Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Child Trust Fund is such a misguided idea!!!!!!!!!

33 replies

TooTickyDoves · 27/11/2006 12:24

We have just heard that dd2 will get an extra £250, so now she has £500. Plus the other additions - I don't know when these happen - and we cannot afford to do the same for dd1, ds1 and ds2 unless our situation changes dramatically. I dread this leading to resentment later.

OP posts:
Original poster
TooTickyDoves · 27/11/2006 16:15

Anyone else got the same problem?

OP posts:
LittleSarah · 27/11/2006 16:17

Nope just one dd here.

Maybe later, if things improve you could put £10 a month in for each of the others? Not too much but should eventually sort out the difference??

flipflopper · 27/11/2006 20:30

How old is your DD, out if interest?

My ds has a CTF (he is 2) and we havent heard about getting any extra.

My dd who is 6 doesnt have one, but we do have a savings account each for them anyway.

Doesnt seem fair to the older ones who miss out. You cant complain though can you.

Original poster
TooTickyDoves · 27/11/2006 20:33

We are getting extra because we get working family tax credits. Dd2 is 16m.

OP posts:
Original poster
TooTickyDoves · 27/11/2006 20:37

And yes, I can complain. We'd be better off having the money now and using it for something the whole family will enjoy. I think they should backdate the scheme to include siblings. Anyway, what with inflation, it will be worth less by the time they can use it.

OP posts:
DizzyBint · 27/11/2006 20:41

it's not for the whole family, it's for the child that's the whole point.

whenever they started the scheme some families would have had siblings that didn't get it. if they said ok, siblings can have it too then how would that be fair? what about kids without siblings who'd have to go without?

Original poster
TooTickyDoves · 27/11/2006 20:48

I'd rather the money was split between the children, not just earmarked for one. It's easier for people who can afford to give their other children the same.

OP posts:
DizzyBint · 27/11/2006 20:50

i don't see how that's more fair. why should your youngest get less than her peers just because she has older siblings?

7swansaswimmingup · 27/11/2006 21:08

my ds aged 2 got the extra payment but obviously my 12year old got nothing, but my parents have been paying a fiver a month into an account for him since birth so he'll end up with more anyway

nearlythree · 27/11/2006 21:08

My dd1 hasn't got one, dd2 and ds have. I agree it's misconceived, it's too bureaucratic and should just be a simple post office bond issued to each child. But it isn't unfair on older siblings, it is to encourage saving and its intention is reasonable (although I think pocketing a few votes was probably behind it too).

You can ask relatives to pay into your other dcs' accounts.

Original poster
TooTickyDoves · 27/11/2006 21:17

That's okay if one has affluent relatives.
Why should the older ones miss out? This is how they will see it!

OP posts:
DizzyBint · 27/11/2006 21:20

i don't think it is bureacratic. it was dead simple to open one for dd, no trouble at all. i'd have hated for it have just gone into a post office bond when it could have gone into something else for the greater returns.

nutcracker · 27/11/2006 21:23

I have 3 kids and only the youngest qualified for the trust fund money. I add £5 a month to it and whatever the total is at the end, it will be split between the 3 of them.

23balloons · 27/11/2006 21:23

I strongly disagree with it and think it is a complete waste of taxpayers money which is why i refused to bank mine. The Government did it for me and after a year was worth less than it started out to be. They have spent millions trying to manage the scheme too.

nearlythree · 27/11/2006 21:26

I didn't bother with dd2's, in the end they stuck it in a bond for me. I will stick ds' wherever hers is. I've got a good enough brain but don't have the time for this; how is someone supposed to manage who has never had any kind of savings?

And how long before one lot of bonds start out-performing others and people start demanding compensation?

tooticky, there is nothing you can do about it and it's hardly your fault. I wouldn't stress about it, one thing we all learn at some point is that life isn't fair.

nearlythree · 27/11/2006 21:30

23ballons, that is the point, isn't it? Yes, there is the chance of greater returns but also greater losses. Two options would have been enough, one risky and one guaranteed.

