Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Child Benefit To Be Cut Off At 13 As Government's 'poverty Tsar' Plans To Wean Parents Off Handouts

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285812/Poverty-tsar-Frank-Field-hints-wield-axe-child-benefits.html

Families could see their child benefit taxed or cut off once a youngster hits 13 under radical plans proposed by Frank Field, the government appointed ‘poverty tsar’.

Mr Field, a former Labour welfare minister, wants to wean parents off benefits and back into work once their children are older.

Child benefit is currently paid to all families with children aged 19 and under if they are in fulltime education.

But the maverick MP is arguing that it should be stopped or taxed once a child hits 13 to help reduce the £11billion cost of the handout.

Mr Field said: ‘Taxing benefit would save quite a bit of money, and age limiting child benefit to target it towards younger children would be more effective.’

Taxing benefits would mean that higher rate taxpayers – those who earn more than £40,000 – would lose more than £350 a year if they had two or more children.

But imposing a tax could raise £1.2billion, which would go towards paying for universal child benefit.

Cutting off the benefit once a child hits 13 could save £3billion.

Mr Field said that when a child hits their teenage years, mothers ‘feel more secure’ with taking on employment. He added: ‘If you have a crisis at work and can’t be home, it’s not such a disaster as when you have a seven-year-old coming home from school.’

He also wants schools to ‘subliminally’ introduce parenting skills in every subject so that youngsters learn how to be good mothers and fathers.

Mr Field said: ‘We could look at science and how the animal kingdom nurture their offspring, and relate it to people. Or we could study different types of parenting styles across English literature.’

No just stop paying it to everyone, if your a higher rate tax payer you don't qualify. Simple.

I love the way he's assuming that mothers will just be able to get jobs as soon as the child hits 13 and also the not being home comment is priceless, I can imagine the Mail headlines now about lawless teenagers on the rampage because no one is home.

Again it all boils down to will there be jobs for these people to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ if your a higher rate tax payer you don't qualify. Simple.

Not so simple really.

Family with 2 parents each on £43000pa, neither pays higher rate tax.

Family with one parent on (say) £44000pa, this parent pays higher rate tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its sort of funny that 40 years ago we didn't need women working. Now after 40 years of phenomenal productivity improvements enabled by technological advancement.. we need to push mothers out into the workforce.

Ironically it is right wing governments which are arguing a woman's value is best in the workforce, like a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bahin a few years time the workforce will be completely automated out of existence.

Anyway if there is a child benefit it should be in the form of an enhanced personal allowance, so you have to still go out there and earn it rather than be sat at home and receive it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bahin a few years time the workforce will be completely automated out of existence.

Anyway if there is a child benefit it should be in the form of an enhanced personal allowance, so you have to still go out there and earn it rather than be sat at home and receive it.

Doesn't your first sentence contradict your second? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its sort of funny that 40 years ago we didn't need women working. Now after 40 years of phenomenal productivity improvements enabled by technological advancement.. we need to push mothers out into the workforce.

Ironically it is right wing governments which are arguing a woman's value is best in the workforce, like a man.

And it is still sold as 'empowerment'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't your first sentence contradict your second? :unsure:

Yes, but it is a darn sight easier for you to make your own conclusions than typing out a long rant about most jobs being outsourced or mechanised. Meh even warehouse picker jobs are automated these days... 100% unemployment rate coming soon to the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its sort of funny that 40 years ago we didn't need women working. Now after 40 years of phenomenal productivity improvements enabled by technological advancement.. we need to push mothers out into the workforce.

Ironically it is right wing governments which are arguing a woman's value is best in the workforce, like a man.

Exactly!

In an age of abundance where all our major social and environmental problems are symptoms over over production/consumption, we are still expected to follow the absurd faith based doctrine of full employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them back up the chiminey!

Is Dave doing anything to wean the grown up fraudsters who euphemistically call themselves bankers off their £1trillion of handouts?

No, thought not...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is still sold as 'empowerment'.

Brilliant marketing of it. Basically when a woman is home, there is no transactions to tax or to make a profit on.

For example compare a mother making a meal for her family with going to a restaurant. At the restaurant it pays property taxes, the owner makes a profit, the workers pay income tax, the landowner collects rent for the space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so simple really.

Family with 2 parents each on £43000pa, neither pays higher rate tax.

Family with one parent on (say) £44000pa, this parent pays higher rate tax.

Yep, we have gone from being the first one to the second one.

OH's gross salary is slightly less than we used to earn combined. We already lose a lot more in tax, and look set to be targets for yet more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285812/Poverty-tsar-Frank-Field-hints-wield-axe-child-benefits.html

No just stop paying it to everyone, if your a higher rate tax payer you don't qualify. Simple.

I love the way he's assuming that mothers will just be able to get jobs as soon as the child hits 13 and also the not being home comment is priceless, I can imagine the Mail headlines now about lawless teenagers on the rampage because no one is home.

Again it all boils down to will there be jobs for these people to do.

