How much do you get for child benefit?

[katie_lou]

I'll be perfectly honest here - we don't NEED child benefit, all of Georgias is currently sitting in an account untouched! BUT - that's not to say we WON'T need it.

My husband has a good wage, but working/living in an oil city is expensive. And just because we don't need it to feed/clothe a baby doesn't mean we won't need it for school clothes, or text books, or university fees. Just because we are in the fortunate position at the moment to include her in out current wages, doesn't mean we will always be.

I see nothing wrong with there bring certain "benefits" available to everyone. Things like bus passes, child benefit, etc, at the end of the day the high earners put a LOT into the pot, surely it's not too much to ask for them to get just a little bit out.

Xxx


On my iPhone - so cant see tickers

I agree 100% with this . Xxx

 

[Little_angel]

This has been an interesting thread and it's a shame that parts of it have deteriorated into argument rather than debate. I'm sure there have been rude comments elsewhere about people who claim benefits, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Personally, I don't think high or middle earners should receive housing or any benefit. It should all be means tested. It's not needed and just makes one more thing we have to pay for. This country is in trouble: we have too few people paying for too many. This is not a criticism of people who need help, or in fact of anyone receiving benefits, just a statement of the fact that there are less and less people working and paying tax, supporting a larger population than ever before. This trend is likely to continue and we are seeing another manifestation of the problem in the pension crisis.

I have sympathy with people who will struggle on SMP, but if SMP is not enough, the answer isn't to top up through child benefit, it's to address the problem by increasing SMP. Or much better, for employers to prioritise maternity pay as a benefit, in the same way some offer private health care schemes. I appreciate, however, this is problematic for smaller businesses.

We all make our choices in life. Having children is a choice and not a right. Having a house with a big mortgage is a choice and while it's not easily changed, it is possible to downsize or move to a cheaper area in most cases. There are often compelling reasons why people don't want to do so, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidise that choice. If a woman is the breadwinner, there is the option now of her partner taking a proportion of the parental leave and receiving SMP.

I don't agree with the "higher earners put in the most, so they should get something back" argument. We all get something back from the taxes we pay: we use the NHS, we have our rubbish collected, we have an army to defend us. More than that we get to be part of a society where (mostly, unless the system has failed) people don't have to beg on the streets and children can eat. If we want a society like that, some people have to pay for the rest, it's the only way it has a chance of working.

 

[tiaflame]

So why should people who just can't be bothered to get a job be entitled to it? Earners pay taxes to provide for the lazy arses , why is that fair????
I have worked all my life and paid more than enough into the system, so I feel I'm entitled and won't feel guilty about receiving it! X

 

[Little_angel]

So why should people who just can't be bothered to get a job be entitled to it? Earners pay taxes to provide for the lazy arses , why is that fair????
I have worked all my life and paid more than enough into the system, so I feel I'm entitled and won't feel guilty about receiving it! X

It's not fair that people who can't be bothered get benefits, but that's an entirely different problem and it isn't fixed by giving us all benefits. There are lots of people who genuinely need benefits, and you have to set up the system to provide for them.

If you are entitled (as we all are at the moment), you shouldn't feel guilty about taking it! I completely agree. I just don't think we should all be entitled. Looking at the bigger picture, if you are putting in to take out, it's just a money-go-round. Better to put in slightly less, and not get to take it. I realise that we won't actually get a reduction in taxes to correspond with this, but it's a way of cutting outgoings so that the money can be spent elsewhere or to reduce a future necessary rise.

 

[katie_lou]

So why should people who just can't be bothered to get a job be entitled to it? Earners pay taxes to provide for the lazy arses , why is that fair????
I have worked all my life and paid more than enough into the system, so I feel I'm entitled and won't feel guilty about receiving it! X

U shouldn't feel guilt at all Hun , ur entitled to it . Xxxx

 

[katey123]

This has been an interesting thread and it's a shame that parts of it have deteriorated into argument rather than debate. I'm sure there have been rude comments elsewhere about people who claim benefits, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Personally, I don't think high or middle earners should receive housing or any benefit. It should all be means tested. It's not needed and just makes one more thing we have to pay for. This country is in trouble: we have too few people paying for too many. This is not a criticism of people who need help, or in fact of anyone receiving benefits, just a statement of the fact that there are less and less people working and paying tax, supporting a larger population than ever before. This trend is likely to continue and we are seeing another manifestation of the problem in the pension crisis.

I have sympathy with people who will struggle on SMP, but if SMP is not enough, the answer isn't to top up through child benefit, it's to address the problem by increasing SMP. Or much better, for employers to prioritise maternity pay as a benefit, in the same way some offer private health care schemes. I appreciate, however, this is problematic for smaller businesses.

