Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    B698 - Child Benefit Change Bill 2014, TSR UKIP



    Child Benefit Change 2014

    An Act to end child benefit for all newborns starting September 1st 2015.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1 | Child Benefit
    (1) The act brings about a gradual phase out of child benefit.
    (2) All parents with children born after September 1st 2015 will receive no child benefit.

    (3) All parents with children born before September 1st 2015 will receive child benefit at levels specified by the treasury up until the child's eighteenth birthday.
    (4) Families in Northern Ireland will stop receiving child benefit for children born after 30th June 2015.

    2 | Child Tax Credit

    (1) Child tax credit will be ended for all children born after 1st September 2015.
    (2) All parents with children born before 1st September 2015 will receive tax credit at rate set by Treasury up until the child's eighteenth birthday.
    (3) Families in Northern Ireland will stop receiving Child Tax Credits for children born after 30th June 2015.

    3| Guardian's Allowance

    (1) Guardian's Allowance will be ended for all children born after 1st September 2015.
    (2) All guardians with children born before 1st September 2015 will receive tax credit at rate set by Treasury up until the child's eighteenth birthday.
    (3) Guardians in Northern Ireland will stop receiving Guardian's Allowance for children born after 30th June 2015.



    The idea is the state should not pay to look after children belonging to parents who can't afford them. Scrapping child benefit straight away will punish those families who desperately rely on the benefit to provide a minimum standard of living for their children. However, any women who are not currently pregnant will not be entitled to the benefit - only have children if you can afford to have them. The 1st of September was chosen to ensure there would not be a situation where one child receives the benefit but another child does't yet they are in the same class at school. By parent's and guardians having children they can support, the taxpayer could be saved over £20bn per year.

    Child benefit costs the UK £12.22bn p.a.
    Child Tax Credit costs the UK £5.63bn p.a.
    Guardian's Allowance costs the UK £2.24 p.a.

    Total Savings After September 1st 2015 = 20.09bn p.a.

    Note: the date of effect is over a year away to take into account any women who may be pregnant.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    NO! This may be aimed at families with 10+ children, but what about the decent, hard-working families, earning a moderate wage, relying on Child Benefits to help them along.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Why the different date for Northern Ireland?

    I'm not sure I like the complete abolition, but I would happily see it go for the third child and beyond (with a possible provision for if the family fall into poverty after having a third child).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    Why the different date for Northern Ireland?

    I'm not sure I like the complete abolition, but I would happily see it go for the third child and beyond (with a possible provision for if the family fall into poverty after having a third child).
    "In northern Ireland school year starts on 1st July, so if it remained 1st September, then you might have those born early between 1st July and 1st September getting child benefit, but the others not" -adam9317
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fernand126)
    "In northern Ireland school year starts on 1st July, so if it remained 1st September, then you might have those born early between 1st July and 1st September getting child benefit, but the others not" -adam9317
    OK then. I didn't realise it started that early, are their term dates fairly different to ours then?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fernand126)
    "In northern Ireland school year starts on 1st July, so if it remained 1st September, then you might have those born early between 1st July and 1st September getting child benefit, but the others not" -adam9317
    (Original post by O133)
    OK then. I didn't realise it started that early, are their term dates fairly different to ours then?
    Thanks Fernando. Yes 1st July is the cut off for school years.

    School in Northern Ireland runs from the 1st September to the 30th June (this is largely because of 12th July holidays)

    We get 1 week a Halloween, 2 weeks at Christmas, 1 week in February, 2 weeks at Easter.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    Thanks Fernando. Yes 1st July is the cut off for school years.

