Combine Child Benefit and Family Tax Credit

Child Benefit (CB) is blunt and paid indiscrimiately to all families.  It is however cheap to administrate as a result.  Family Tax Credit (FTC) is targeted at poorest.  Of course, that makes it very expensive to administer. 

Combine to a single benefit targeted at the poorest – those below 1.5x average income through Tax Credit system.  Benefits scalled to benefit the lowest income families. 

Why is this idea important?

Child Benefit (CB) is blunt and paid indiscrimiately to all families.  It is however cheap to administrate as a result.  Family Tax Credit (FTC) is targeted at poorest.  Of course, that makes it very expensive to administer. 

Combine to a single benefit targeted at the poorest – those below 1.5x average income through Tax Credit system.  Benefits scalled to benefit the lowest income families. 

Automatically register for Child Benefit & Child Tax Credit when you register birth

Everyone is required to register the birth of thier child… why can't you just autotcially register for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit at the same time? I've had to make 3 separate applications to 3 separate governement bodies to give them the same lot of information 3 times.  That's 3 lots of people on the other end processing it, a wast of money, and of my time. Child Tax Credit system failed so miserably that I actually e-mailed the chief exec to register my daugther as the website was down, the phone never answered and the contact given at the Job Centre said they couldn't help.

Why is this idea important?

Everyone is required to register the birth of thier child… why can't you just autotcially register for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit at the same time? I've had to make 3 separate applications to 3 separate governement bodies to give them the same lot of information 3 times.  That's 3 lots of people on the other end processing it, a wast of money, and of my time. Child Tax Credit system failed so miserably that I actually e-mailed the chief exec to register my daugther as the website was down, the phone never answered and the contact given at the Job Centre said they couldn't help.

Child Benefit – Time to pay for your own progeny

Isn't it about time that those among us who wish to perpetuate the species, pay for their upkeep.

In a modern society it is unthinkable that those tax payers who do not have children, (for whatever reason), should be asked to pay towards their maintenance.

If you can't afford to support them – don't have them!

One would not ask a neighbour to help pay towards ones mortgage or the car service, or even towards maintenance of ones wife – so why their children?

The idea of paying people to replicate is outdated – unless of course the government are anticipating another world war.

Why is this idea important?

Isn't it about time that those among us who wish to perpetuate the species, pay for their upkeep.

In a modern society it is unthinkable that those tax payers who do not have children, (for whatever reason), should be asked to pay towards their maintenance.

If you can't afford to support them – don't have them!

One would not ask a neighbour to help pay towards ones mortgage or the car service, or even towards maintenance of ones wife – so why their children?

The idea of paying people to replicate is outdated – unless of course the government are anticipating another world war.

Limiting Child Allowance Payments

The child allowance benefit is a good idea, but there needs to be a cap of some kind, to avoid gross abuse of the system. I find it offensive when I read of families who boast about having a great number of children and then expect the state (and the taxpayer) to pay for their keep. It is not uncommon to read of families having up to 10 or more children, when the father and mother are both not working and likely to be drawing other benefits such as housing or unemployment as well as child allowances.

The principle should be that parents cannot expect for the state to pay for their children beyond say the third child. In other words, they will only receive child allowances for the first three children. If they want to continue having children after this, then they will have to find the means to keep them, or consider using birth control or even steralisation. Why should I and other people pay for them to sit at home spending their time procreating?

Discussions need to take place on the extent and level of child allowances. Perhaps there could be a sliding scale of allowance, say 100% for the first child, 75% for the second and 50% for the third. After that, nothing.

Why is this idea important?

The child allowance benefit is a good idea, but there needs to be a cap of some kind, to avoid gross abuse of the system. I find it offensive when I read of families who boast about having a great number of children and then expect the state (and the taxpayer) to pay for their keep. It is not uncommon to read of families having up to 10 or more children, when the father and mother are both not working and likely to be drawing other benefits such as housing or unemployment as well as child allowances.

The principle should be that parents cannot expect for the state to pay for their children beyond say the third child. In other words, they will only receive child allowances for the first three children. If they want to continue having children after this, then they will have to find the means to keep them, or consider using birth control or even steralisation. Why should I and other people pay for them to sit at home spending their time procreating?

