Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
walker127

Why Do Taxpayers Have To Pay For Kids?

Recommended Posts

According to this website http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081128035558AAM1nxd there are about 12 Million kids under the age of 18 in the UK.

Child benefit is paid at £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for the second.

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7071611.stm the average number of kids per household in the UK is 1.8 but for simplicity I am going to round this up to 2.

This means, in approximate figures taxpayers are paying about £20.30 for 6 million kids and £13.40 for the remaining 6 million.

Total cost to the state per week:- £202.2 million or £10.5 billion per year.

Child benefit is not means tested, hence your average Joe and Mary earning big bucks in London get the same amount as a couple on the dole in Hartlepool.

Why not just axe it?…if people want kids they should pay themselves… instant saving to the UK taxpayer of £10. 5 billion.

By the way, I claim child benefit for my 2 year old and it goes into a long-term investment, which matures when she is 18. Hopefully a nice little nest egg to cover university fees or whatever else she might want at that age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question, you could also add Statutory Maternity Pay and Childcare vouchers into the equation. You could also abolish the "discrimination" laws so that companies don`t have to employ the incompetent, a chap I know is a line manager for Sainsburys and he says that at any one time fifty percent of the female staff are absent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framed around parents isn't it, not children. Which is the problem really. Not all children have good parents who care for them as much as they should nor do they have the means of supporting them. Its a value judgement in the end but I don't think they should be abandoned. How we treat children is a reflection of our society. They are the only thing that really counts as hope these days, obvious as it may seem. I'd be happy to more in tax if it was fully hypothecated. However I'm not sure this is the same thing as providing money for beer and fags to adults on the basis of breeding.

I don't have children myself, its one of those ironies that its people who do who are the most angry about this sort of thing which is understandable and relates to the reason why women were always traditionally right-wing voters (across the west as a whole, not just here) when it came to politics. Unlike you I don't care more about your children than anyone else's, logically enough.

Anyhow, I'd take away this sort of thing and just have universal free school breakfast + lunch for example. I'd also like to see more offered to young adults leaving care which I think, relative to cost, is really lowest hanging fruit in the whole 'broken britain' scenario but nobody speaks for them.

What is really important is this: its no use blaming the greedy boomers if we don't try and reverse their mentality. We have to try very hard to make the future better than the present. If you're a Formula 1 fan the analogy will be clear and apologise to everyone else: time to stop now and start developing next year's car instead. Its how countries and societies gain strength. Anything else is managed decline and despair for which a small amount of tat today vs. an empty cupboard tomorrow is a very poor exchange indeed.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should be increasing it until we get a healthy birthrate.. something like 4 maybe even 5 kids per woman. 10 billion is hardly anything when you consider the national budget is 700 billion.

Its hard to guestimate how high it would have to be to get the birthrate up to 4.0 per woman. But that is why it just needs to be adjusted upwards until targets are hit.

Secondly this is politically incorrect but imo we need to do everything to encourage women OUT of the workforce. If you look around the western world as women enter the workforce in significant numbers that nation's economy goes downhill. I don't know why this is, I just notice it reading about many countries.

Women's liberation should not mean getting a crappy low paid job and slaving away. It should be the freedom to get a job or career they want, but also the freedom to stay home and raise a family.

Plus when women work the companies just jack up the price of everything. Like now landowners can sell the land for more because there is two workers to service the mortgage instead of one. Then women are expected to work a full time job, have a serious career, AND nurture and raise a family. Which is not realistic.

Edited by aa3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who'll pay taxes when you're old & unless

Who'll train as healthcare professionals to care for you when you're old & unless

Who'll be the Doctors-spacemen-policemen-fire-fighters-teachers-engineers-rubbish collectors-Bankers when you're old & unless

Who'll be carrying the torche for humanity when you're old & unless.

Let us not invest in the future of this country, all the above we'll import from another country, you short-sighted twats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should be increasing it until we get a healthy birthrate.. something like 4 maybe even 5 kids per woman. 10 billion is hardly anything when you consider the national budget is 700 billion.

My point is that axing child benefit would help to cut the UK's deficit which I believe is projected to be around £178 billion in 2010.

£10.5 billion off £178 billion is a shade under 6%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that axing child benefit would help to cut the UK's deficit which I believe is projected to be around £178 billion in 2010.

£10.5 billion off £178 billion is a shade under 6%.

I'd sooner cut a year's worth of procurement, ~160 billion. Just take a year off buying things or starting any projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question, you could also add Statutory Maternity Pay and Childcare vouchers into the equation. You could also abolish the "discrimination" laws so that companies don`t have to employ the incompetent, a chap I know is a line manager for Sainsburys and he says that at any one time fifty percent of the female staff are absent.