    School in Northern Ireland runs from the 1st September to the 30th June (this is largely because of 12th July holidays)

    We get 1 week a Halloween, 2 weeks at Christmas, 1 week in February, 2 weeks at Easter.
    So virtually the same as Eng & Wal then, just you finish a couple of weeks earlier but lose the May half term.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Children are to live in poverty for the financial decisions of their parents? And what of the families who do work hard, yet are unable to afford their child without benefits - are they to be denied the experience of having a family?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    So virtually the same as Eng & Wal then, just you finish a couple of weeks earlier but lose the May half term.
    Yes, and the cut off is different for years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    50/50. I would prefer something that did the following:
    100% for first child.
    50% for second child
    0% for third child and above.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    50/50. I would prefer something that did the following:
    100% for first child.
    50% for second child
    0% for third child and above.
    I don't entirely disagree but would maybe go for:
    100% for 1st and 2nd child
    50% for 3rd child
    0% thereafter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's not exactly the bill of the century but the idea behind it lies within my political views. The saving, if correct, could be better used on education or healthcare. If I am right in thinking the late commencements mean no children currently alive will be affected, then the debate about this policy proposal is purely a moral question.

    Should the state support poorer couples in having a child and further support the child's upbringing if the couple are financially incapable of supporting the child themselves?

    (Original post by miser)
    Children are to live in poverty for the financial decisions of their parents? And what of the families who do work hard, yet are unable to afford their child without benefits - are they to be denied the experience of having a family?
    I noticed the commencement date is in 2015 and current child benefit doesn't stop until the children reach 18. The bill is a way of saying children should only be born if families can support their upbringing financially. Fore your second point, what's wrong with that? I don't like the idea of having the state pay for poor people to have an experience of having a family but this is political ideology now. I'm sure the proponents will agree with me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    I don't entirely disagree but would maybe go for:
    100% for 1st and 2nd child
    50% for 3rd child
    0% thereafter
    I suppose it just comes down to personal preference, I think that 75% for the first 2 children is good because it doesn't prevent people from having a family, but also ensures that only those who can afford it have a larger family.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baby_Charlotte)
    I noticed the commencement date is in 2015 and current child benefit doesn't stop until the children reach 18. The bill is a way of saying children should only be born if families can support their upbringing financially.
    This bill isn't going to stop people from having children if they can't afford them. The question the state has to ask itself is whether it ought to support the children or allow these children to live in poverty for the decisions of their parents. In the words of the bill it aims to "punish" these families - it is punishing children who have had no say in their circumstances.

    (Original post by Baby_Charlotte)
    Fore your second point, what's wrong with that? I don't like the idea of having the state pay for poor people to have an experience of having a family but this is political ideology now. I'm sure the proponents will agree with me.
    Because decent people deserve access to the human experience. It is a fault of society if hard-working people cannot earn enough to have a family - not the hard-workers - and so society ought to foot the bill.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    B698 - Child Benefit Change Bill 2014, TSR UKIP



    Child Benefit Change 2014

    An Act to end child benefit for all newborns starting September 1st 2015.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1 | Child Benefit
    (1) The act brings about a gradual phase out of child benefit.
    (2) All parents with children born after September 1st 2015 will receive no child benefit.

    (3) All parents with children born before September 1st 2015 will receive child benefit at levels specified by the treasury up until the child's eighteenth birthday.
    (4) Families in Northern Ireland will stop receiving child benefit for children born after 30th June 2015.

    2 | Child Tax Credit

    (1) Child tax credit will be ended for all children born after 1st September 2015.
    (2) All parents with children born before 1st September 2015 will receive tax credit at rate set by Treasury up until the child's eighteenth birthday.
    (3) Families in Northern Ireland will stop receiving Child Tax Credits for children born after 30th June 2015.

    3| Guardian's Allowance

    (1) Guardian's Allowance will be ended for all children born after 1st September 2015.
    (2) All guardians with children born before 1st September 2015 will receive tax credit at rate set by Treasury up until the child's eighteenth birthday.
    (3) Guardians in Northern Ireland will stop receiving Guardian's Allowance for children born after 30th June 2015.



    The idea is the state should not pay to look after children belonging to parents who can't afford them. Scrapping child benefit straight away will punish those families who desperately rely on the benefit to provide a minimum standard of living for their children. However, any women who are not currently pregnant will not be entitled to the benefit - only have children if you can afford to have them. The 1st of September was chosen to ensure there would not be a situation where one child receives the benefit but another child does't yet they are in the same class at school. By parent's and guardians having children they can support, the taxpayer could be saved over £20bn per year.

    Child benefit costs the UK £12.22bn p.a.
    Child Tax Credit costs the UK £5.63bn p.a.
    Guardian's Allowance costs the UK £2.24 p.a.

