Welcome! Log in or Register
£38.25 Best Offer by: amazon.co.uk See more offers
1 Review

Child Benefit is a payment that you can claim for your child. It is usually paid every four weeks but can sometimes be paid weekly. There are separate rates payable for each child. The payment can be claimed by anyone who qualifies, whatever their income or savings.

  • Write a review >
    How do you rate the product overall? Rate it out of five by clicking on one of the hearts.
    What are the advantages and disadvantages? Use up to 10 bullet points.
    Write your reviews in your own words. 250 to 500 words
    Number of words:
    Write a concise and readable conclusion. The conclusion is also the title of the review.
    Number of words:
    Write your email adress here Write your email adress

    Your dooyooMiles Miles

    1 Review
    Sort by:
    • More +
      27.02.2013 16:17
      Very helpful
      (Rating)
      5 Comments

      Advantages

      Disadvantages

      Time to get rid of CB

      Means test it, simple as! The middle-class don't really need it (and usually put it towards the out of term family skiing holiday) and generally won't claim state money if it involves going down the benefits office. The stigma is just too much. That is certainly the case with state pension credit they are entitled to, why Labor increased the level of means testing for part of the pension.

      It's absurd that people with great jobs get child benefit. But the argument that we should all get paid the benefit automatically per child was to do with the ethos of the universal welfare system in that we all put into so we all can benefit. It's the same with the heating allowance where wealthy pensioners on final salary pension schemes get an automatic payment when the temperatures drop. The suggestion was that George Osborne didn't want to ban these two non means tested benefits to all as his party would lose votes, especially with the heating allowance as most of his voters are over 60. The final excuse was means testing would be too expensive to administer and eat up the saving anyway.

      There are abuses of the system. We know that 70,000 plus Eastern Europeans living and working here claim for kids back home, kids that may or may not exist. To balance that up we also know 70,000 plus British pensioners living in Spain claim the heating allowance. We also have heinous welfare families like the 'Philpot's', revealed in court last week at their murder trial that dad's policy was to 'have as many kids as possible to get more benefits'. In Tewksbury we hear a council has had to build a bespoke six bedroom house for a single mother to stop her going homeless as she has too many kids for her current accommodation. Incredibly she has enough benefits left over to stable her daughter's horse to the cost of £200 per month?' All this woman has known is having kids to stay away from work and so get more state money to anchor her to that lifestyle. At 37 she is one of youngest grandmothers in Britain. She does it because she legally can. It's unclear whether her horse will end up in the economy burgers only the unemployed like her can afford.

      Mom's average age for a first child birth here is now 31. Middle-class couples have kids late so to let their career get going and so actually be able to pay for their own children, whereas the underclass have kids to replace the satisfaction and meaning of a good job they will never have. Both are an emotional means to an end. But, interestingly, single teen parent rates are falling in recession, maybe because they know they probably won't get housed and have to stay at home with mum. The condom has stopped bursting, backing up the feeling some girls were getting pregnant with little thought of the consequences.

      Previously the available housing stock was falling because these girls WERE getting all the council houses and flats, 70% of all new social housing given to women under New Labor. Now, one third of all births in the last ten years in the U.K. have been to more fertile overseas mums where the average age of having their first child is just 24, especially from places like catholic Poland. Because of hard grafting Poles there is no need for idle British parents to have as many kids on the dole anymore and so slowly reducing child benefits may reduce that pregnancy rate. I think that's why the Tories are doing it. In future Child Benefit will simply be a payment added to Universal Credit and so easier to cut.

      The housing crunch has become so bad because of immigration, feckless mums and absent dads that we are now reaching the point of turfing disabled people out of their houses and into dingy flats through the Tories malicious attack on the poor through the so-called 'Bedroom Tax', they say to free up space for the working families on the waiting list. The bed room tax sees mostly unemployed people in private social hosing lose money from their housing benefit handouts if they have a spare bedroom. For those with kids the monthly cut will effectively equal their child benefit money. Every time the family of six on the dole has another kid these disabled people are heading nearer the street. Coupled with an increase in council tax for the lowest paid this is hardcore social engineering by the Tories to try and cut feckless pregnancies and large welfare dependent families, but more importantly to make the Tory supporters feel good the poor are suffering. But the Tories can't profit from capitalism without the by-product of poverty.

      So summing up some people deserve Child Benefit and some don't as some are clearly milking the payment. For me it's a payment that should be absorbed in general tax breaks for working families. But if you are unemployed you should NOT get child benefit for kids you have after one year's unemployment, simple as. This builds a guilt factor into those mums and dads. We can't continue with the rate of single parents that produce the future criminals and so drain on the country. Young mums on a council estate get bored easily and don't tend to spend all their child benefit on their child - fags, scratch cards and Vodka Blue coming out of that budget somewhere along the line. That's the reality. We can't afford that underclass indulgence anymore and I agree the message has to be sent. The government has just £600 billion annual tax revenue to play with to run the country, £100b short, which we borrow, because multinationals and big companies increasingly refusing to pay tax to bridge that treasury gap. This means we, the consumer, have no spare money to buy their products. Therefore capitalism falters and the people will increasingly suffer tax increases and fewer public services. I'm afraid the people will have to pay.

      Comments

      Login or register to add comments