I do feel as though GB was trying to bribe me. After all, if he really wanted to encourage savings then he and TB wouldn't have introduced university fees so that our dcs will have massive debts even before their working lives have begun.

MissGolightly · 27/11/2006 21:33

TooTicky, your DD2 could choose to share her money when she takes control of it. It's her decision of course but if she feels, like you, that the accident of her date of birth is an unfair advantage there's nothing to say she can't share the money with her siblings when she's 18.

I think it's a laudable idea, ok it's bureaucratic but it has to be to prevent unscrupulous people from taking advantage of their children's money. Lots of other countries have similar ideas, the UK was lagging behind by not helping kids build up a tax free fund for education/starting out in life.

nearlythree · 27/11/2006 21:35

But why did we have to choose from, what, 20 providers? Mad!

MissGolightly · 27/11/2006 21:52

Nearly3, there has to be lots of choice because it would have been totally unfair for the government to hand a huge contract like this to just one financial institution. How could they decide that - say - all the money for the next 20 years was guaranteed to go to Natwest? Natwest could offer as crap a product as they liked, safe in the knowledge that the whole country would be tied to using their services.

By allowing a number of providers to compete for your custom they ensure 1) no one single company benefits above any other and 2) there is a wide range of products to suit everyone's beliefs and attitude to risk.

If they just offered just 2 products, there would be no provision for Muslims who are not allowed to earn interest under Sharia law, no provision for those (like me) who choose only ethical investment companies, and no freedom for people to manage their child's investment themselves (which is also possible).

notasheep · 27/11/2006 21:58

tooticky-try and look at it positively,better to have it than not at all.
My dd has just been left a lump sum ( but nothing for ds)its fantastic that it has happened NOT what about ds....see what i mean?

suburbanjellybrain · 27/11/2006 22:07

I have to say I think it is a good opportunity for me to teach my children about economics my ds has an ethical bond that we contribute too and my dd's cheque arrived today - we will use te same scheme - my parents were rubbish with money and taught me nowt about saving or owt... I really want dc's to have better examples than i did.

Know i am dead lucky to be able to add to it but actually enjoyed looking through the options for ds's cheque - and look forward to explaining how they work etc. when they are older.

I think it is a shame all children won't have them but that isn't an argument not to bother - it is an opportunity what you do with it is up to you and your circumstances

Original poster
TooTickyDoves · 27/11/2006 22:35

nutcracker, that is a good idea - as long as you explain it well, because the child takes control of the money at 18 I believe.
MissGolightly, I hope that dd2 does want to share it - she certainly would now as she loves her older siblings to bits.
notasheep, I'm not really knocking it as such, just wish it was fair

OP posts:
nearlythree · 27/11/2006 23:08

I hear what you are saying, MrsGolightly, and it is a good point about a sharia option. But I don't see why the other two couldn't have been as I said - one with risk, one without, both ethical. The problem is that there are an awful lot of people who find this type of thing intimidating and incomprehensible. So much better to let them feel they have some say in what is going on.

As for managing my childrens' money, all three of our dcs have various accounts and bonds - of mine and dh's choosing. For teaching them about money, dd1 (who is four) has 50p pocket money which she saves plus 10p extra a week to put aside for the good cause of her choice.

Cappuccino · 27/11/2006 23:16

"We'd be better off having the money now and using it for something the whole family will enjoy"

er, no. It's a government scheme meant to encourage thinking towards the future, and saving

and whoever said that they didn't bank theirs so the government did and the cash lost money as a result, well, you should have sorted it out yourself then shouldn't you

a lot of families save bugger all for their children's future and spend it all in Argos on tat for them throughout their childhood or on clothes from Baby Gap

encouraging saving is a good thing and if it means that a few kids lose out while the scheme gets going, it's sad but it's better than not encouraging saving at all

nearlythree · 27/11/2006 23:32

I have no idea if I have lost money or not.

I have sorted out my childrens' finances. I don't need any government interference to do it.

Those that do need help are those who find the confusion of the government's scheme too much to cope with.