nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Child Benifit idea - Could save Millions

Uepped

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tabnabs

And all the parents who work for a living (longer hours than PO is open for!), pay taxes and don't scrounge off the state...?

ringadingding

We could use the savings to improve education.

jimgoose

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

whupdedo

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

Bad idea, back to the drawing board for you

Chattastrophe!

Surely the "rich yummy mummies" pay a lot more tax and are more deserving of it ...?

Valetta

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

You do realise people not on welfare claim and receive child benefit?

Uepped

Valetta wrote: »

You do realise people not on welfare claim and receive child benefit?

I never said otherwise

100200 shih

Learn to spell

jimgoose

Uepped wrote: »

I never said otherwise

You rather strongly implied it. You can't show up at the post office with a social services card if you aren't in receipt of some sort of Social Protection payment. Children's Allowance is universal for everyone who has children.

whupdedo

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

So if someone who pays taxes and contributes to the system earns more than allowed, they would have the child support cut off for their children.

But, if someone who has never worked, is claiming the dole and is in receipt of social housing. rent allowance, free furniture bedding etc etc they should still get child support,

it doesn't seem very fair to me to pay the more unproductive members of society to have children, and all the while penalising the productive members for daring to have a good job and kids

Uepped

100200 shih wrote: »

Learn to spell

Grammer nazi reported

AnonoBoy

What's a welfare card?

Is that the card with my tax numbery yoke on it?

MarkR

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

So a representative from every family in the country that receives child benefit. So, 600,000 extra would need to be using the post office. The queue would be visible from space.*

*May be an exaggeration.

jimgoose

whupdedo wrote: »

So if someone who pays taxes and contributes to the system earns more than allowed, they would have the child support cut off for their children.

But, if someone who has never worked, is claiming the dole and is in receipt of social housing. rent allowance, free furniture bedding etc etc they should still get child support,

it doesn't seem very fair to me to pay the more unproductive members of society to have children, and all the while penalising the productive members for daring to have a good job and kids

I quite agree, but we already do that. It seems more unfair again to me to pay a household that is firmly comfortable and affluent to have children.

ted1

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

not everyone has a welfare card. people whoa re working don't have time to be going to post offices...

wp_rathead

Uepped wrote: »

Grammer nazi reported

Will. Not. Bite. At. Bait.
:pac:

[Deleted User]

jimgoose wrote: »

You rather strongly implied it. You can't show up at the post office with a social services card if you aren't in receipt of some sort of Social Protection payment. Children's Allowance is universal for everyone who has children.

Nope, plenty of people who aren't receiving any DSP payments have a welfare card.

If you're collecting children's allowance at the post office, you use a welfare card to collect it. It's a DSP payment. Who else would be giving out child benefit?

As for the topic on hand, that's the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

jimgoose

true-or-false wrote: »

Nope, plenty of people who aren't receiving any DSP payments have a welfare card...

Oh, is that so? I used to have one, and then they binned them for folk who weren't getting any payments like that.

ted1

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

I've heard of stories that proved that the costs involved with the means testing would be greater than the savings offered.

i also believe that if it was means tested that the middle class would be screwed over once again and would be the biggest losers.

jimgoose

ted1 wrote: »

I've heard of stories that proved that the costs involved with the means testing would be greater than the savings offered.

i also believe that if it was means tested that the middle class would be screwed over once again and would be the biggest losers.

Business as usual, so.

Penny Tration

wprathead wrote: »

Will. Not. Bite. At. Bait.
:pac:

Will. Not. Laugh. At. More. Bait.

Penny Tration

wprathead wrote: »

Will. Not. Bite. At. Bait.
:pac:

Ffs, now I look like a dope because you edited

looksee

It doesn't seem all that long ago that that is how children's allowance was given out, you had a book of vouchers as I recall, and you had to claim it at the post office. And people did without embarrassment But this took a lot of manpower and administration so they saved loadsa money by automating the system.

whupdedo

jimgoose wrote: »

I quite agree, but we already do that. It seems more unfair again to me to pay a household that is firmly comfortable and affluent to have children.

I don't buy that, were paying people who can't afford children to reproduce, people who can afford children will have them regardless, why pay for someone else's kids with the tax you contribute while all the while getting nothing in return if you do have kids and are able to afford them

jimgoose

whupdedo wrote: »

I don't buy that, were paying people who can't afford children to reproduce, people who can afford children will have them regardless, why pay for someone else's kids with the tax you contribute while all the while getting nothing in return if you do have kids and are able to afford them

You know, you're right. Do away with the stupid thing altogether. :cool:

[Deleted User]

looksee wrote: »

It doesn't seem all that long ago that that is how children's allowance was given out, you had a book of vouchers as I recall, and you had to claim it at the post office. And people did without embarrassment But this took a lot of manpower and administration so they saved loadsa money by automating the system.

Yup I remember queuing up in the post office during the summer as a kid with my mam while she waited with the book thingy. The que always seemed endless. Popping it into peoples bank accounts seems far more efficient.

The Princess Bride

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

It would be better to get rid of it altogether- don't have children if you can't afford them.Stop expecting the tax payer to fund your family.

Phase it in gradually.No benefit for newborns from January 2016.
That'd give folk enough time to sort out their contraception.

silly

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

Stupid idea - where would I get the time to collect it when both myself and my husband work full time.....

SEPT 23 1989

Amazing with the technology we have to tax everything,the 100,000+ euro a year civil servants throw their hands up in defeat year after year when it comes to taxing child benefit of very high earners like themselves

whupdedo

jimgoose wrote: »

You know, you're right. Do away with the stupid thing altogether. :cool:

Or limit it to 3 kids, and if people want a 4th kid let them pay for it themselves, that way people will know they can't keep reproducing like animals and expect the state to cover it