Britain to scrap Child benefits payments to middle class

KINGVictor

Apparently, the coalition government in the Uk are planning to means test the universal child benefit payments. This could potentially mean that families whose income are over a yet to be determined threshold will not recieve this payments any longer.( speculations are that it will be set at £50,000)

Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11462986

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317328/TORY-CONFERENCE-Middle-class-families-face-losing-child-benefit.html



IMHO, I think it is long time coming and quite common sensical in light of the current economic circumstances, the opposition have called the proposed policy an assault on families, an assertion i find laughable considering the huge deficits the country faces.

I think the government in Ireland should introduce similar measures in the upcoming budget and to be honest they should have done so in last years budget- C'mmon what does a family earning over €100,000 with 2 children need CB payments for?

What do ye think?

Hotais

Well said. I completely agree... surely we're due a review here too???:)

squod

The UK gov also haven't spent half their GDP on a poxy bank. Let's start by cutting that first.

Min

I listened in disbelief to Drivetime on Radio 1 last year as Mary Wilson read out texts, one was from a woman whose family earned €100,000 and she said in her text she couldn't afford to take any cuts - think it was a public servant - her husband was a Garda.
Claimed they were finding it hard to make ends meet and they needed everything they got.....

orourkeda

Min wrote: »

I listened in disbelief to Drivetime on Radio 1 last year as Mary Wilson read out texts, one was from a woman whose family earned €100,000 and she said in her text she couldn't afford to take any cuts - think it was a public servant - her husband was a Garda.
Claimed they were finding it hard to make ends meet and they needed everything they got.....

This is the attitude that will eventually kill our country

wmpdd3

Child benefit in UK seems to be £87 a month:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/benefits/benefits_for_families_and_children.htm#child_benefit

For the possible savings, it would more effort to means test every recipient. There was speculation in the press that Ireland might tax it instead as a more cost effective way to do it.

lynski

dont get the means testing thing tho, the gov have all the info on how much people earn from the income tax people, surely there should just be an automatic cut-off point? over 100K = no child benefit unless they can prove they need it. cut it and then let people look for it and prove why they cant survive on 100K.
it is the thing that keeps many of us ticking over and cutting it for everyone will mean so many more cut-off ESB, GAS, cutting back on everything.
Hope they can keep it

Dudess

Calling it an assault on families is like the argument that reintroducing third level fees is discrimination against middle-class/wealthy kids. But I don't see why you shouldn't have to pay for something you can afford.

Red Hand

Those that can't afford to have children will have the most.

KINGVictor

squod wrote: »

The UK gov also haven't spent half their GDP on a poxy bank. Let's start by cutting that first.

True,the government have made errors in their estimations when bailing banks and insuring investors in 2008 but I am talking about moving forward .

You have to understand that as of 2009, child benefit payments cost the excheqeur €2.5 billion which translates to about 12% of the total welfare payments.
If the government can fromulate and implement a means tested CB payment structure, that will result in practical savings that could alternatively be utilised for more pressing financial obligations then I see no issue here.

bryaner

A mate of mine knows a doctor who's wife keeps her children's allowance for shopping trips 3 times a year, something has got to give..

TheZohanS

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Those that can't afford to have children will have the most.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo

ninjasurfer1

KINGVictor wrote: »

You have to understand that as of 2009, child benefit payments cost the excheqeur €2.5 billion which translates to about 12% of the total welfare payments.

Does anyone know the % of this that goes abroad to kids of non nationals living here?

iPlop

Are they not scrapping that here?

Orange69

Dudess wrote: »

Calling it an assault on families is like the argument that reintroducing third level fees is discrimination against middle-class/wealthy kids. But I don't see why you shouldn't have to pay for something you can afford.

Do you see why you shouldn't have something you cant afford? :rolleyes:

All so called child benefits should be scrapped imo. It another factor in the continued degradation of society.

SugarHigh

TheZohan wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo

Whoever made that film has no understanding of evolution. Evolution does not favor the strongest, fastest or most intelligent.

As for the prediction that average intelligence will fall.
http://xkcd.com/603/

SugarHigh

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Does anyone know the % of this that goes abroad to kids of non nationals living here?

Child benefit is for the kids not the parents so what difference does it make where the parents are from?

