My fairer child benefit;

[vwkittie]

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)

 

I'm not at all religious but I DO value marriage greatly and would personally never have children outside of marriage. I think 'promoting' marriage if you can call it that is a good idea.

 

Marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion

[L00b]

I did not receive a penny in child benefit, because I was told "It is payable to the child's mother."

Oh?

 

Well that's a different line to the one my wife (British, UK and NIC tax payer for 20 years before giving birth in the UK) was given about that £150 (or so) one-off payment at birth, due in 2004 (we emigrated after the birth), and which we finally managed to get in 2008 (only when we came back, and only after I threatened to file suit at the Administrative Tribunal).

[poppins]

:hihi:

Yep that's right, been going on for decades. You don't get paid for having kids over there?

 

Not that I'm aware of, maybe under unusual circumstances, but I think that would take some doing too.

[tynan]

Universal child benefit for the first two only

[Suffragette1]

Oh?

 

Well that's a different line to the one my wife (British, UK and NIC tax payer for 20 years before giving birth in the UK) was given about that £150 (or so) one-off payment at birth, due in 2004 (we emigrated after the birth), and which we finally managed to get in 2008 (only when we came back, and only after I threatened to file suit at the Administrative Tribunal).

 

That was a different scheme and a one off payment with a further one at some later stage, was it called Child Trust Fund or something? That's also been scrapped, or at least that was the proposal.

 

I think that Child Benefit is payable to the mother or the lone father.

[Joanl]

Universal child benefit for the first two only

 

I'd go with that along with clamping down on absent fathers and making them contribute.

Also I am sure Family Allowance used to be paid to the parent with custody of the child and whose name appeared on the payment book. Of course though, we don't have payment books these days.

[tynan]

family allowance, wasn't it nothing for the first child and 18 shillings for the second?

[L00b]

That was a different scheme and a one off payment with a further one at some later stage, was it called Child Trust Fund or something? That's also been scrapped, or at least that was the proposal.

I know, my point was that my wife, who was supposed to be the trustee under the same 'principle' (...of "the Mrs gets it to make sure the Mr doesn't squander it on booze/fags/hooker/etc.") was continually fobbed off - in contrast to RB's own anecdote.

[Tomataheeed]

I did not receive a penny in child benefit, because I was told "It is payable to the child's mother."

 

"Universal benefit"? - Not quite.

 

It can be paid to either parent. You can have husband and wife each claiming for one child each.

[Rupert_Baehr]

 

...I think that Child Benefit is payable to the mother or the lone father.

 

I gather that some migrant workers from central Europe were (are) able to claim child benefit for their children who live with their mother in the Eastern European country from which they came.

 

Are they classed as 'lone fathers'?

 

Oh?

 

Well that's a different line to the one my wife (British, UK and NIC tax payer for 20 years before giving birth in the UK) was given about that £150 (or so) one-off payment at birth, due in 2004 (we emigrated after the birth), and which we finally managed to get in 2008 (only when we came back, and only after I threatened to file suit at the Administrative Tribunal).

 

I suppose I could've made a fuss about it, but I chose not to.

 

They do say: "When you're a young man, if you aren't a Liberal, you haven't got a heart - and when you're older, if you aren't Conservative, you haven't got a brain."

 

In mitigation, I was perhaps a little more idealistic when my son was born, I thought about law and lawyers infrequently - I was very unlikely to consider litigation - and although I wasn't a millionaire, It would've been 'stretching it a bit' to describe me as 'poorly-paid'. We didn't need child benefit.

 

I was born into a very poor family (not in the UK) where there were few benefits. Child benefit did exist, my mother received it and it was a very necessary part of the family's (small) income.

 

I think benefits are a necessary part of society - but that they should only be paid to people who need them and that 'universal' benefits are an abuse of the taxpayer.

 

(I'm not trying to sound like a saint - I certainly am not [and I don't want to risk having my halo slip over my head and choke me ])

 

I take your point about the comparatively small savings obtained by limiting child benefit, but I think that any move to reduce un-deserved benefits is a good thing.

 

I approve (in principle) of means-testing - though I wouldn't advocate huge expenditure on doing so.

 

I agree with the argument that benefits should be limited. If limiting housing benefit means that some claimants living in mansions in Mayfair (or in any other expensive area) are no longer able to do so and have to move to cheaper accommodation elsewhere - tough! People who do not receive housing benefit have to live in places they can afford - why should the taxpayer fund high-priced housing for benefit claimants?

 

IMO, benefits should be capped. - And capped to the level of the average income.