Baby Bonds - are they a waste of public money?

[bacon]

I do, like my friends, none of us are putting any additional money into it cos we have no control on it when darling child reaches 18. So has this ideal of saving been a LABOUR waste of time and money. What better long term idea could you come up with?

If you mean the child trust fund, then yes, absolutely.

Yes. It's just another way of the rich getting richer when you look at the difference between the worth of a fund which just sits there with the government money - and maybe the odd fiver here and there, ie most people with no spare cash - and one using the maximum top-up.

Also, you just know that when the first lot start to mature there are going to be vultures flocking to get their hands on that money. Some teenagers are savvy but most will blow it (ime of being a teenager).

yip! I don't top mine up! if I ever have enough spare money to set some by in trust it'll be for 21 not 18 - 18 is a stupid age to get a lump sum.

Our children's CTF is sitting in Nationwide devaluing as I type. I have no inclination to do anything to make it increase its value, as knowing how teenagers go, mine will probably blow theirs on booze . Nice idea, but a waste of resources I reckon.

My DD's trust fund is with HSBC and is currently worth about 50p. Bloody stupid idea, imo, and a complete waste of public money.

However, I don't think it is a way for the rich to get richer. I think the rich wouldn't give a shite about a sum so paltry as £200.

Total waste of money. I'm not exactly thrilled that ds wil be given a lump sum of beer money 3 weeks before he sits his A levels. It won't make a dent in uni fees, its not really enough money to do anything constructive with.

Complete total waste of time. My kids are too old to have them but my friends 7 yr old has one and it's now worth £20 more than it was when he was born!!

The CTF just wants scrapping immediately. It is a criminal waste of public money. A totally bizarre idea from a money waster IMO. Both my kids are of an age where they have them, but I have paid no additional money into them. They are both worth about £5 less than when they were born!!

Scrap it today and start saving the public money that desperately needs saving!!

The CTF voucher was simply a voting gimmick aimed to get votes from a certain demographic group of voters.

It wont make the rich richer - its £250!! Those that can afford to save for their children and intended to would have done so anyway without the voucher. They can then have more say in the type of account, who's name it was in etc. Those who dont save will probably never add to the vouchers account anyway.

I didn't bank DS's out of principle so it was banked automatically by the state. It will be worthless by the time he's eighteen anyway.

We save for DS because we want to not because the government tell us too.

A completely ridiculous idea that's emblematic of Labour's badly-thought-through, gimmicky approach to dealing with social inequality.

Yes, I know it's only £250, but the principal is there - this idea that it would allow poorer families to build a nest egg for their child, completely ignoring the fact that it would be predominantly the wealthy who would have disposable income which they could afford to lock away for 18 years to make the most of the drip feed affect. Of course £250 put in any sort of account for 18 years is going to be worth f-all.

I remember the same thing when Student Loans started off. All these smug rich kids who were taking out maximum loans to put in a high interest savings account and then braying loudly about their financial savvy.

And people who can afford to save their Child Benefit - why not scrap CB for the richest 20% and put that into a saving scheme for the poorest 20%? That would have had more of a chance of making a difference.

Yes... I think DH binned DDs...

yes its bollocks

as is the fact that i can get tax credits - anyone shouldnt be entitled to them on hte wage equiv to mine

andd the fact that chldbenefit anyone can have it = waste of money.

Agree scrap CTF BUT let those that want to save for their children and future a way that means they can set up trust funds of their own which are totally tax exempt and could be set at a level enough to cover the typical costs of a uni degree - so somehere around £15k - £20k as a realistic limit, per child!

"why not scrap CB for the richest 20% and put that into a saving scheme for the poorest 20%?"

What a ridiculous idea, why should some children be provided with a savings fund by the government and not others? So hard working tax payers should keep working and paying in so that those who choose not to work/work min hours get even more rewarded?

If a parent wants a savings fund for a child for when they are older then the parent should do it not the state.

The state is heavy in debt, savings need to be made to clear it not more gimmicks to get us into even deeper debt.

i think its cheaper to pay child benefit to all, rather than to employ loads of people to decide who does/doesn't get it.
as for the child trust fund,we should just scrap it. in 15 years time how much is £250 going to be worth, it will probably pay for at night out!

it's a complete waste of our money
i didn't top up, thank goodness, as it is now worth less than we started anyway. only people to benefit are the bankers who take their hefty % and who now have a very good database.

oh and we don't save for the dds. we do everything we can now to give them the best start.

lol, yes that's right HappyMummy, the only reason some children don't have a nice fat trust fund is because their parents are too damn lazy to get a high-paying job.

They should get on their bikes really.

(and yes, I know the argument re: means testing admin expense, but given that we already means test many benefits for low earners - and of course means test the whole tax system really - does that argument actually hold water? I can't help feeling that existing systems could be used to administer benefits more effectively. I am probably wrong.)

I'll probably add a bit to ds's, but like everyone else I don't want him getting too much money to blow when he turns 18. I'll start a separate savings account soon.

I do think it's a good idea, though - cheap to administer if it goes to every child, and OK £250 isn't much, but it's a deposit on a room in a shared house which could enable someone to move to a job or training course or escape their parents in some other way. Or it's concession-rate evening course, or travel - it's a lot more than nothing.

I'd get rid of all those bloody providers though and just reduce it to the Children's Society who handle 90% of them anyway and a FTSE tracker fund - I had huge problems with the paperwork so I'm not surprised so many people just forget it, especially as it gets automatically put in an account for you after I think 18 months anyway.

HappyMummyOfOne - Who are the lazy taxpayers then? Anyway.

" why should some children be provided with a savings fund by the government and not others? "

All sorts of reasons. I would want to know what someone proposing such a scheme was intending to acheive and how they would measure it. If it was, for instance, to allow those children whose parents were unable or unwilling to support them past the age if 16 to obtain further education or training and so reduce youth unemployment, then that would be one aim I could support.

dont agree with those who say it makes the rich richer. The rich have been paying into trust funds for years haven't they? ("trustafarians" etc) the CTF scheme didn't invent it?

I completely agree its a pointless waste of money and should be scrapped

seems no one else here really liked it but everyone else cashed it in so to speak.... go figure.