The Student Room Group

Child Benefit - What's your opinion?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by arbaaz
child benefit is needed... children are expensive.. plus the price of food and drink is going up .... so yeah it is needed...
don't get rid of it....
even the amount given in child benefit isn't really that much to be honest...


Dear boy. You do understand what this will lead to, ja?
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 61
Original post by Iron Lady
Dear boy. You do understand what this will lead to, ja?


I want to sound really fancy and say I have no clue what your asking me in french but I promised myself that I would stop using french translator after the disaster that was gcse french. So I'm just going to spit it out,
Whatcha mean?
most of you are arguing that if someone can't afford to raise a child then they shouldn't have one, but how is that fair on the child ? The child didn't chose to be born into a rich or poor family, why should he or she suffer because their parents can't afford to raise them up properly ?
Reply 63
Original post by arbaaz
um, haven't read a history book since a levels. :colondollar:
ah but I DO remember that with regards to the UK when social welfare first started out there was free housing and food for those who were in dire need of it. There were special workhouses I think they were called, so you would live there and they would feed you and provide you with accomodation. However, the accomodation was so pure and the food so disguisting that it motivated people to get out as soon as possible. By private charity do you mean individuals would voluntarily give money to help others out who are in need of benefits?


Yes. Before the state religious organizations and private home shelters used to help out. Even today people give freely to charity through organizations like Oxfam. There is no reason why willful contributions wouldn't work out better than forcing people to part with their money to redistribute it.
Me thinks: Don't put a definitive cap on it, have a sliding scale cap based on the amount of children being looked after. This is in an imaginery world where everyone follows the system fairly.
Then that's acceptable. What isn't acceptable is the situation in the first paragraph.
Reply 66
Original post by ish90an
Yes. Before the state religious organizations and private home shelters used to help out. Even today people give freely to charity through organizations like Oxfam. There is no reason why willful contributions wouldn't work out better than forcing people to part with their money to redistribute it.


I don't think that's a good idea primarily because the average person donates very little and very infrequently, people need benefits on a day to day basis. most people who give to oxfam give old clothes, toys not money, and money is what poor people need the most, money gives them food. furthermore, in a recession which we are supposedly in now the amount that people donates drops dramatically as only naturally we try to cut down our bills and expenses yet those who need benefits still need them. what would happen if the economy worsened which is possible, less people donated and then there wasn't enough money for all the people who were eligible? those people would die, their kids would die, and that is unacceptable imo. the structure that we have now may have its flaws but it is not as dependent on the economy in the way that a private charity would be.
Reply 67
may i ask why it should be scrapped for higher income earners? they have just as much right as poor people for it.
Reply 68
Original post by arbaaz
I don't think that's a good idea primarily because the average person donates very little and very infrequently, people need benefits on a day to day basis. most people who give to oxfam give old clothes, toys not money, and money is what poor people need the most, money gives them food. furthermore, in a recession which we are supposedly in now the amount that people donates drops dramatically as only naturally we try to cut down our bills and expenses yet those who need benefits still need them. what would happen if the economy worsened which is possible, less people donated and then there wasn't enough money for all the people who were eligible? those people would die, their kids would die, and that is unacceptable imo. the structure that we have now may have its flaws but it is not as dependent on the economy in the way that a private charity would be.


The structure right now is not dependent on the economy? Where do you think the government gets its money from, fairy dust? With the lower tax rates resulting from scrapping social welfare people will have more disposable income to spend and give as they wish.
Reply 69
Original post by ish90an
The structure right now is not dependent on the economy? Where do you think the government gets its money from, fairy dust? With the lower tax rates resulting from scrapping social welfare people will have more disposable income to spend and give as they wish.


nuh uh... i said not as dependent on the economy. yeah i heard fairy dust changes to money after 20 days if you keep it out of sunlight.
yes but what makes you think that lower tax rates will mean more people will donate, in reality if a person gets more money they save, or they spend on themselves or family, only a minority will give it away to charity
Reply 70
Original post by Roshniroxy
most of you are arguing that if someone can't afford to raise a child then they shouldn't have one, but how is that fair on the child ? The child didn't chose to be born into a rich or poor family, why should he or she suffer because their parents can't afford to raise them up properly ?


Who raises them, then?
Original post by cl_steele
may i ask why it should be scrapped for higher income earners? they have just as much right as poor people for it.


Because they don't need it? Why should someone earning £10k a year subsidise child benefit for someone earning £100k a year? It makes no sense at all.
Reply 72
Original post by OU Student
Because they don't need it? Why should someone earning £10k a year subsidise child benefit for someone earning £100k a year? It makes no sense at all.


because the person earning £100k a year has actually contributed a hell of a lot more to it note that the top 1% of earners contribut 30% to the governments coffers in income tax*? the fact they dont need it is irrespective its principle, everyone keeps rambling on about 'equality' if they want equality then people earning large amounts of money have just as much of a right as those earning bugger all to claim child benefit.
as some people have mentioned on this thread and others the fact people bring children into this world when theyre earning sod all is rather cruel anyway, take what you said ... if someones earning 10k a year theyre in no position to raise a child now are they ... why should the rest of the country bail them out for this?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html
Original post by cl_steele
if someones earning 10k a year theyre in no position to raise a child now are they ... why should the rest of the country bail them out for this?


Because of course, anyone who has a child doesn't later on have circumstances which means they may lose their job or have to take a much lower paid one.:rolleyes:

The fact is, someone earning £100k doesn't "need" £20 a week. If they do, they have serious money flow issues. Meanwhile, Cameron wants to cut disability benefits. Fair?
Reply 74
Original post by OU Student
Because of course, anyone who has a child doesn't later on have circumstances which means they may lose their job or have to take a much lower paid one.:rolleyes:

The fact is, someone earning £100k doesn't "need" £20 a week. If they do, they have serious money flow issues. Meanwhile, Cameron wants to cut disability benefits. Fair?


thats one scenario of many...

so what if they dont need it? as i said before its principle ... child benefits are meant to be, like the NHS, a universal benefit ... what are you going to do next say anyone on a high income band is excluded from the NHS or state pension because they earned enough to go private or save their own?

i reserve my opinion on that, its not really relevant to this debate
Reply 75
Original post by arbaaz
nuh uh... i said not as dependent on the economy. yeah i heard fairy dust changes to money after 20 days if you keep it out of sunlight.
yes but what makes you think that lower tax rates will mean more people will donate, in reality if a person gets more money they save, or they spend on themselves or family, only a minority will give it away to charity


So when people are being taxed to death they give money, but suddenly if they have more money due to lower taxes people will denote less? Plus, if you lower tax people would have more disposable income to raise kids, instead of that money going to fund foreign invasions or ponzi programs like social welfare and public sector pensions.
Reply 76
I would cap it so that only two or three children in each family can receive it.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by cl_steele
thats one scenario of many...

so what if they dont need it? as i said before its principle ... child benefits are meant to be, like the NHS, a universal benefit ...


Except child benefit isn't universal. If it was, everyone would be entitled to it. There is still criteria to meet.
Reply 78
Original post by OU Student
Except child benefit isn't universal. If it was, everyone would be entitled to it. There is still criteria to meet.


what? having a child by any chance.... its still a universal benefit in that everyone with a child is entitled to it..
Original post by cl_steele
what? having a child by any chance.... its still a universal benefit in that everyone with a child is entitled to it..


You have just proved my point - there is still criteria to meet.

Either way, it's outdated and a benefit that makes no sense at all.

Quick Reply

Latest