We all make our choices in life. Having children is a choice and not a right. Having a house with a big mortgage is a choice and while it's not easily changed, it is possible to downsize or move to a cheaper area in most cases. There are often compelling reasons why people don't want to do so, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidise that choice. If a woman is the breadwinner, there is the option now of her partner taking a proportion of the parental leave and receiving SMP.

I don't agree with the "higher earners put in the most, so they should get something back" argument. We all get something back from the taxes we pay: we use the NHS, we have our rubbish collected, we have an army to defend us. More than that we get to be part of a society where (mostly, unless the system has failed) people don't have to beg on the streets and children can eat. If we want a society like that, some people have to pay for the rest, it's the only way it has a chance of working.

Spot on and exactly what I was trying to get across , I'm not as good with words as you , thank you for sharing your good common sense .
The 'pot' is not bottomless and only meant for those that actually need it to live day to day , there is not ever going to be enough if everyone dips in and takes what they feel entitled too. It's honestly not criticism it's just the facts.xx

 

[katey123]

As I understand it child benefit was brought in after the wars to courage and help people have more children ,as it was only originally paid for the second and onward children , so to increase the population and was intended to help with the cost of feeding those children due food still being expensive after the war.
In the 1970s it was to include first born children too then later it was scaled back to a cheaper rate for second children and beyond .
How we have a population explosion child benefit must be scaled back again .
I personally think only the very poorest should receive any financial assistance that's my personal opinion. xx

 

[dyscochick]

LittleAngel I agree with a lot of your comments, one of the biggest issues that we have is that while we are making moves towards a fairer paternity system, we still have a LONG way to go to make it truly equitable. That would allow the female high breadwinners to go back to work earlier if finances required it.

I very firmly agree, as has been said a few times, that having a child is a choice, and if you make that choice you need to consider all the options and decide if you can afford to. We have looked at the options and can afford it, without help from the state. We will likely not qualify for child benefit, but will buy childcare vouchers, but I do resent the fact that as I am likely to become a higher rate tax payer in the next 2 years due to annual increments in my pay I will actively be penalised by only being allowed to buy half the value of childcare vouchers when that happens. My childcare costs do not go down then of course, so I will actually potentially have less money than if I was paid a few hundred pounds a year less. I know that the threshold has to lie somewhere, its just a little frustrating when you are on it.

One issue, which may seem peripheral, is that a system the benefits system in itself is expensive. Having a system like child benefits which isn't currently means tested (if I'm right) will actually start to cost the system more once it becomes means tested because this requires more staff etc etc (regardless of what govt says, the civil service always appears to create the need for more jobs. In part I think because we seems to have separate departments and huge separate systems for all the different allowances that you can claim the system as a whole is barely fit for purpose. If the benefits system as a whole was more efficient and collaborative, it might be better treated and harder to cheat. The fewer people in the system who didn't deserve to be there, the less resentment might come from those that pay in but receive little out. Its a costly system to change to, so a vicious circle i know.

 

[cosmicgirl]

Another major issue is that this country has never favoured working mothers, if anything, it actively discourages it. A lot of ladies say it's better to stay at home on benefits than work because of childcare costs etc.
I would be £100's better of if I were to leave my job and go in benefits with my children. That to me is a system in dire need of a shake up.
I have worked long and hard to get to where I am now and wouldn't change my circumstances for anything BUT I'm very peeved that I cannot stay at home with my baby because I cannot survive on SMP. I've put a bloody lot into the government pot yet I'm not entitled to have any returned to me for a few months to enjoy my new baby?? Shouldn't I be assessed on the amount I will be receiving (SMP) rather what I was earning previously or will warn on my return???
Yet if I didn't work I'd continue to receive benefits, I wouldn't receive a drop in money????? (in fact in most cases it would increase as there would be another dependent).
That's the state of this country.
I do hope that the massive benefits reform that was talked about comes to fruition, and soon.

 

[FirstBabyEek]

I have sympathy with people who will struggle on SMP, but if SMP is not enough, the answer isn't to top up through child benefit, it's to address the problem by increasing SMP. Or much better, for employers to prioritise maternity pay as a benefit, in the same way some offer private health care schemes. I appreciate, however, this is problematic for smaller businesses.

I think this is a brilliant idea, if companies want to attract the best workers with the best skills, their packages need to reflect modern ways of working - which in this day and age includes very talanted women of childbearing age - like myself ha ha!!

My boss would never go for this, purely because is is an arse.

If I'm brutally honest, I'd find a way to cope if they withdraw Child benefit - yes it would have been nice to have and would be useful, but it should be means tested as you say and I think the gov are making steps towards that by setting limits in place - there will always be people that just miss out, like me.