Discussions need to take place on the extent and level of child allowances. Perhaps there could be a sliding scale of allowance, say 100% for the first child, 75% for the second and 50% for the third. After that, nothing.

Scrap child benefit for more than 2 children

Child benefit is being used to support people who don't want to work. They have many children just to get the hand outs. We don't need a population of under educated feral children By restricting the payments they would stop people  breeding just for the money. This may seem harsh but it is true. Also by giving the benefit to everyone with children is also wasteful. My husband and I are in good jobs and don't really need it. It is very nice to get something for nothing but just think how much can be saved.

Really needy cases should be helped but this is the nanny state gone mad. When I was young, there was no benefit for the first child. We managed fine and lived within our means. Pensioners are not given the handouts which young potential workers get and they have usually contributed much more to society.

Why is this idea important?

Child benefit is being used to support people who don't want to work. They have many children just to get the hand outs. We don't need a population of under educated feral children By restricting the payments they would stop people  breeding just for the money. This may seem harsh but it is true. Also by giving the benefit to everyone with children is also wasteful. My husband and I are in good jobs and don't really need it. It is very nice to get something for nothing but just think how much can be saved.

Really needy cases should be helped but this is the nanny state gone mad. When I was young, there was no benefit for the first child. We managed fine and lived within our means. Pensioners are not given the handouts which young potential workers get and they have usually contributed much more to society.

Radical change to child benefit

Most of the problems in the world are caused by population explosion. We are living longer and shall have to be supported. The more people there are the less likely it is that they can all be employed meaningfully.

I would provide a decent benefit for each first child, a reduced benefit (say 60%) for each second child and nothing for any children thereafter.

Why is this idea important?

Most of the problems in the world are caused by population explosion. We are living longer and shall have to be supported. The more people there are the less likely it is that they can all be employed meaningfully.

I would provide a decent benefit for each first child, a reduced benefit (say 60%) for each second child and nothing for any children thereafter.

Child benefit

It seems we have so many people both originating from the UK, and also coming here from abroad, with large extended families to simply live at the taxpayer’s expense.

All to often some single mothers are exploiting the system by having two three or more children to live in a lifestyle to which they would never be able to afford had they been working for a living.

My idea is a simple yet fair one To redress the balance between incentive and reward shown under the current system.

For the first child to a single person, co-habiting or married couple , payment would remain the same. For any subsequent children however, instead of money being paid there should be a system of vouchers for food,clothing and childrens accessories (prams baby walkers etc) that are redeemable at approved retail outlets, so that all parents can adequately cater for their childs need.

A child should not be able to be used to replace an earned income, but Im afraid all too often it clearly is.

If that monetary incentive to have more children was removed (without harming a childs development and need for the essentials), then feckless parents would be less willing to have more children than they and society can afford. If people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own children, then the taxpayer should not be left to subsidize these dysfunctional families (in some cases) to the tune of several hundred pounds a week.

Why is this idea important?

It seems we have so many people both originating from the UK, and also coming here from abroad, with large extended families to simply live at the taxpayer’s expense.

All to often some single mothers are exploiting the system by having two three or more children to live in a lifestyle to which they would never be able to afford had they been working for a living.

My idea is a simple yet fair one To redress the balance between incentive and reward shown under the current system.

For the first child to a single person, co-habiting or married couple , payment would remain the same. For any subsequent children however, instead of money being paid there should be a system of vouchers for food,clothing and childrens accessories (prams baby walkers etc) that are redeemable at approved retail outlets, so that all parents can adequately cater for their childs need.

A child should not be able to be used to replace an earned income, but Im afraid all too often it clearly is.

If that monetary incentive to have more children was removed (without harming a childs development and need for the essentials), then feckless parents would be less willing to have more children than they and society can afford. If people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own children, then the taxpayer should not be left to subsidize these dysfunctional families (in some cases) to the tune of several hundred pounds a week.

Reducing the numbers eligible for child benefit

e have in this country a mind set amongst individuals that they can keep having child after child and the tax payer will pay for them.  This is totally wrong and if you want a large family then you should pay for it. 

