chem1st Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Adult - 15k threshold Child - 5k threshold Couple - 1.1* Married couple - 1.2* Couple one child; (15+15+5)*1.1 = 38.5 (family income) allowed before child benefit. If they get married; 41.5k Single, 2 children; (15+5+5) = 25k (family income) allowed before child benefit. If they get a new partner, 44k, if they get married, 48k Single, 15 children (15 + 15[5]) = 90k family income allowed before child benefit. If they get a new partner 115.5k, if they get married, 126k. What do you think? Would you have different thresholds? Value the adult Value the child Value the cohabiting couple Value the marriage of a cohabiting couple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It still founders on the same problem as every other reform. Withdrawing, or reducing, child benefit will punish the child because of something the parents have, or have not, done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 It still founders on the same problem as every other reform. Withdrawing, or reducing, child benefit will punish the child because of something the parents have, or have not, done. So I take it you would have a fixed child benefit on a per child basis? That could be fair for the children. But it wouldn't encourage families to stay together or get married. And the high earners would get the same as those without an income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 So I take it you would have a fixed child benefit on a per child basis? That could be fair for the children. But it wouldn't encourage families to stay together or get married. And the high earners would get the same as those without an income. It's a moral problem rather than an economic one. I don't know what the answer is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinnertomcat Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Out of interest why do you value the married couple higher than the co-habiting one ? And I take that you mean these are them amounts at which child benefit gets stopped ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xfox3x Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Please don't assume that if parents are married it equals a happy home life! I was brought up in such a family and wish to God that my parents had divorced instead of turning into 2 bitter individuals who 'stayed together because of the kids' and subsequently blamed all their unhappiness on us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I wouldn't differentiate between a cohabiting couple and a couple who are married, because, IMO, the child doesn't require any less financial support just because the parents are "wearing wedding-rings", does it? A child's pair of school shoes isn't going to cost the parent £38.00 rather than £44.00 just because the parents aren't wed. It doesn't make the parent any less financially responsible for their child because they are "Living Over't Brush". I do think it's a good idea to cap the income level at which you can get CB. Do you remember the furore when it was revealed that Tory Tony and Cherie Blair were receiving CB after Leo was born? The Prime Minister, and his QC/Judge wife? Needing child-support monies? *cough, choke*- that was a little bit of a punch in the face for the people struggling on minimum wage, wasn't it? A £44k cap means the wage/ income is £850 (rough calculation) a week. can't someone run a house and "keep" their child on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 Out of interest why do you value the married couple higher than the co-habiting one ? And I take that you mean these are them amounts at which child benefit gets stopped ? Personally I'm not religious, so I don't value marriage any more than cohabitation, but I can see the benefits of promoting it, when we have large Muslim and Christian populations. And atheists can get married too. (I think the big-society is supposed to encourage marriage?) It also makes it a little harder for couples with children to split up. And yes, at which point it would be cut. (Or I suppose with Universal credit, it could be even be administered along with tax breaks, so a worker with children gets more than a non worker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Please don't assume that if parents are married it equals a happy home life! I was brought up in such a family and wish to God that my parents had divorced instead of turning into 2 bitter individuals who 'stayed together because of the kids' and subsequently blamed all their unhappiness on us! I don't believe there should be a differentiation between the married and the ";) living in sin" couple. Married or living in sin, they could be equally committed to each other and the child(ren) or equally non-committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 A £44k cap means the wage/ income is £850 (rough calculation) a week. can't someone run a house and "keep" their child on that? With 15 children you would struggle immensely. It would be (620pw) £36 per person per week after income tax is taken into account. £35pppw after council tax. £25pppw after rent? They'd have less than half of a person on the dole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.