KINGVictor

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Does anyone know the % of this that goes abroad to kids of non nationals living here?

Actually thats another interesting dimension, as far as I am aware under EU regulations, citizens of the union can get child benefits for children living outside the state as long as they are employed here and pay taxes. I will intuitively imagine that such payments will be a small fraction of the total payment.

Orange69

SugarHigh wrote: »

Evolution does not favor the strongest, fastest or most intelligent.

Not directly. But indirectly, and very much so.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Calling it an assault on families is like the argument that reintroducing third level fees is discrimination against middle-class/wealthy kids. But I don't see why you shouldn't have to pay for something you can afford.

But the whole idea is that they can't afford it, isn't it?

I know that if I had a sudden urge to go to third level education right now, I wouldn't be able to afford it.


Lots of people have kids intentionally to milk the system. There are plenty of ways to avoid having children. If people choose to have kids then that's a decision they're making and they should deal with the consequences of such.

Whilst I'm aware that many people attend third level just because they can, I don't think it's a fair comparison. At all.

RMD

Min wrote: »

I listened in disbelief to Drivetime on Radio 1 last year as Mary Wilson read out texts, one was from a woman whose family earned €100,000 and she said in her text she couldn't afford to take any cuts - think it was a public servant - her husband was a Garda.
Claimed they were finding it hard to make ends meet and they needed everything they got.....

I'm all up for scrapping off these types of subsidies for those who don't need them but do remember just because someone earns a 5 figure wage doesn't mean their getting by comfortably in the recession as well. They've more than likely got mortgages and other expenses to match it.

SugarHigh

Orange69 wrote: »

Not directly. But indirectly, and very much so.

Bacteria isn't very strong, not fast and has zero intelligence but is the most successful life form on earth.

Evolution never favors one specific trait it always favors adaptability.

SugarHigh

RMD wrote: »

I'm all up for scrapping off these types of subsidies for those who don't need them but do remember just because someone earns a 5 figure wage doesn't mean their getting by comfortably in the recession as well. They've more than likely got mortgages and other expenses to match it.

So?

Just because they are managing to easily spend all their money does not mean they need more.

D-Generate

A disastrous proposal and very short-sighted. Europe is experiencing population decline and the problems associated with it already. I am in favour of abolishing child benefits to a large degree and replacing it with a tax incentive. This is the model that is being adopted in France and it is has slowed its rapid fall in population growth and has seen slight rises since it was introduced in 2005.

i_love_toast

why is it the middle class that government here and abroad always seem to target for cuts??

however the op said the cut off point would be £100,000 which in my opinion would not be upper class no?that is a massive wage at the end of the day!

WindSock

Population decline is not such a bad thing.

Orange69

SugarHigh wrote: »

Bacteria isn't very strong, not fast and has zero intelligence but is the most successful life form on earth.

Evolution never favors one specific trait it always favors adaptability.

After a statement like that, its clear you don't really understand evolution. Cant be bothered arguing with you. Do some reading.

KINGVictor

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Child benefit in UK seems to be £87 a month:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/benefits/benefits_for_families_and_children.htm#child_benefit

For the possible savings, it would more effort to means test every recipient. There was speculation in the press that Ireland might tax it instead as a more cost effective way to do it.

Taxing CB benefits will admittedly the easiest option but it is also a very lazy option and would be quite inequitable. So for example if we consider example of two families:

Family 1:

Total earnings- €25,000 (after tax)
Number of Children- 3

Family 2:
Total Earnings- €80,000 (after tax)
Number of children- 3


lets assume that the government decides to introduce an aggregate tax of 5% on CB payments. Both families will under the current rates, will recieve €5844 annually which bring their respective incomes to

Family1 -€30,844

Family 2-€ 85,844

After the CB taxes are introduced their incomes ( considering just CB payments) will be:

Family 1- €30,555 ( approx)
Family 2- €85,518 (approx)

alternatively if the government scrapped CB payments for instance (families with 2 or less children earning over €70,000), it will result in a more reasonable CB payment framework.

D-Generate

WindSock wrote: »

Population decline is not such a bad thing.

Tell that to Japan. Economy is in a spiral since the 80s because the population is too old and not enough youth are coming through to pay taxes for the elderly.

SugarHigh

Orange69 wrote: »

After a statement like that, its clear you don't really understand evolution. Cant be bothered arguing with you. Do some reading.

Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

brianthebard

Deleted User wrote: »

Lots of people have kids intentionally to milk the system. There are plenty of ways to avoid having children. If people choose to have kids then that's a decision they're making and they should deal with the consequences of such.

Define lots plz. A percentage of the whole would be great.

LizT

Good idea in theory but would be unfair on some people - e.g Someone earning 100k a year, but with 3 kids in university would need CB more than someone earning 100k a year with 2 kids in primary school. Just wondering where the cut off point would be?

SugarHigh

D-Generate wrote: »

Tell that to Japan. Economy is in a spiral since the 80s because the population is too old and not enough youth are coming through to pay taxes for the elderly.

So your answer is to keep birth rates high so the same problem occurs for the next generation which means we always need a high birth rate

How about we simply keep increasing retirement age to keep it in line with life expectancy. Say put the age of retirement at (Average life expectancy - 5 years) so instead of having to support people from the age of 65 to the to the age of 80(15 years) it will instead only be 5 years.

Orange69

SugarHigh wrote: »

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

Wow you can copy and paste off the internet (a pbs faq no less). What an intellect. Tell us more professor!!

SugarHigh

Orange69 wrote: »

Wow you can copy and paste off the internet (a pbs faq no less). What an intellect. Tell us more professor!!

You get very upset when you're wrong don't you:D

Orange69

SugarHigh wrote: »

You get very upset when you're wrong don't you:D

Coming from the guy who thinks bacteria is the height of evolution :rolleyes:

WindSock

D-Generate wrote: »

Tell that to Japan. Economy is in a spiral since the 80s because the population is too old and not enough youth are coming through to pay taxes for the elderly.

Yeah but when the elderly die off, the balance will soon be restored. No more pushing and packing herds of people onto the trains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STNWc7Rlpfk

Dudess

Orange69 wrote: »

Do you see why you shouldn't have something you cant afford? :rolleyes:

Ah, the rolleyes symbol - Boards' most reliable ****-filter.

SugarHigh

Orange69 wrote: »

Coming from the guy who thinks bacteria is the height of evolution :rolleyes:

Find me a more adaptable form of life that breeds in higher numbers and can survive in such varied conditions from Nuclear waste to Antarctica?
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/175015_bugs26.html

The only point of evolution is to survive and bacteria have been doing it a lot longer than us and in much bigger numbers than us.

SugarHigh

Dudess wrote: »

Ah, the rolleyes symbol - Boards' most reliable ****-filter.

I think there should be a sticky in every forum telling people that the roll eyes smilie is supposed to represent sarcasm and not disdain.

southsiderosie

D-Generate wrote: »

A disastrous proposal and very short-sighted. Europe is experiencing population decline and the problems associated with it already. I am in favour of abolishing child benefits to a large degree and replacing it with a tax incentive. This is the model that is being adopted in France and it is has slowed its rapid fall in population growth and has seen slight rises since it was introduced in 2005.

Does that figure take into account the effect that immigration has had on fertility rates?

lizt wrote: »

Good idea in theory but would be unfair on some people - e.g Someone earning 100k a year, but with 3 kids in university would need CB more than someone earning 100k a year with 2 kids in primary school. Just wondering where the cut off point would be?

What? Not when third level school fees are so heavily subsidized.

I don't get this whole child benefit thing. If you have kids, then you should budget for them. I would support state-subsidized pre-school or child care because there is a broader social interest in having smart, well-educated children, but a direct subsidy to parents not so much.

strobe

lizt wrote: »

Good idea in theory but would be unfair on some people - e.g Someone earning 100k a year, but with 3 kids in university would need CB more than someone earning 100k a year with 2 kids in primary school.

Child benefit for university students?

Orange69

Dudess wrote: »

Ah, the rolleyes symbol - Boards' most reliable ****-filter.

:rolleyes:

Orange69

SugarHigh wrote: »

The only point of evolution is to survive and bacteria have been doing it a lot longer than us and in much bigger numbers than us.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Evolution is a side effect of survival. If the only point was to survive there would be no need.

Jesus man, you really don't get it.

Pherekydes

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Does anyone know the % of this that goes abroad to kids of non nationals living here?