I propose that we look at the average family and, if its say 2.4 children, put a cap on the number of children eligable by rounding up to the nearest whole number, in this case 3.  If you want more than the average then you pay for them.  Not us!

I accept that those who have already got large families must be allowed to continue with their current number of children under the old system until they are no longer drawing benefit.  But then we must draw the line in the sand and say "that's your lot.  No more"

Some will say that its every ones human right to have as many children as you want.  I do not disagree with this but its also the individuals responsibility to pay for their family.  Not ours!

I also must state that I believe we should get rid of all child benefit, but I think this proposal is more palatable to the squeamish.  I am a father and I work and pay for me and mine.  I shouldn't be paying, through my taxes, for other's. 

This should help towards population growth reduction and the restraining of the 'baby factories' who are such a drain on society.

 

Why is this idea important?

e have in this country a mind set amongst individuals that they can keep having child after child and the tax payer will pay for them.  This is totally wrong and if you want a large family then you should pay for it. 

I propose that we look at the average family and, if its say 2.4 children, put a cap on the number of children eligable by rounding up to the nearest whole number, in this case 3.  If you want more than the average then you pay for them.  Not us!

I accept that those who have already got large families must be allowed to continue with their current number of children under the old system until they are no longer drawing benefit.  But then we must draw the line in the sand and say "that's your lot.  No more"

Some will say that its every ones human right to have as many children as you want.  I do not disagree with this but its also the individuals responsibility to pay for their family.  Not ours!

I also must state that I believe we should get rid of all child benefit, but I think this proposal is more palatable to the squeamish.  I am a father and I work and pay for me and mine.  I shouldn't be paying, through my taxes, for other's. 

This should help towards population growth reduction and the restraining of the 'baby factories' who are such a drain on society.

 

By a eu Migrent say we are push overs

I am from the “Easter Europe” and to be precise from Slovakia; my country joined the EU in 2004. I came the same year to “your” country to improve my English. I am now a final year student at a University in the UK.
I do NOT!!! live on benefits!!! + Non of my friends from the “Eastern Europe”.

The reason why I am posting a comment is:

The whole benefit system in the UK is completely ridiculous!!!

Firstly, do you blame those people (Polish, etc), that they claime benefits? They are only a mirror image of the group of British citizens, who do the same! I am talking about a particularly group of British people (BUT this group is not small in numbers) who are not working, abusing the system by living on benefits of all kind. I do not want to start to talk about the problem of “teenager pregnancies”.

Secondly, when the United Kingdom opened the working market for the new EU countries in 2004, they should considered all possibilities, not now when they are loosing their ground under their feed.

To conclude, the system is wrong, because it can be abused. It is simple as that and speaking frankly, you do not need to be a genius to figure it out. As we can see it is happening on daily basis and this is utterly alogical!

Slovakia is not better than the UK and the British are not better that the others, the fact is that we all are humans and SOME OF US will simply use the chances to misuse and abuse the system if they have the opportunity to do it so. We show only give benefits to uk citizen or poeple in the uk.

Why is this idea important?

I am from the “Easter Europe” and to be precise from Slovakia; my country joined the EU in 2004. I came the same year to “your” country to improve my English. I am now a final year student at a University in the UK.
I do NOT!!! live on benefits!!! + Non of my friends from the “Eastern Europe”.

The reason why I am posting a comment is:

The whole benefit system in the UK is completely ridiculous!!!

Firstly, do you blame those people (Polish, etc), that they claime benefits? They are only a mirror image of the group of British citizens, who do the same! I am talking about a particularly group of British people (BUT this group is not small in numbers) who are not working, abusing the system by living on benefits of all kind. I do not want to start to talk about the problem of “teenager pregnancies”.

Secondly, when the United Kingdom opened the working market for the new EU countries in 2004, they should considered all possibilities, not now when they are loosing their ground under their feed.

To conclude, the system is wrong, because it can be abused. It is simple as that and speaking frankly, you do not need to be a genius to figure it out. As we can see it is happening on daily basis and this is utterly alogical!

Slovakia is not better than the UK and the British are not better that the others, the fact is that we all are humans and SOME OF US will simply use the chances to misuse and abuse the system if they have the opportunity to do it so. We show only give benefits to uk citizen or poeple in the uk.

