wives any money for anything. They earnt it, they spent it or kept it - usually they would provide food and for bills but they had full control.
Some controlling abusive bastards (of which there are still plenty) would not allow the woman any money for anything they themselves did not consider necessary.
So the money was to be paid directly to the woman, for use for the child.

It still is the case that there are financially controlling abusive bastards out there - these days women are allowed their own bank accounts without their husband's say-so, of course, but if they're not working and have a child to care for, this may again be their only source of personal income. In terms of control and abuse, it really doesn't matter how much the household income is - if the man doesn't let the woman have any of it, and controls what she can have money for, he could be a millionaire and she'd still need the Child Benefit.

I don't think it should have been turned into a discretionary payment - that wasn't its purpose.