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?

You don't have a choice in the matter. If you don't deposit it for your child then the govenment opens an account for them.

well of course i am going to cash it in, i'm not going to put £250 in the bin... and as callmeDave says the govt bank it for you if you don't.

but doesn't mean i think it is a worthwhile use of public funds.

it is one of the first things that should be scrapped, along with health in pregnancy payout . i mean does anyone really use it to ensure they are "healthy in pregnancy" or are they just spending more than they would have on bugaboos.

I have no intention of topping up my dc's CTF. It is going to get messy when the little cherubs all hit 18 in their 6+th form college years and go on a spending / drinking spree.

Mine have a separate trust fund they don't get to touch (or even know about) until I say so. They can have it for something sensible (driving lessons / car / uni / house) when they need it.

It was a Labour initiative with no real purpose, a luxury we can't afford, and should be scrapped if anyone's got any sense.

Then again, given that the national debt is so vast, I'm fully expecting a lot of these things... like Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit, Family Tax Credit, Winter Fuel Allowance, Pension Credits and the rest to hear the 'snip, snip, snip' of the financial scissors round about May 7th.

I forgot about DS' and just ended up with the one they picked for me, which is fine. I think it has actually grown, but not sure by how much, they just sent me a vague letter about it in April which I didn't really understand. I'll get a balance sheet on his birthday in October anyway.

I haven't set up a savings account for him yet but will be setting up a separate one that I can actually have control over. I will not be adding to the child trust fund, and that is why I am quite happy for it to be in shares.

ds has it but we've never topped it up either, just got a statement and it's finally made money (ds is 5) and is worth the grand total of £20 more than it was originally. not bad considering it lost so much in previous years, but we still won't be topping it up, he has another savings account instead.

they just do it for you? how do you close it then and give it back? DH doesn't agree with/believe in interest. Stupid labour idea giving me extra stress

I don't think you can opt out. If you don't invest it for your child the gov does it for them. its in trust for your child so I don't think you can give it back on their behalf

Totally agree.

Am instinctly a labour voter, but won't be voting for them this time.

When Gordon was bleating on about the Tories doing away with CTC on that debate I kept shouting at the TV that at least they didn't introduce giving me nearly £500 I DIDN'T NEED and for no good reason (CTF and health in pregnancy grant). Not saying it wasn't welcome, but I'd far rather that had gone towards funding at surestart centres in deprived areas, or vouchers for teen mums to buy decent furniture/baby stuff/whatever.

ridiculous policy and a total waste of money. I was wondering whether it was a big conspiracy by the bankers to get their filthy mits on yet more tax payers money as my two are worth less now than they were when they were invested. (dons armadillo helmet).

Of course it is waste of money.

DS2 is 5 now and his £250 has now generated a massive £5 interest.

DS1 was too old for it which seemed unfair.

I have also read one Mumsnetter talking about spending her "Health in Pregnancy" grant on a brand new ipod. Now I am sure that is lovely but not quite sure how that is helping her baby. (can you tell I missed out entirely on that benefit?)

the last time I looked my dc's CTF's they were worth a few quid less too .

It's a shame as I would have been more enthusiastic and added to the accounts if they weren't allowed to get their hands on them until 21.

the last time I looked my dc's CTF's they were worth a few quid less too .

It's a shame as I would have been more enthusiastic and added to the accounts if they weren't allowed to get their hands on them until 21.

Total waste of public funds. I vote to scrap it.

Meglet - I still wouldn't have been for them, but I'd have been more enthusiastic too. Except I'd want parents to be able to use them at 18 - uni fees, first car if going straight into work, etc.

the point of the HIP grant was not primarily to buy healthy food with the MONEY, it was because MWs were seeing women in labour wards who'd never accessed any anti-natal care and the HIP was a way of encouraging more people to take up anti-natal health care. A reward for turning up. That's why you only get it when you've seen your MW and had "health in pregnancy" advice from him/her (incl healthy eating).

So I don't think it matters what people spend it on really. Before deciding if I think it should be scrapped or not I would be interesting in seeing if the uptake in antenatal care has increased since the HIP grant - if so then the health of babies really is being improved and safeguarded by the grant. And if accessing antenatal care prevents a significant increase in babies needing more expensive medical interventions at and after birth and in the long term, then the HIP grant is not a waste of money at all.

Except that I would hazard a guess that socio economic circumstances, age and the stablity of one's personal life are strongly correlated with attendance at ante-natal care.

In which case they are still throwing a lot of money at people who would have attended anyway.

And whilst the 'it's cheaper to give it to everyone' argument might wash with child benefit, I'm not convinced that HIP grants couldn't easily have been linked in to eligibility for some other benefit.