Means test child benefit

Parents of children are currently entitled to claim both tax credits and child benefit. Tax credits are means tested and based on a number of factors including an allowance based on the number of children cared for. Child benefit is not currently means tested.

The tax credit child allowance should be increased by the value of child beneft and child benefit should be cancelled. 

Why is this idea important?

Parents of children are currently entitled to claim both tax credits and child benefit. Tax credits are means tested and based on a number of factors including an allowance based on the number of children cared for. Child benefit is not currently means tested.

The tax credit child allowance should be increased by the value of child beneft and child benefit should be cancelled. 

In contented claims, Pay Child Benefit to the Parent with the lowest income

This is not a repeal of legislation.  It requires a change of policy only, which is in effect a ministerial directive.

At the moment when a contended claim (two parents claiming for the same child) comes along, there is a "no change" policy, unless the claiming parent has IN EXCESS of 50% of the time.

Thus, the mother (due to the fact that she will have been getting it when the couple were living together by means of the order of priority) will continue to receive child benefit in the vast majority of cases, even when 50/50 shared care exists.  Which then means that the father will be considered the NRP for the purposes of the CSA.  (Interestingly, both government departments blame each other for this)

Now my proposal is simple.  Remove the "no change" rule, and instead pay Child Benefit to the parent who had the LOWER income for the % of care they have.  As Child Benefit is administered by HMRC this should not be a major burden, and it only needs to be done for contended claims.

The formula would be:

(Claimant 1's Income x percentage of care) <> (Claimant 2's Income x percentage of care)

and then paying the claimant with the lower income. to care.

 

This would have very little "cost" effect.  The reason is that if the 2nd claimant had a higher income than the first claimant for the amount of care, or a lower amount of care, they would not apply and contend the claim (as they would not stand a chance of winning).

Why is this idea important?

This is not a repeal of legislation.  It requires a change of policy only, which is in effect a ministerial directive.

At the moment when a contended claim (two parents claiming for the same child) comes along, there is a "no change" policy, unless the claiming parent has IN EXCESS of 50% of the time.

Thus, the mother (due to the fact that she will have been getting it when the couple were living together by means of the order of priority) will continue to receive child benefit in the vast majority of cases, even when 50/50 shared care exists.  Which then means that the father will be considered the NRP for the purposes of the CSA.  (Interestingly, both government departments blame each other for this)

Now my proposal is simple.  Remove the "no change" rule, and instead pay Child Benefit to the parent who had the LOWER income for the % of care they have.  As Child Benefit is administered by HMRC this should not be a major burden, and it only needs to be done for contended claims.

The formula would be:

(Claimant 1's Income x percentage of care) <> (Claimant 2's Income x percentage of care)

and then paying the claimant with the lower income. to care.

 

This would have very little "cost" effect.  The reason is that if the 2nd claimant had a higher income than the first claimant for the amount of care, or a lower amount of care, they would not apply and contend the claim (as they would not stand a chance of winning).

CHILD BENEFIT, CHILDREN

Abolish all child tax credits and child benefit but use some of the money saved to provide free nursery places for the under 5's and free school breakfasts and dinners and free school uniforms for the over 5's.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish all child tax credits and child benefit but use some of the money saved to provide free nursery places for the under 5's and free school breakfasts and dinners and free school uniforms for the over 5's.

Children Benefit being sent home by foreigners

I don't think it's fair that Child Benefit can be claimed by EU nationals and sent home to their country for children that don't even live here. What makes it worse, is that they need little proof if any of how many children they have and the amount of money claimed is more than the child benefit they would recieve in their own country.

Why is this idea important?

I don't think it's fair that Child Benefit can be claimed by EU nationals and sent home to their country for children that don't even live here. What makes it worse, is that they need little proof if any of how many children they have and the amount of money claimed is more than the child benefit they would recieve in their own country.

Child Tax Credit Repeal/Reform

The Child Tax Credit was initiated following WWII as an incentive for families to have more children and repopulate the nation.  This is no longer a relevant issue, and the cost of providing this benefit is significant for taxpayers.  It needs to be phased out. 

