Nick Clegg has lost the plot

[LilyBolero]

He has been reported as saying he would be "happy to forgo child benefit", the inference being that others should as well.

Sounds good. But the threshold that has been bandied around is 26k family income.

Clegg is on a salary of 130k+. His wife has been reported as earning 300k+. So with a conservative estimate of family income of 400k+, how can he POSSIBLY suggest that someone with a family income of 26k should be happy to give up child benefit.

If they scrap it, we will lose £250 a month. Not much when you have a family income of £400k, but to ordinary people, that is HARD. And maybe it is inevitable, but to suggest we should be pleased to hand it back, because Clegg would be happy to, is bordering on madness.

yes, I'm not saying women have children for any reason other than their own self-satisfaction.

BUt what I am saying is that the "we don't need children, they're just a lifestyle choice" argument takes the responsibility for child-rearing away from the government and society. I believe it takes a village to raise a child, that we all have a stake, and a society that does not see the intrinsic value of children is already dead.

I am definitely in favour of tapering off child benefit and tax credits after the first two children - perhaps 50% for the third, 10% for the fourth, and zero after four children.

Everyone deserves to have children if they want them, but too many have them without planning financially for them. Parenting is not a right; it is a huge, huge responsibility.

I am just starting to fill in the calculator as linked above. Have got to the bit saying "As older children are more expensive...". And that is precisely why they should not cut CB for teenagers.

And once I suffer a drop in income next month due to redundancy, I will be in the poorest 10% but still have an income higher than 7% of the population.

Not sure I needed to see that now.

beenbeta - they're not announcing anything until the spending review so all the finicky little snips they'e talking about rather than cuts are just speculation, they may surprise you yet!

orsinan - Completely agree re all the flouncing :)

My DH earns £65K before tax and CB saves us every month.

I'm a bit frightened of the Clinton-derived 'it takes a village' idea. Not least because humans being humans take the line of least work; that is if the State determines it will take a substantial part in the raising of the child then some parents simply decide to absolve themselves of the responsibility of raising the child and say 'let the State do it!'

Anthony Giddens, the New Labour policy guru introduced the concept of the shared parenting concept (both the parents and the State having responsibility for the raising of a child in society) in his book The Third Way, in 1998. The problem with the concept is it takes the agreement of both sides - and unfortunately the Labour government didn't bother getting a consensus on the subject, preferring instead to demonize parents (not feeding the right diet, not getting enough exercise, not supervising Internet usage!) rather than providing for a genuine partnership.

But the child allowance isn't any form of shared parenting scheme. rather it is simply like the London Allowance some jobs in the South-East attract; recognition that the cost of bringing-up children is to the disadvantage of many families. Yet even then it isn't accurate; some families put the money aside in a childs/childrens account, others use it to pay for essential or occasional purchases (such as school uniforms) and unfortunately some will spend it on fags and booze.

One thing though I think is clear, is that a family with an income of say, what in London? 80k? Well, they probably don't have much need for child allowance and it could be removed. No point trying to retrieve it through tax; the greater the income the greater the means of being able to pay an accountant or tax expert to advise on avoiding paying tax in any case!

A 26k threshold is ridiculous. Such a change would be bad for the economy, as families cut down on their spending even more, robbing the economy of even more consumer sales.

Goodness pinkbasket you must have really high outgoings on your 65,000 income to need child benefit to 'save' you every month.

Is there any way mumsnetters could offer some advice on the money threads that might help you?

'Having children is a lifestyle choice for some and a biological desire for others (and there are other reasons personal to individuals).
'

Entirely depends on the way it's done; if it;s set up for future alrge famillies- well eprsonally I don't like it but there may be some truth in the lifestyle choice thing.

But if it's for existing famillies- and the great many who ahd decent incomes until the cuts and recession (of that would be us!) then it's not a lifestyle choice at all, just a decision absed on your circumstances in a pre-recession workls that seems very far away now.

As for we don't need children..... apart from whe4ther we would ever truly gret enough immigrant input to suppoprt an aging society, I wonder if people realise how much offspring save the country by caring for their aging relatives each year? Of course we'd save on schools but in fact caring in institutionalised care for someone costs into the thousands per week- it would be huge.

And yes, it certainly bearas note that many famillies do plan yet hit ahrd times. if they do so and had an extra one, two children are they supposed to be alright to seta side as collaterel damage?

Id a aprent (or even both) dies, or gets ill, or face redundancy or.... so many things.Maybe then there should be some long-service NI payment cover? That might work better as a way of protecting genuine hard luck cases.

I thought he looked ill Nick Clegg. I know government ages people but not that fast.

I'm amazed he got through that party conference alive. If I was a Lib Dem (and I'm not), think I would have made a giant banner with the words SELL OUT on it! He could have, at least, looked like he didn't want to agree with the Tories but the way he presents himself, it's almost like he's relieved someone has the same views as him!

Laurie - I wouldn't care but all the money goes on bills and food. If the kids need clothes or shoes then there is less food bought. I have just had a bill through the post that I wasn't expecting and luckily I have enough savings to cover it.