    Total Savings After September 1st 2015 = 20.09bn p.a.

    Note: the date of effect is over a year away to take into account any women who may be pregnant.

    Will benefits remain the same regardless if your are in Glasgow or London for example.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    This bill isn't going to stop people from having children if they can't afford them. The question the state has to ask itself is whether it ought to support the children or allow these children to live in poverty for the decisions of their parents. In the words of the bill it aims to "punish" these families - it is punishing children who have had no say in their circumstances.
    I agree with you there. The policy will not stop parents having children as you have identified but it will act as a deterrent to some. The children can blame their irresponsible parents for having them when in poor financial situations and not the state. I sympathise for the children growing up in deprivation but if this is the case I would prefer to see children taken off their irresponsible parents and taken into care.

    (Original post by miser)
    Because decent people deserve access to the human experience. It is a fault of society if hard-working people cannot earn enough to have a family - not the hard-workers - and so society ought to foot the bill.
    That is not always the case. The finances of hard-working individuals is closely linked to education. If education is poor the chances of landing a higher-paying job are significantly reduced. An EU study concluded a good degree can lead to an extra £12,000 per year on average. Even without a degree, professional qualifications also lead to a pay rise. The solution starts in improving education and putting measures in place to ensure everyone is able to receive a decent education. The solution does not lie in throwing money away looking after someone else's kids. The £20bn saving this bill makes could pay for over 400,000 extra teachers to improve education, cut class sizes driving up standards and better placing the adults of tomorrow in the world of work.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baby_Charlotte)
    I agree with you there. The policy will not stop parents having children as you have identified but it will act as a deterrent to some. The children can blame their irresponsible parents for having them when in poor financial situations and not the state. I sympathise for the children growing up in deprivation but if this is the case I would prefer to see children taken off their irresponsible parents and taken into care.

    That is not always the case. The finances of hard-working individuals is closely linked to education. If education is poor the chances of landing a higher-paying job are significantly reduced. An EU study concluded a good degree can lead to an extra £12,000 per year on average. Even without a degree, professional qualifications also lead to a pay rise. The solution starts in improving education and putting measures in place to ensure everyone is able to receive a decent education. The solution does not lie in throwing money away looking after someone else's kids. The £20bn saving this bill makes could pay for over 400,000 extra teachers to improve education, cut class sizes driving up standards and better placing the adults of tomorrow in the world of work.
    I agree with most of the things you have written here which leads me to believe that we have a conflict of values. I believe that innocent children should not pay the price of greater comfort for the already (comparatively) wealthy. This bill would lessen the burden on tax payers but at the expense of damaging children's lives.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I appear to have the exact same view as O133. I've long believed that the government should pay child benefit for only the first two children born. Getting rid of it completely is a step in the wrong direction though. We can't allow vulnerable children to be plunged into poverty and harm, it's just wrong on every level. And we only get a very minute saving from it because the costings are wrong.

    That being said, we unfortunately meet another roadblock caused by our lack of MHoC reset in that child benefit doesn't even exist in the wendy house. Instead we have a resident's income which pays the following rates. Brace yourselves, they are high:
    Resident Income Child Rates
    Child aged 12-15 years: £89.00 per week
    Child aged 5-11 years: £68.50 per week
    Child aged 3-4: £62.00 per week
    Child aged 0-2: £55.00 per week


    Those also increase with inflation so you can expect them to be a few percent higher now 2014 :eek:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    =And we only get a very minute saving from it because the costings are wrong.
    I second this point! I looked at a few reports and can only confirm the Child Benefit at £12.22bn is correct. Just under £8bn needs to be accounted for.

    Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...zoomed-picture
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    Resident Income Child Rates
    Child aged 12-15 years: £89.00 per week
    Child aged 5-11 years: £68.50 per week
    Child aged 3-4: £62.00 per week
    Child aged 0-2: £55.00 per week
    :eek:
    I would have child benefit at £20.50 pw as in real life.
    Then second child receives £13.50 pw (basically real life)
    Third child gets £5 per week.
    Fourth onwards is £0.

    Also that means that the current Resident Income Child bill is in excess of £65bn!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.