If we are not willing to get rid of the "tax credit", it needs to be reformed into a true welfare benefit: Currently, eligibility for the Child Tax Credit requires that applicants disclose income from paid employment, but specifically excludes disclosure of maintenance payments and other benefits (housing, automobile, etc) that are provided by a former spouse.  As maintenance is a form of income, it needs to be considered in determining eligibility for the Child Tax Credit.

Further, if this is meant to be a "tax credit", it needs to be linked to the actual tax payer rather than the primary caregiver of children.  Maintenance payments and other benefits are typically provided on a post-tax basis, such that payments under the Child Tax Credit system are not "tax credits" but benefits.  These benefits are not need based, as previously mentioned.

Why is this idea important?

The Child Tax Credit was initiated following WWII as an incentive for families to have more children and repopulate the nation.  This is no longer a relevant issue, and the cost of providing this benefit is significant for taxpayers.  It needs to be phased out. 

If we are not willing to get rid of the "tax credit", it needs to be reformed into a true welfare benefit: Currently, eligibility for the Child Tax Credit requires that applicants disclose income from paid employment, but specifically excludes disclosure of maintenance payments and other benefits (housing, automobile, etc) that are provided by a former spouse.  As maintenance is a form of income, it needs to be considered in determining eligibility for the Child Tax Credit.

Further, if this is meant to be a "tax credit", it needs to be linked to the actual tax payer rather than the primary caregiver of children.  Maintenance payments and other benefits are typically provided on a post-tax basis, such that payments under the Child Tax Credit system are not "tax credits" but benefits.  These benefits are not need based, as previously mentioned.

CSA & Benefits

Benefit rates are paid at a fixed amount based on a minimum required for day to day expenses and a little extra on top. Single parents who don't give details of absent parents should have a deduction of 10% of income support/JSA. This way, less is paid for no co-operation thus reducing benefits paid and where co-operation IS made, the absent parent loses £5 of benefit or a percentage of their salary and as any absent parent pursued by the CSA knows all too well, the PWC (parent with care) gets £80 a month as they are in receipt of benefits and the rest goes 'back into the system'

Why is this idea important?

Benefit rates are paid at a fixed amount based on a minimum required for day to day expenses and a little extra on top. Single parents who don't give details of absent parents should have a deduction of 10% of income support/JSA. This way, less is paid for no co-operation thus reducing benefits paid and where co-operation IS made, the absent parent loses £5 of benefit or a percentage of their salary and as any absent parent pursued by the CSA knows all too well, the PWC (parent with care) gets £80 a month as they are in receipt of benefits and the rest goes 'back into the system'

limit child benefit

For the first child – get child benefit.  For the next child get additional benefit.  Have any more and its your choice you may.  Limit child benefit to 2 births if these were multiple births then account could be taken of that but working people take the cost of raising a child into their decision to limit family size.

Why is this idea important?

For the first child – get child benefit.  For the next child get additional benefit.  Have any more and its your choice you may.  Limit child benefit to 2 births if these were multiple births then account could be taken of that but working people take the cost of raising a child into their decision to limit family size.

Parents automatic joint custody to their children

Automatic Joint custody to children by the parents to ensure balance.  Both parents to have access rights to see their children (exept in exeptional circumstances of course).  Joint responsibility for their children including finance.  At the moment the Mother may receive money for her child but this is not always spent on the child.  Efforts should be made to stop the culture of having children (different fathers) to make a living or avoid going out to work.  Perhaps giving benefits in vouchers would be appropriate in some cases.  At the moment the Mother can control access to the child, very often this is abused and is damaging and very upsetting to the child.

The CSA are a collection agency only (their own words) they do not ensure the welfare of the child or even protect the child by ensuing the money they collect is used to help the child.

Why is this idea important?

Automatic Joint custody to children by the parents to ensure balance.  Both parents to have access rights to see their children (exept in exeptional circumstances of course).  Joint responsibility for their children including finance.  At the moment the Mother may receive money for her child but this is not always spent on the child.  Efforts should be made to stop the culture of having children (different fathers) to make a living or avoid going out to work.  Perhaps giving benefits in vouchers would be appropriate in some cases.  At the moment the Mother can control access to the child, very often this is abused and is damaging and very upsetting to the child.

