Turn on thread page Beta

Should child benefit remain universal? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Currently, this benefit is universal, in that everyone with a child under the age of maximum 20, is entitled to claim benefit for this child.

    Do you think that it should remain this way?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Probably not, but I'd be interested to know how much it would cost to means test it and if over complicating the system would lead to vulnerable children missing out.

    I'd also like to know whether wealthier families ever bother collecting it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I say send the kids to work, lazy children.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Fair Britain?)
    Currently, this benefit is universal, in that everyone with a child under the age of maximum 20, is entitled to claim benefit for this child.

    Do you think that it should remain this way?
    How are 18 & 19 year olds children?

    No I don't think rich people should get it. That said however, I'm not sure I agree with poorer people getting it either. Having a child is generally a choice, if you can't afford to pay for your choice then maybe you shouldn't be having one. It's not like this country is starved for children (I know we have an ageing population but it's not as bad as in other countries like Japan).

    Perhaps it should be available if for example a parent lost their job and so no longer has the available funds to continue bringing up a child who they could earlier support, just so the child doesn't suffer, but to provide housing and benefits from the word go for a parent is just wrong I think it sends out the wrong message to a lot of people about having children.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Should there not be incentives to have children though? They are obviously a financial burden, and we live in an ageing country.

    So I think it should stay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, probably.

    Means testing may be too costly. In an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary because people would always have enough money to support their children but some people just end up in poor situations and need a helping hand. I know it was very useful to my parents when I was being brought up, I was an accident and they were both still in education. I approve of benefits as a whole, being as we don't live in an ideal world and all humans are fallible. I'm not the usual bleeding heart liberal either, I realize there are considerable faults with the system.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    should remain universal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think with all the benefits available to unworking/low income parents taking away this would be ridiculous, I am from a low income family and the way I see it is, now that I'm older I'm basically getting a free university education, if families dont actually need the money to live on putting it aisde for when their children go to uni is a way of lessening the burden.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    How are 18 & 19 year olds children?

    No I don't think rich people should get it. That said however, I'm not sure I agree with poorer people getting it either. Having a child is generally a choice, if you can't afford to pay for your choice then maybe you shouldn't be having one. It's not like this country is starved for children (I know we have an ageing population but it's not as bad as in other countries like Japan).

    Perhaps it should be available if for example a parent lost their job and so no longer has the available funds to continue bringing up a child who they could earlier support, just so the child doesn't suffer, but to provide housing and benefits from the word go for a parent is just wrong I think it sends out the wrong message to a lot of people about having children.
    It's not the child's choice to be born, he shouldn't be punished for the parent's financial position. With 1/3 of children in this country living in poverty, I think something needs to be done to prevent this, whether that's through a means tested child benefit or otherwise, it's unacceptable, but I believe removing it would only worsen it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by respect_campaign)
    It's not the child's choice to be born, he shouldn't be punished for the parent's financial position. With 1/3 of children in this country living in poverty, I think something needs to be done to prevent this, whether that's through a means tested child benefit or otherwise, it's unacceptable, but I believe removing it would only worsen it.
    You're right it's not a kid's choice to be born, but parents should be encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. Like I said the current situation is wrong, people can have kids expecting the state to bring them up, that's totally irresponsible. Perhaps some sort of system like the dole could be introduced where only if it's absolutely necessary for them to have child benefit, certainly not this everyone can apply thing we have now. Over time if news spreads that no longer are we giving everyone a free house and handouts for, not even 18 but 20! years for popping one out, I think people will probably think first.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    How are 18 & 19 year olds children?

    No I don't think rich people should get it. That said however, I'm not sure I agree with poorer people getting it either. Having a child is generally a choice, if you can't afford to pay for your choice then maybe you shouldn't be having one. It's not like this country is starved for children (I know we have an ageing population but it's not as bad as in other countries like Japan).

    Perhaps it should be available if for example a parent lost their job and so no longer has the available funds to continue bringing up a child who they could earlier support, just so the child doesn't suffer, but to provide housing and benefits from the word go for a parent is just wrong I think it sends out the wrong message to a lot of people about having children.
    Well, I still think the parent(s) are entitled to child benefit for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why shouldn't it remain Universal?

    means tested? I hate how so many people in this country insist that tax goes up for the "rich" and that anyone whos not "rich" gets a **** load of money so in the end the parents who work 72 hour a week professional jobs end up with not a huge amount more than the parents who work 30 hours a week in morrisons.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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