My fairer child benefit;

[Joanl]

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

 

1964 it was 8/- for second one. At that time it just paid for 2 boxes of Ostermilk.

[Plain Talker]

Almost till about 1978/9 it was nothing for the first child.

 

My mother only got any family allowance for me for about the 18months before I left school. (I was a first-child)

[L00b]

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

It wasn't the sum, and to be fair we did not need it at all.

 

It was just the principle of it. And I'm big on principles (probably far too big for my own good ).

 

The fact that, where legals are concerned, I always "do my own" (so it costs me nothing) probably helps a lot, to be fair

 

I generally agree with your remaining comments. Personally (and in keeping with the above ) I'm only sore at the inequity of the measure (i.e. wherein joint incomes in a same household amount to well above the threshold, and they are still getting CB), not at losing the CB itself (if that's all we 'lose', I'll consider us very very lucky indeed!)

[Rupert_Baehr]

I suspect that the tax system in the UK will change over the next few years.

 

The Libs want to increase the tax threshhold to £10k (initially.) - That will take a few people out of tax altogether and will reduce the tax burden on the lower-paid (Sounds like a good idea.)

 

If I was faced with paying higher taxes and was given a choice of how I would prefer to pay, I would prefer to see increased consumption taxes on discretionary spending - all spending except spending on necessities (basic foods, basic clothing, accommodation, heating, lighting, water) (and I'm not in favour of increases in VAT on services - such increases are effectively 'job taxes'.)

 

If I wanted to reduce my personal tax bill, I could spend less.

 

The proposed VAT increase in January may not be the final increase. - Sweden, Romania, Portugal, Poland,Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Iceland, Hungary, Greece, Finland, Denmark, Croatia and Belgium all have higher VAT rates than does the UK - but I suspect that there will be other changes to the income tax system - and not all of them will be reductions.

 

Cameron has been muttering about 'making life easier for families' and 'recognising marriage'. He may be considering a return to transferrable tax allowances, which would certainly help some families where one parent doesn't work, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that, should personal allowances become transferrable, there will also be reductions in the tax breaks for individuals. It would be very difficult for him to lower the initial tax threshhold, but he might (perhaps) lower the point at which an individual becomes liable to pay tax at the higher rate.

 

That would reduce the complaints from families with only one earner - but would cause howls of anguish from some singlies and dinkys.

[Darth Vader]

Universal child benefit for the first two only

 

Except in the case of naturally conceived multiple births, after a first child is born?

 

Do you know that the government already discriminates against twins and believes that where there are naturally conceived twins, it is perfectly fine to give the Child Birth Allowance payment, or whatever it is called, just to one!

[chem1st]

Except in the case of naturally conceived multiple births, after a first child is born?

 

Do you know that the government already discriminates against twins and believes that where there are naturally conceived twins, it is perfectly fine to give the Child Birth Allowance payment, or whatever it is called, just to one!

 

I wouldn't be too shocked as the system is totally *****d. 2 mouths cost more to feed than one, its simple maths even for the politicians.

 

Economy of scale might benefit twins somewhat, but the 2nd hand clothes bonus is out of the option for families, unless people have 2 twins and 2 twins of the same sex each time.

[donkey]

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.

 

As a 'co-habiting' parent who has been with his partner for 12 years, I resent the patronising implication by the likes of Cameron that he can somehow financially 'incentivise' me to be a better parent, and I am utterly opposed to the idea that the tax I pay would be used to push me into doing something which I have decided not to do for my own good reasons.

 

Cameron talks about the 'small state'. What better example could there be of the government sticking it's nose in where it's not wanted than using tax payers money to reward people who get married and penalise those who don't?

 

Regarding the so called 'big society', if cameron had anything to teach us about responsible parenting, he would know that you lead by example. What has he ever done that wasn't about furthering his own interests? I seriously doubt that any of the people who Cameron surrounds himself with are in the slightest bit altruistic or have ever done volunteer work. I'm all for volunteering and altruism, but not on the say so of a self serving bunch of hypocrites. It's a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do."

[chem1st]

Well as a 'co-habiting' parent who has been with his partner for 12 years, I totally resent the patronising implication by the likes of smarm boy cameron that he can he can financially 'incentivise' me to be a better parent, and I resent the idea that the tax I pay would be used as an 'insentive' to push me into doing something which I have my own good reasons for not doing.

 

Cameron talks about the 'small state'. What better example could there be of the government sticking it's nose in where it's not wanted than using tax payers money to reward people who get married and penalise those who don't?

 

Regarding Cameron's 'big society', if he had anything to teach us about responsible parenting, he would know that you lead and teach by example. Him and his chums have never done anything that wasn't about furthering their own interests, yet the rest of us are supposed to listen to these greasy hypocrites telling us we should do more things for free. I'm all for volunteering and altruism, but not on the say so of those greedy, self serving bunch of hypocrites.

 

So you'd value married couple same as cohabiting couple.., 1.1 in my example.. Would that be fair, too high or too low? how much per child, per adult?

[*_ash_*]

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

 

Looks complicating Chemist. Why not just scrap child benefit, for anyone other than claimants of UB.

[teddie]

I think any benefit for a child conceived and born whilst claiming benefits should be forfeited. If you're out of work with no prospects why keep having kids and claiming benefits.

 

I agree. It isn't fair that working couples often end up with less money than single mothers on the dole.