The CSA are a collection agency only (their own words) they do not ensure the welfare of the child or even protect the child by ensuing the money they collect is used to help the child.

Benefits paid out abroad

Stop allowing benefits to be paid to people that are not even living in this country.

Example:

"This week, ministers admitted that more than £1million a month in child benefit is going to the families of youngsters who live in the former Soviet bloc countries. It was the first time that Labour has acknowledged that the money – funded by British taxpayers – is being paid abroad. The revelation triggered a political controversy over the fact that the Government is paying for the upbringing of children who do not live in Britain and who may never even have set foot in the country. It also underlines how our generous benefits system acts as a powerful draw for migrant workers. Moreover, this largesse is open to widespread abuse. The Trajkowski family qualify for child benefit because their father works in London as a builder and pays his taxes. Like all migrants from the eight East European countries which joined the EU in 2004, he won the right to claim state benefits after working here for a year."

Complete article can be found – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483225/1m-child-benefit-paid-month–mothers-Poland.html

Why is this idea important?

Stop allowing benefits to be paid to people that are not even living in this country.

Example:

"This week, ministers admitted that more than £1million a month in child benefit is going to the families of youngsters who live in the former Soviet bloc countries. It was the first time that Labour has acknowledged that the money – funded by British taxpayers – is being paid abroad. The revelation triggered a political controversy over the fact that the Government is paying for the upbringing of children who do not live in Britain and who may never even have set foot in the country. It also underlines how our generous benefits system acts as a powerful draw for migrant workers. Moreover, this largesse is open to widespread abuse. The Trajkowski family qualify for child benefit because their father works in London as a builder and pays his taxes. Like all migrants from the eight East European countries which joined the EU in 2004, he won the right to claim state benefits after working here for a year."

Complete article can be found – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483225/1m-child-benefit-paid-month–mothers-Poland.html

Child Benefit available only to children who are fully resident in the UK

Child benefit claims should only be paid to the parents/guardians if their child is a full-time resident of the UK. Claims should not be allowed if one parent works in the UK whilst the children are living in another country. As soon as the children are removed from the country to reside elsewhere permanently, Child Benefit should be stopped immediately.

Why is this idea important?

Child benefit claims should only be paid to the parents/guardians if their child is a full-time resident of the UK. Claims should not be allowed if one parent works in the UK whilst the children are living in another country. As soon as the children are removed from the country to reside elsewhere permanently, Child Benefit should be stopped immediately.

Child benefit act 1975

This is an outdated and unfair benefit and seen as yet another tax on the single or childless workers of the United Kingdom. I don't think any family can honestly say they couldn't live without this allowance, and its usually used by most people I know as a supplement to their own income or as some money to 'treat' their children with.

Times have change, and though I can see how this might have been invaluable money used to buy children clothes, books, shoes, food e.t.c when it was first concieved way back in 1909, or even when it was updated in 1955 or 1975, standards of living have increased since then and this is just a massive burden that costs the UK tax coffers £11 billion a year.

Means testing is just a half answer, it would be massively expensive to administer and I don't see how refusing those who put the most in to the tax pot are even more those allowed to take the least out. The only fair answer is to place responsibility back into the hands of prospective parents at this time of widespread avaialbity of contraception.

Why is this idea important?

This is an outdated and unfair benefit and seen as yet another tax on the single or childless workers of the United Kingdom. I don't think any family can honestly say they couldn't live without this allowance, and its usually used by most people I know as a supplement to their own income or as some money to 'treat' their children with.

Times have change, and though I can see how this might have been invaluable money used to buy children clothes, books, shoes, food e.t.c when it was first concieved way back in 1909, or even when it was updated in 1955 or 1975, standards of living have increased since then and this is just a massive burden that costs the UK tax coffers £11 billion a year.

Means testing is just a half answer, it would be massively expensive to administer and I don't see how refusing those who put the most in to the tax pot are even more those allowed to take the least out. The only fair answer is to place responsibility back into the hands of prospective parents at this time of widespread avaialbity of contraception.