Not sure why you are including childcare vouchers. Firstly they are offset against a persons personal tax allowance. Secondly they make it financially viable for many more mothers to return to work. The extra tax receipts far outweigh the 'cost' of the vouchers themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the state pension figures, the old age benefits, and factor in the cost to the state of the care and medical treatment of the elderly. Add to that funding gold-plated public sector pensions.

Now that IS a big number, and it's getting bigger every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this website http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081128035558AAM1nxd there are about 12 Million kids under the age of 18 in the UK.

Child benefit is paid at £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for the second.

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7071611.stm the average number of kids per household in the UK is 1.8 but for simplicity I am going to round this up to 2.

This means, in approximate figures taxpayers are paying about £20.30 for 6 million kids and £13.40 for the remaining 6 million.

Total cost to the state per week:- £202.2 million or £10.5 billion per year.

Child benefit is not means tested, hence your average Joe and Mary earning big bucks in London get the same amount as a couple on the dole in Hartlepool.

Why not just axe it?…if people want kids they should pay themselves… instant saving to the UK taxpayer of £10. 5 billion.

By the way, I claim child benefit for my 2 year old and it goes into a long-term investment, which matures when she is 18. Hopefully a nice little nest egg to cover university fees or whatever else she might want at that age.

This discussion has been had before on this forum.

All it revealed is that there are many tight fisted, childless, immoral, c*nts on the forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who'll pay taxes when you're old & unless

Who'll train as healthcare professionals to care for you when you're old & unless

Who'll be the Doctors-spacemen-policemen-fire-fighters-teachers-engineers-rubbish collectors-Bankers when you're old & unless

Who'll be carrying the torche for humanity when you're old & unless.

Let us not invest in the future of this country, all the above we'll import from another country, you short-sighted twats.

Ah the Ponzi demographics argument. i.e. who looks after the looker afters etc... How about we dont have any kids, then there wont be any old and useless people to look after...after a couple of decades of painful readjustment. ahem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have recently (3 months ago) had a child. I had no concept of benefits, credits or any other handouts. I expected to pay for my child without anything from the state and thought these handouts were for people without jobs (or in the new socialist world drone worker people who are paid low incomes but can't survive without benefits).

To be fair the 20 quid covers little TFH's nappies, bum cream and the odd set of clothes from Asda/Tesco, but I feel guilty taking it. I am a senior manager grade in the NHS and earn decent money even in the massively overpriced rip-off area we live in (everything's more in SW Essex except supermarket prices). The wife uses CB as coffee money (grrr) but it gets her out the house and keeps her sane with the other mummies at the post-natal groups.

Having said all this, Con-Dem's will almost certainly make me redundant so I'll genuinely need it soon as my fall-back original profession pays rubbish money and you can't live on it with a family and moderate mortgage here :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like so much of the benefit system, surely it is just something that needs be fully means tested. Why on earth give free money to people who can afford to live without it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion has been had before on this forum.

All it revealed is that there are many tight fisted, childless, immoral, c*nts on the forum

I think the opposite for the reasons stated in my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the state pension figures, the old age benefits, and factor in the cost to the state of the care and medical treatment of the elderly. Add to that funding gold-plated public sector pensions.

Now that IS a big number, and it's getting bigger every year.

Exactly, why do taxpayers have to pay the unfunded pensions of old *******?

Same question, different selfish point of view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like so much of the benefit system, surely it is just something that needs be fully means tested. Why on earth give free money to people who can afford to live without it?

Certainly the top earners should have it stopped, and if there is a big problem like it's reported in certain papers that poles etc... are claiming it for kids who aren't here then the child should also have to be resident in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have recently (3 months ago) had a child. I had no concept of benefits, credits or any other handouts. I expected to pay for my child without anything from the state and thought these handouts were for people without jobs (or in the new socialist world drone worker people who are paid low incomes but can't survive without benefits).

To be fair the 20 quid covers little TFH's nappies, bum cream and the odd set of clothes from Asda/Tesco, but I feel guilty taking it. I am a senior manager grade in the NHS and earn decent money even in the massively overpriced rip-off area we live in (everything's more in SW Essex except supermarket prices). The wife uses CB as coffee money (grrr) but it gets her out the house and keeps her sane with the other mummies at the post-natal groups.

Having said all this, Con-Dem's will almost certainly make me redundant so I'll genuinely need it soon as my fall-back original profession pays rubbish money and you can't live on it with a family and moderate mortgage here ph34r.gif

Don't feel guilty, I'm sure you pay a hefty share of taxes and national insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who'll pay taxes when you're old & unless

Who'll train as healthcare professionals to care for you when you're old & unless

Who'll be the Doctors-spacemen-policemen-fire-fighters-teachers-engineers-rubbish collectors-Bankers when you're old & unless

Who'll be carrying the torche for humanity when you're old & unless.