Aren't there already children / teenagers rampaging through the streets even though Mummy is home and can't control them because Dad's done a runner or she can't recall who he is? Won't this nifty solution just create more of the same problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them back up the chiminey!

Is Dave doing anything to wean the grown up fraudsters who euphemistically call themselves bankers off their £1trillion of handouts?

No, thought not...............

That's high finance not child benefit, I think you are confusing the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so simple really.

Family with 2 parents each on £43000pa, neither pays higher rate tax.

Family with one parent on (say) £44000pa, this parent pays higher rate tax.

Combined income of max £44k too complicated?

Or abolish it completely and give it as a lower rate tax which should cut out paperwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my line of work I come across a benefit called `Education Maintenance Allowance' (EMA)

I'm surprised it hasn't been targetted yet - I think the overall cost is about £580m

16-19 year olds get a means tested £10 - £30 per week for just attending sixth form or other FE. The image is where poor teenagers would have to stop education because their impoverished families would need them to get a job. Although this may be true for some, the reality is a divisive payment - the students whose parents are seen to be working and bringing in a wage feel punished and see their mates having up to £30 a week to spend on whatever teenagers spend it on. Not a good way to encourage a work ethic in the young.

Also, students whose parents are separated are advised to claim to live with the one with the lower income (same advice if you apply for loans for uni).

One change would be students means testing includes incomes of both parents, even if separated - both should be responsible.

Also, some rich families - self employed businessmen, farmers etc, are very good at showing a low annual income - so I know of students in big houses, swimming pools, exotic holidays, horses etc getting the EMA. Asset wealth as well as income should be part of means testing.

Y

Edited by yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this is just another cut for the next generation when the boomers enjoyed child benefit throughout. I don't mind this, but the cuts will not be used to channel more resources to the struggling young couple priced out of housing and economically sterilised from having kids (unless the want to chav-it on benefits). We're just cutting to continue the status quo that brought us financial excess socialised by the taxpayer.

Frank Field is a weasel-eyed pompous, pontificating **** of a man. How the ****** does he know how easy it is for a parents to skip work if their 13 old has a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're for abolition, then? :lol:

Nope - there'd still be some kids who get it.

There's SO much lazy parenting out there at the moment - that needs squashing. People need to be responsible for themselves and their kids and to have real consequences for their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this is just another cut for the next generation when the boomers enjoyed child benefit throughout. I don't mind this, but the cuts will not be used to channel more resources to the struggling young couple priced out of housing and economically sterilised from having kids (unless the want to chav-it on benefits). We're just cutting to continue the status quo that brought us financial excess socialised by the taxpayer.

Frank Field is a weasel-eyed pompous, pontificating **** of a man. How the ****** does he know how easy it is for a parents to skip work if their 13 old has a problem?

Not true; child benefit was phased in from 1977 -1979; as boomers are defined as those born 1945 -1960 they won't have benefited. Sorry to bust yet another boomer bashing thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so simple really.

Family with 2 parents each on £43000pa, neither pays higher rate tax.

Family with one parent on (say) £44000pa, this parent pays higher rate tax.

Isnt that where the CSA is supposed to come in?

That worked well.

Lock up non-paying absentee parents. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true; child benefit was phased in from 1977 -1979; as boomers are defined as those born 1945 -1960 they won't have benefited. Sorry to bust yet another boomer bashing thread.

The demographic bulge in the UK is in those born 1955-1970, not the post war generation. And as we see, child benefit was introduced as this generation started to have children.

Re: child benefit changes, how about replacing CB with nutritious meals at school and proper after school activities, thereby improving children's health as well as reducing parenting costs. As good food is a greater percentage of lower income families expenditure than higher income families it will have a greater impact on those poorer families?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank Field is a weasel-eyed pompous, pontificating **** of a man. How the ****** does he know how easy it is for a parents to skip work if their 13 old has a problem?

As a Member of Parliament for Birkenhead since 1979, he's knows more about benefits than most MPs. He's one of the very few who has spoken up about the benefit culture and the fact that our system of education merely prepares most children for the dole.

From wiki:

Two nights before the Conservative Party leadership election in November 1990, he visited then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street. He advised her that her time as Prime Minister was drawing to a close and that she should back John Major to take over the role. His reason for doing so was that he felt that her Conservative colleagues would not tell her straight that she could not win a leadership contest. Following this meeting, he was smuggled out of Downing Street's back door.

Backed up on a BBC item:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8248795.stm

Never heard about that before. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its sort of funny that 40 years ago we didn't need women working. Now after 40 years of phenomenal productivity improvements enabled by technological advancement.. we need to push mothers out into the workforce.

Ironically it is right wing governments which are arguing a woman's value is best in the workforce, like a man.

Also, sadly not popular to remark upon, but it has also contributed to house price inflation. Even more reason to back restrictions on lending v income multiples. If this had remained then none of these troubles would be here now! Look at Germany where this house price fiasco does not take place.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 141 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.