I would personally perfer to see the gov use the money to pay for something like cancer treatment or research or other life saving/life improving drugs for those that need it. But this is completely off topic.

xxx

 

[CARNAT22]

This has been an interesting thread and it's a shame that parts of it have deteriorated into argument rather than debate. I'm sure there have been rude comments elsewhere about people who claim benefits, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Personally, I don't think high or middle earners should receive housing or any benefit. It should all be means tested. It's not needed and just makes one more thing we have to pay for. This country is in trouble: we have too few people paying for too many. This is not a criticism of people who need help, or in fact of anyone receiving benefits, just a statement of the fact that there are less and less people working and paying tax, supporting a larger population than ever before. This trend is likely to continue and we are seeing another manifestation of the problem in the pension crisis.

I have sympathy with people who will struggle on SMP, but if SMP is not enough, the answer isn't to top up through child benefit, it's to address the problem by increasing SMP. Or much better, for employers to prioritise maternity pay as a benefit, in the same way some offer private health care schemes. I appreciate, however, this is problematic for smaller businesses.

We all make our choices in life. Having children is a choice and not a right. Having a house with a big mortgage is a choice and while it's not easily changed, it is possible to downsize or move to a cheaper area in most cases. There are often compelling reasons why people don't want to do so, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidise that choice. If a woman is the breadwinner, there is the option now of her partner taking a proportion of the parental leave and receiving SMP.

I don't agree with the "higher earners put in the most, so they should get something back" argument. We all get something back from the taxes we pay: we use the NHS, we have our rubbish collected, we have an army to defend us. More than that we get to be part of a society where (mostly, unless the system has failed) people don't have to beg on the streets and children can eat. If we want a society like that, some people have to pay for the rest, it's the only way it has a chance of working.

I do agree that the main issue seems to be that SMP is just not enough for most women.

It is an aboslute disgrace to be honest.

However what am I realistically supposed to do? Leave London (leaving all my family and OH's family) for a year to bring down my housing costs??

I am the main breadwinner but I feel very strongly that I am able to have a year off to take care of our child. Selfish as it sounds I don't want to go back to work early and transfer SMP to my OH.. I want this time with our baby.

As I say we have been saving so will be able to afford to buy our baby things and top up my SMP when needed. However it will most likely decimate our savings and put back our plans to be able to move?

We've done everything "right" - we both work and pay our taxes, we've got some money behind us and we are trying to be as realistic and as responsible as possible but I feel like I am being punished for my life choices?

This country is so up it's own arse when it comes to maternity rights it makes me want to scream!

xxxxxxxx

 

[FirstBabyEek]

[Selfish as it sounds I don't want to go back to work early and transfer SMP to my OH.. I want this time with our baby.

As I say we have been saving so will be able to afford to buy our baby things and top up my SMP when needed. However it will most likely decimate our savings and put back our plans to be able to move?

We've done everything "right" - we both work and pay our taxes, we've got some money behind us and we are trying to be as realistic and as responsible as possible but I feel like I am being punished for my life choices?

This country is so up it's own arse when it comes to maternity rights it makes me want to scream!

xxxxxxxx

Completely agree with this!! We are in the same boat. I want to be a damn good Mum and that means that I will take the year off despite pressures from my boss and Clients to return early.

The fact remains as Cos said (I think) that womean ARE penalised for wanting to have kids, unless you have a brilliant employer then you do have to choose between a family and a career.

It would be fantastic if employers took the initative and actually offered a decent maternity package (I know some do, but most dont) but realistically can you honestly say that you're not going to get a black mark against your name if you enquire at interview stage about their maternity package - lead and balloon springs to mind!

xxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Tara1985]

Just read through this entire thread – can see both sides to what people are trying to say but like a couple of other people have mentioned the point has been missed it seems. This money is for our children and I really do not understand why there has been an argument about it. Yes people on very very high incomes may not ‘need’ it however that is a problem with the ‘system’ that none of us can change unfortunately. Why are we not means tested? Personally my baby will need that £80 just to be clothed, watered and fed seeing as my circumstances have now changed.

I’m not judging anyone else or taking sides but so people can see a real example of why I ‘need’ child benefit I listed my financial situation below. My OH has been told he will be made redundant come December. This has come at the worse time because this is when my full time MAT pay will be reduced to SMP (£133? A week). We were hoping to survive on OH wage whilst I was on SMP but he won’t have that now. As family tax credits etc are based on the last financial year I will technically be in financial hardship and will not be entitled to anything.

Forgetting the overall amount and looking at the maths I am up shit creek without a paddle…

Income after tax, NI and pension; £1600 (ish)

Mortgage = £980
Gas and Lecky = £60
Council Tax = 100
Water = £15
Telephone = £25
TV Licence = £12
Loan repayment = £100
House insurance = £15
Life insurance = £5
Food for the month = £60-80 (and this is a guess because I will have to pay for baby out of this now too)

Total outgoings are £1372 so initially I am ok however once this money is reduced to £133 a week I will be in the red by £840!!! I am just panicking as OH will not have a wage for us to fall back on as family tax credits are based on last financial year. Any advice?! I took a day off work to go CAB to find it closed despite publishing opening hours online.