Let us not invest in the future of this country, all the above we'll import from another country, you short-sighted twats.

Numpty. It's not investing in the children, it's giving a free handout to their parents. Who knows if every parent spends all of it on their kids or not? And if they spend it on stuff like fashion items (trainers, t-shirts, latest trend in clothes) how is that going to improve their skills in 10-15 years when they start work?

I'd rather they spend the extra £20 on free school meals or extra equipment, etc. if they had to spend it at all.

It's just one of a long list of Gordon's great tax wheezes where he takes with one hand only to give (a bit less) back with the other to targeted groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numpty. It's not investing in the children, it's giving a free handout to their parents. Who knows if every parent spends all of it on their kids or not? And if they spend it on stuff like fashion items (trainers, t-shirts, latest trend in clothes) how is that going to improve their skills in 10-15 years when they start work?

I'd rather they spend the extra £20 on free school meals or extra equipment, etc. if they had to spend it at all.

It's just one of a long list of Gordon's great tax wheezes where he takes with one hand only to give (a bit less) back with the other to targeted groups.

That reminds me of a story I heard about schools' budget. one head mistress on telly was saying she had a budget

to build a couple of new classrooms, but no budget to employ teachers to teach in them. (control was out of her hands)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this website http://uk.answers.ya...28035558AAM1nxd there are about 12 Million kids under the age of 18 in the UK.

Child benefit is paid at £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for the second.

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7071611.stm the average number of kids per household in the UK is 1.8 but for simplicity I am going to round this up to 2.

This means, in approximate figures taxpayers are paying about £20.30 for 6 million kids and £13.40 for the remaining 6 million.

Total cost to the state per week:- £202.2 million or £10.5 billion per year.

Child benefit is not means tested, hence your average Joe and Mary earning big bucks in London get the same amount as a couple on the dole in Hartlepool.

Why not just axe it?…if people want kids they should pay themselves… instant saving to the UK taxpayer of £10. 5 billion.

By the way, I claim child benefit for my 2 year old and it goes into a long-term investment, which matures when she is 18. Hopefully a nice little nest egg to cover university fees or whatever else she might want at that age.

So what you are really saying is, the couple on the dole should be entitled to it and average Joe shouldn't !?

This is the trouble with this country. Those who are stuck on their lazy @rses get things handed to them on a plate, whilst the average hardworking family gets nothing because they apparently earn too much (what would you class as big bucks in London????), struggle to afford a reasonable home to live in and are even penalised for the banks mistakes!

Perhaps those who work their butts off should be given more as a reward for actually trying to give something back to society!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem in this are the children are innocent in all this through the actions of their parents it is unfair to punish them.

A solution is simple, copy the HK system, so if you have a child you get extra personal allowances, this means you cannot sit at home and collect your money you still have to go out and work for it, the tax payer does indirectly pay for it but there is no concept of free money for nothing.

Or simply to draw a line, i.e. all children born AFTER this date are not entitled to benefits, this means children who are born are not starved, and the careerists know damned well for a fact the state won't look after them and thus discouraged to have loads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem in this are the children are innocent in all this through the actions of their parents it is unfair to punish them.

A solution is simple, copy the HK system, so if you have a child you get extra personal allowances, this means you cannot sit at home and collect your money you still have to go out and work for it, the tax payer does indirectly pay for it but there is no concept of free money for nothing.

Or simply to draw a line, i.e. all children born AFTER this date are not entitled to benefits, this means children who are born are not starved, and the careerists know damned well for a fact the state won't look after them and thus discouraged to have loads.

That's the answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole argument that these benefits are needed to improve birth rate is a false one. The only reason these benefits are needed is so people can afford to live when they have kids due to the high cost of living in this country.

High costs of living is a vicious circle where the more income people have the higher the costs go.

There are lots of countries with a much higher birth rates, in a lot of these countries only one parent needs to work while the other takes care of the child.

Bring down living costs especially house prices and things will improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly the top earners should have it stopped, and if there is a big problem like it's reported in certain papers that poles etc... are claiming it for kids who aren't here then the child should also have to be resident in the UK.

Yeh, but don't you then run into the problem of it costing more to manage a system like the above than you pay out in benefits?

I personally think child benefit should be scrapped and replace by something that works on a needs basis but finding a cost effective way of doing it is the problem - like the suggestion about changing the tax limit though.

We save our kids child benefit into an account in their name so that maybe they won't need student loans if they go on to further education.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.