Britain to scrap Child benefits payments to middle class

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.

steddyeddy

amacachi wrote: »

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:

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.

if a person thinks that it is easy for someone who is poor student or not to get a loan then their not the most intelligent

K-9

Gigiwagga wrote: »

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

That cut was only brought in last year! So until last year, Yes, kids going to University received CB. This on top of free fees!

Means testing should have been brought in from the start of the cuts. Unfortunately increases in Child benefit were given universally during the bubble years because it appeased the stay at home mother brigade. As a result we have no tax credits for childcare costs.

Pherekydes

KINGVictor wrote: »

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:

And this part:

Child Benefit

Child Benefit is a monthly payment for each qualified child normally living with you and being supported by you.

The regulations are contradictory, it seems.

A Dub in Glasgo

The UK chancellor has just stated that those who are in the higher tax bracket will lose this benefit. I will be affected and I can probably cut something to absorb this hit although it does absolutely nothing for the fact that billions are paid out to those who have never worked and appear to be a child factory irrespective of how many fathers there are.

It would appear it applies if one or both parents earn 44k per year. I earn 47k and my wife has not worked since our kids were born therefore a couple who earn 30k each will still get the benefit. Not happy about that at all.

Family income = £45k with one person earning will lose CB

Family income = £80k with both earning 40k will keep CB

Mister men

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.....

Agreed. I hear these kind of "hard luck" stories all the time and i'm sick of it.

amacachi

steddyeddy wrote: »

if a person thinks that it is easy for someone who is poor student or not to get a loan then their not the most intelligent

If fees were there for everyone and a loan system in place I meant, thought that would be fairly obvious.

cock robin

KINGVictor wrote: »

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?

Well said KINGvictor.

steddyeddy

amacachi wrote: »

If fees were there for everyone and a loan system in place I meant, thought that would be fairly obvious.

Well no it wasnt really but I get you, a better way would be to have subsidised fees for those not working. I study as a mature student and know several students getting help from the st.vincent de paul to pay fees and general expenses they applied for a loan but couldnt it for whatever reason. Its not a good attitude to think that poor students will financially find education as easy as someone whose daddy bankrolls them.

steddyeddy

Mister men wrote: »

Agreed. I hear these kind of "hard luck" stories all the time and i'm sick of it.

Im sorry but thats shocking that someone would say that, a mature student in my class had to get help from the st.vincent de paul to pay his fees and lives on less than 20 a week for food, the woman telling this story isnt hard up shes just in possession of a few extra chromosomes!

daltonm

Pherekydes wrote: »

And this part:



The regulations are contradictory, it seems.

Payment for children in another EEA State:
The benefit is payable even if his/her children are habitually resident in another EEA State.The amount of Child Benefit payable by the Department of Social Protection will depend on whether there is entitlement to Family Benefits from another EEA State in respect of the same child(ren). The claim should be made in the country of work which contacts the other country to ensure that the full entitlement is received. If your family are residing abroad please state the relevant social security number on your claim form i.e. Polish Claimants must provide the NIP and PESEL Numbers of all family mambers.
See separate Guideline: an Overview of the EU Regulations on Social Security and Social Advantage for Migrant Workers.

Edit - Last year this was claimed by 7,000 families for 11,000 children at a cost of 20 million to the state.