Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

The BUDGET

33 replies

edodgy · 22/03/2006 19:17

Could someone explain to me what exactly the government is doing regarding Chid benefit starting in April 2006. Nemo and me were watching it before and Gordon Brown said that it will increase to 17.45 for every child. Now as far as we remember this is the amount the first child gets per week anyway so my question does this mean other siblings are going to get the same as the first born child now or not? Gordon was quite vague (unsuprisingly).

OP posts:
waterfalls · 22/03/2006 19:19

Oooh, I dont know, but that would be nice, and logical, I mean children are'nt cheaper just because they are the 2nd/3rd etc.

jessicaandrebeccasmummy · 22/03/2006 19:20

£16.70 a week at the moment i believe - and its eldest child only.

Got my letter the other day, says i am going from £28.40 to £29.15 per week.

Increase of 75p.

Original poster
edodgy · 22/03/2006 19:20

That's what we thought I think he said every eligable child but we're not sure.

OP posts:
Original poster
edodgy · 22/03/2006 19:20

Maybe it is just the first child then.

OP posts:
jessicaandrebeccasmummy · 22/03/2006 19:21

let me word that better....

Current rate for eldest child is £16.70, this will increase to £17.45

2nd child rate is still £11.70

Original poster
edodgy · 22/03/2006 19:22

Thanks jarm don't know why they think subsequent kids are cheaper.

OP posts:
jessicaandrebeccasmummy · 22/03/2006 19:24

You tell me! Its a bloody nightmare! If anything they are more expensive!

waterfalls · 22/03/2006 19:24

Because we are supposed to give them hand me downs, I wonder if Tony Blair did that!!!!

Original poster
edodgy · 22/03/2006 19:26

haha i doubt it.
I can't really see my ds in my dd's dresses and flowery tops!

OP posts:
jessicaandrebeccasmummy · 22/03/2006 19:26

like hell he did - and i cant give becky jessicas clothes because they are wrong season! Like Becky wants to be wearing summer dresses in this weather!

spursmum · 22/03/2006 19:31

JARM- do you really only get £16.70 for your eldest? Im on £17 whiich will go up to £17.45 in april.
And the reason CB is going up is absolutly nothing to do with the budget!!
When I applied to have CB paid weekly (as you can as a single parent) I asked about the lone parent element. The lady on the phone said that it didn't exist anymore (scrapped in 98) and CB was going up to bring everyones amount in line.

jessicaandrebeccasmummy · 22/03/2006 19:35

My letter says....

I am writing to tell you about the increase in your child benefit. From 10 April 2006, the total amount you will recieve each week will increase from £28.40 to £29.15

This is how we make up your Child Benefit:

Jessica £17.45 a week
Rebecca £11.70 a week

£28.40 minus £11.70 = £16.70

LucyJones · 22/03/2006 19:36

I don't get why the second child gets less either - it's not like nappies and formula are any cheaper 2nd time round!!

spursmum · 22/03/2006 19:38

Oooh errr! How strange? Would love to know who works all this out, Im sure they don't know how much things cost!!

daisy1999 · 22/03/2006 19:44

it's even worse with twins - more cost than two separately but the second twin only gets the lower amount of child benefit Sad

SenoraPostrophe · 22/03/2006 19:46

the first child costs more because when you have two they can share things. and if you don't give formula or use disposable nappies second children are virtually free.

are you against hand me downs then waterfalls?

LucyJones · 22/03/2006 19:47

You see SP I don't get that. They can't share food can they?

waterfalls · 22/03/2006 19:48

No, I did'nt say that, just some light hearted fun.

SenoraPostrophe · 22/03/2006 19:48

no, but they can share toys and changing mats etc. food costs less per person the more people you are feeding.

jessicaandrebeccasmummy · 22/03/2006 19:49

SP dont get me wrong, I love hand-me-downs and basics like vests and sleepsuits have been fine, but Jess was a July baby, Becky an October birthday.... so new stuff needed.

I had to bottle feed because Becky wouldnt latch and I dont produce milk, and although i tried reusable nappies - 2 lots a day was too much work.

LucyJones · 22/03/2006 19:50

I guess I never spend my child benefit on toys etc because the toys they have are all presents. And I don't think it's fair to say that the 2nd child should get less because I shouldn't be using disposables and formula

waterfalls · 22/03/2006 19:50

Children are never free, and they dont drink only milk til they are 16Smile

SenoraPostrophe · 22/03/2006 19:57

i didn't say anyone "should" be doing anything, just that second children do cost less, unless you are the sort of person who buys everything new for the sake of it. even off-season babies can have their sibling's vests etc. if you breast feed and use reusable nappies then second children are virtually free for the first year - but I know most people don't do that.

but anyway since when was child benefit supposed to cover the cost of child rearing?

LucyJones · 22/03/2006 20:00

did someone say it was?
I do take your point but I guess I was thinking of buying double pushchairs, car seats etc.

bossykate · 22/03/2006 22:29

oh come on, senora, saving on vests and babygros hardly means there are no extra costs... and what about you have a winter boy and then a summer girl? there's much less overlap with clothes than you think. and i speak as a person who considers it a failure to buy new baby/child clothes at full price...

congratulations on your third btw Smile