£80 a month will help a LOT however if my circumstances were different I would claim the money and put it in a trust fund for my child seeing as it is them that are entitled to it.

Peace and love

 

[cosmicgirl]

And that Tara is exactly why I am having to go back to work and not stay at home to enjoy my baby!!!
If I didn't work, there's no way the government would expect me and my 5 children to survive on £133 per week so why does it think I can do that on SMP???
Why do I not have the same entitlement to as much help as anyone else with an income of £133 per week and 5 kids???
Because I have a job to go back to!!!! And they want me back there ASAP!!! Paying taxes and NI that do not help me financially when I need it!!!!

 

[cosmicgirl]

And breathe x

 

[l_maclean]

This has been an interesting thread and it's a shame that parts of it have deteriorated into argument rather than debate. I'm sure there have been rude comments elsewhere about people who claim benefits, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Personally, I don't think high or middle earners should receive housing or any benefit. It should all be means tested. It's not needed and just makes one more thing we have to pay for. This country is in trouble: we have too few people paying for too many. This is not a criticism of people who need help, or in fact of anyone receiving benefits, just a statement of the fact that there are less and less people working and paying tax, supporting a larger population than ever before. This trend is likely to continue and we are seeing another manifestation of the problem in the pension crisis.

I have sympathy with people who will struggle on SMP, but if SMP is not enough, the answer isn't to top up through child benefit, it's to address the problem by increasing SMP. Or much better, for employers to prioritise maternity pay as a benefit, in the same way some offer private health care schemes. I appreciate, however, this is problematic for smaller businesses.

We all make our choices in life. Having children is a choice and not a right. Having a house with a big mortgage is a choice and while it's not easily changed, it is possible to downsize or move to a cheaper area in most cases. There are often compelling reasons why people don't want to do so, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidise that choice. If a woman is the breadwinner, there is the option now of her partner taking a proportion of the parental leave and receiving SMP.

I don't agree with the "higher earners put in the most, so they should get something back" argument. We all get something back from the taxes we pay: we use the NHS, we have our rubbish collected, we have an army to defend us. More than that we get to be part of a society where (mostly, unless the system has failed) people don't have to beg on the streets and children can eat. If we want a society like that, some people have to pay for the rest, it's the only way it has a chance of working.

First of all I'd like to point out a couple of problems here

It's usually middle earners who are worst off!! - they earn too much for help, and as a result can end up that they'd be better off not working - a sliding scale is required to give middle earners some help so that it wouldn't be more profitable for them to simply not work!!

Second - means testing everything also costs money. This is one reason why Scotland and Wales both have free prescriptions for all - because to means test it would cost more!!

As for higher earners making the decision to down size - that is not always possible! - my husband is classed as a high earner but to downsize we'd have to move a stupid distance from his job, as the reason he is a high earner is because of where we live, and costs match That!!

And to use absurd logic, if having children is a choice that should really mean that the state shouldn't be paying for anyone's -high, middle or low income. - so just do away with child benefit!

Xxx




On my iPhone - so cant see tickers

 

[russellmuscle]

Im lucky that I have a good mat package, its a shame that people do need to live on only SMP and partners wages really - I assumed if you worked your work provided a package for you but obviously Ive learned not always the case.. I feel for you who are rushed back early - its not fair.

Do you get to go back partime cosmic or needing to go fulltime?

I wish money was free sometimes..

 

[Tara1985]

I would go back to work to ensure our bills were paid and OH stay at home with baby but work have already arranged my MAT cover for 9 months so not sure what my options are now. Hopefully OH will get back into work quickly but there are no guarentees and we possibly could go into a lot of debt. I just don't understand why we could not be means tested and have assistance for the time we need it only. I don't know, could go around in circles about it but yes we will be in trouble financially.

I would stack shelves, clean, bar work anything but then this would affect the SMP.

 

[dyscochick]

Tara,
I don't know what your mat package is like, I would talk to HR and find out if you can change your return to work date. depending on if they are getting cover in they might be able to. My mat package means I'm ok for 6 months but then on SMP alone for 3 months before getting nothing after that so I'm going back to work at 6 months and DH is going to take pat leave and get my SMP for a couple of months. He's entitled to take what I don't use. worth an ask if it might be an option for you or mean you are better off.xx

 

[russellmuscle]

That sucks.

We just rent our flat just now but Im only 21, this is the reason I want to have babies before mortgages. I think you go for a house and then have to make things fit around it..

Im not judging you for having a mortgage or anything btway xxx