Zero. To receive CB you must have the child living with you.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Child benefit is for the kids not the parents...

Wrong. CB is for the primary care-giver.

KINGVictor wrote: »

Actually thats another interesting dimension, as far as I am aware under EU regulations, citizens of the union can get child benefits for children living outside the state as long as they are employed here and pay taxes. I will intuitively imagine that such payments will be a small fraction of the total payment.

Wrong. As mentioned above, CB is for the primary care-giver and the child must be resident with that care-giver. So CB will not be paid to parents whose children live outside the state.

lizt wrote: »

Good idea in theory but would be unfair on some people - e.g Someone earning 100k a year, but with 3 kids in university would need CB more than someone earning 100k a year with 2 kids in primary school. Just wondering where the cut off point would be?

CB is payable for children in full time education up to the age of 19. With transition year, lots of children are still in second level education at 19. To receive CB for 3 university going children they would have to be triplets.

Gigiwagga

lizt wrote: »

Good idea in theory but would be unfair on some people - e.g Someone earning 100k a year, but with 3 kids in university would need CB more than someone earning 100k a year with 2 kids in primary school. Just wondering where the cut off point would be?

if kids are old enough to go to university usually they're not receiving CB anyway, cut off point 18yrs.

steddyeddy

In terms of bringing back third level fees I dont see how preventing a large number of our future work force getting an education is benificial to the country, which is what upping fees would do. that would ensure the educated of the country were the most rich not the most intelligent.

cson

steddyeddy wrote: »

In terms of bringing back third level fees I dont see how preventing a large number of our future work force getting an education is benificial to the country, which is what upping fees would do. that would ensure the educated of the country were the most rich not the most intelligent.

If you saw how some of this free education is pissed away you'd think twice about that comment.

On Child Benefit; it should be restructured as a non refundable tax credit imo.

KINGVictor

Pherekydes wrote: »

Zero. To receive CB you must have the child living with you.



Wrong. CB is for the primary care-giver.



Wrong. As mentioned above, CB is for the primary care-giver and the child must be resident with that care-giver. So CB will not be paid to parents whose children live outside the state.



CB is payable for children in full time education up to the age of 19. With transition year, lots of children are still in second level education at 19. To receive CB for 3 university going children they would have to be triplets.

Actually , I think you are wrong. It is explicit in EU regulations that EU nationals get child benefits rates of the countries where they are gainfully employed irrespective of where their children reside. I will suggest you read through the following:



http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/EU/Pages/SocInsandECReg.aspx


http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/cross-border-worker/social-security/index_en.htm

I have also added this for your perusual......
Benefits Covered

The Regulations apply to:

• Illness and Maternity Benefits (including health care)
• Benefits for an accident at work or occupational disease
• Invalidity Pension
• State (Contributory) and State Pension (Transition)
• Widow's or Widower's and Orphan's (Contributory) Pensions
• Jobseeker's Benefit
• Child Benefit
• Bereavement Grant
• Treatment Benefit.

The Regulations allow periods of social insurance in any of the EEA countries to be combined so that a worker may qualify for a benefit or pension.
In general, Child Benefit is paid in the EU country where the worker is employed regardless of where the family lives.

Under EU rules, universal payments are paid to EU citizens as long their family members reside in a member country.

amacachi

D-Generate wrote: »

Tell that to Japan. Economy is in a spiral since the 80s because the population is too old and not enough youth are coming through to pay taxes for the elderly.

In GDP terms yes, but I also love how nobody points to their unemployment rate in their 20 years of spiralling recession. Also they'll be saving big money on pensions over the next while: http://sify.com/news/230-000-japanese-aged-over-100-missing-news-international-kjljOcdfdae.html :pac:

steddyeddy wrote: »

In terms of bringing back third level fees I dont see how preventing a large number of our future work force getting an education is benificial to the country, which is what upping fees would do. that would ensure the educated of the country were the most rich not the most intelligent.

If someone from a poor background can't have the foresight to know that getting a loan to get through college/university would almost definitely be worth it then they're not the most intelligent.

steddyeddy

cson wrote: »

If you saw how some of this free education is pissed away you'd think twice about that comment.

On Child Benefit; it should be restructured as a non refundable tax credit imo.

What do you mean pissed away? even if it is pissed away by some people thats no reason to exclude the poor from education.