"if they do so and had an extra one, two children are they supposed to be alright to seta side as collaterel damage?"

This is always going to be an exceptional case. What went wrong in the past was to have designed a system where extra money is dished out as standard, rather than the exception. As fast as the last government spent money to eradicate poverty in existing children, more new ones were being added. The total, therefore, didn't come down at all. Most people are not greedy and neither do they see their children as a lucrative source of income. But some.... ranging from Heather Mills to Karen Matthews.... do.

Sakura - if you read what I said, I said that although it is a lifestyle choice, it is ESSENTIAL that people make this choice, because otherwise society would collapse - and therefore people shouldn't be penalised for it.

I think there should be a cap on it at about a household income of 125k not 26k. It pays for my DCs clothes and shoes each month.

You can cover the occasional cases though: it is easy to design policies that protect whichever group you happen to favour- the challenge is to design a system that doesn;t make a casualty out of anyone who doesn;t deserve it: that's where things get hard.

So, if someone has had children whilst tehyw ere working but loses a job through no fault it's quite possible to manage that. the HB system manages to reward past effort- the concept of previous affordability that gives someone a (brief) chaance to get on their feet and not lose their abode, or to at elast cover the persiod before the contract ends without incurring debt arrears that make it harder to find cheaper accomodation.

Otherwise after all costs to state rack up- poverty costs. That's not random musing- we know that from health, education, all manner of studies.

So, there are three options here:

A state that provides a safety net as it is- personally I am for that but not everyone is, theeir choice etc.

A state that argues against nanny satte and illiberalism then places caps on family size etc whilst merrily enjoying a alrge family from a public purse position that has a gold plated pension attahced (yes DC I mean you) and family money funded excellent education.

or you can try and build a tiered system that does protect people mroe if they make an effort. Maybe build in qualifiers to extra support (there is insurance sure that covers employment but so many would never qualify due to occuplation or ehalth, and I have experience of trying to get an employer to sign the form post redundancy whilst his business crumbles and being told where to shove it and that meaning no pay out).

Somewhre there is a system that can provide greater support for those really trying without leaving those who are not destitute. That can then encompass those on non work related benefits where the claim is not a matter of choice- seriously ill, disabled, carers whatever. People basically who are doing as best they can to contribute to the wider state.

It's also worth remembering that CB being cut full stop would hit the poorest especially ahrd beacause CB is not currently counted in HB so whilst other cuts often balance themselves out- eg £10 off TC would eman a greater chance of claiming HB etc, £10 off CB is £10 lost.

(and in a time of mass redundancy famillies with working aprents and +3 children are going to be very far from exceptional: they will be very common indeed. far too many to write off indeed).

Yes we need to cut but we also need to consider the effects of those cuts and hitting the same hitherto responsible famillies twice (and then increasing risks of them needing social housing, divorcing, suffering MH issues- allr elated to money worries and factors that + state financial output) is nto the sensible approach.

And neither is pulling CB at 16: Das was refused Grammar becuase of family finances, I had to fight like buggery to be allowed to take my A-Level exams. That mewasure would smack of creating a class divide over access to post 16 education.

I don't get why older children are necessarily more expensive - our nursery fees are currently £650-£700 a month. I'm hoping we won't be spending that much on him when he's a teenager!

Rhian from my p[erspective as a mum of a pre-teen they cost a fortune when theya re small, it drops then rockets agin as they need more costly clothes / school uniform/ equipment for agmes or hobbies.

also when they get to sixth form you are expected to fork out for their text books which really irritates me. not something they tell you even when you go to a welcome evening hmm. even when the school gets extra funding for kids staying on in sixth form.

"Lifestyle choice? LIFESTYLE CHOICE??!!"
Who comes up with this Orwellian newspeak? Perhaps they've got a 'window in their diary' come come and explain to me why, when I met the man I love, it is assumed that I sat down and considered that the idea of having children was a lifestyle choice? Like having my floor laminated or something? Nor did I have the arrogance to decide that we'd have children 'to be useful to society'. We had children because we did. End of.
This isn't about creating a war between those who have children and those who do not, although the powers that be would love to make it so, to demolish the state child benefit provision for good. That is just a tactic to set us against each other. There are benefits for all of us when we fall on hard times, and the NHS is one of them. Don't let anyone undermine it by such pretentious phrases as 'lifestyle ** choice'.

LilyBolero, my post wasn'T to you, it was to Lauriefairycake.

It's not about creating a war between those who have children and those who don't. Childless-by-choice couples see the value of children too. It's about all members of society accepting that child-bearing and rearing benefits society

orsinian I can see that side of the coin. Claig brings that up. NOt sure what the answer is. I just see that a lot of children are being raised in poverty, or in disadvantaged circumstances, by stressed out mothers, and I'm wondering what would be a better way to go about it.

just read sancty's post. Lots of good ideas in there.

sakura, I meant the post at 7:19 when you said

"LIly, having children is NOT a lifestyle choice. That's just something the government and society tells people so they don't have to help mothers and children and to blame women for the pay gap, and the feminization of poverty... etc ad nauseum."