Withdrawing child benefit at 16 would be the wrong call

Noa Zrk

If there are to be changes to child benefit — and given the financial situation there need to be — then removing it from households with a higher rate taxpayer is a better move than stopping it at 16.

Cynically, one suspects, the reason why it won't be withdrawn entirely is because it would encourage present and prospective Labour voters to actually vote for a Labour party that would reinstate the bribe at the next election.

Better to look at a welfare vouchers system than continue cash handouts.

John Wilkes

I am not entirely sure what the Conservatives think they are going to achieve with this. It is the equivalent of the 10p tax fiasco as it is designed to punish their core vote. As a parent and Conservative voter let me explain. I pay higher rate tax although the joint taxable household income is probably less than 2 individuals earning £43K each. I have four children so this is going to cost me about £3k. At the moment I can (but only just) save most of it against the future cost of sending my children to University in the hope that they can earn more and so pay more tax to support the current taxpayers when they retire. University is going to get more expensive as well. Doesn't this represent good Conservative values? If people like me don't have children who is going to be paying the taxes in the future. If I got a tax break for being a parent (as I would in France) I wouldn't mind. As it is it just makes me resent people who either take no responsibility for their own children (by working hard) or are happy not to have any so they have more money to spend themselves (I am not counting the gays or the people who want but can't have children before you all get splenetic with rage). What happened to the party of low taxes and personal responsibility - they go together.

Verity

Well, frankly, James, as you may not have realissd because you lived inside the Beltway! where there are a lot of rich people - but at 16 or 17 most American teenagers, at least those in the middle class, do have part time jobs that
give them the pocket money they need. Just menial things, like working in a fast food place, doing lawns, clipping plants, delivering papers, bagging groceries in supermarkets and so on.

To think that teenagers should be living as guests of the working British taxpayer when they are perfectly capable of working themselves is ridiculous. Yes, they still usually eat at home and certainly sleep at home, but their other expenses are paid for by themselves.

Of course child benefit should be stopped at 16!

emil

It would mean more children being kicked out of the family home at 16, from where they go straight onto housing benefit..

Better still stop giving child benefit after the second child. This will stop the well publicised parents who feel they can breed at will and the taxpayer will keep them for the rets of their lives.

AJ

I would rather see child benefit restricted to the first 2 children, if you want more then plan for them do not expect the state to pay, this would save a bit of money.

Noa Zrk

Child benefit ending at 16 would send out a message that at 16 a child should start earning its way in the world. This would, for obvious reasons, have a negative impact on social mobility as it would likely lead to fewer children staying on at school post 16...".

The only difference between being unemployed at, 16 and 18 or 21 after a university education, is shortly to be a debt of £30,000. Of course we could try creating real work in the UK by repatriating some of the hundreds of thousands of jobs previously exported and exporting some of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants taking that 97% of new jobs created.

Tim W

I am already fed up with mothers on the news saying they "rely on Child Benefit" despite earning £50000. Absolute rubbish. If they can't cope on that then they really need to sort themselves and their budget out. Most parents (including mine) bring up kids on £15000-25000 salaries meaning £40000 combined income. They cope.

And on another point - what has happened to the "Upper Class"? Everyone says that Osborne's measures will only hit the "middle classes" despite the upper class obviously being hit in a similar way. Actually I would suggest that there is a change in the way people talk about classes. Shouldn't the "middle classes" be people around and slightly above the average wage? Only 15% of people earn over £44000 a year.

Kittler

John is to send his four kids to University and the taxpayer will foot the bill for the tuition fees. Depending on institution, course and length of study, that could be £200,000. Ain't it grand to live in a welfare state.

Noa Zrk

Kittler

The cost of John Wilkes children going to university at a cost of £50k from the taxpayer and £30k each then paying a lifetime of taxes, (assuming they find work) totally offsets the £1m+ each child benefit bred lifetime NEET will cost the public purse.
Beyond cost however, is the social worth and self respect John's children will earn and give to society for that meagre and safe investment.

Verity

Noa Zrk - Well, on this I don't agree with you. Many young Americans ... I don't know,but I might venture to say "most" - work their way through college. Apart from any self-worth it develops, it also means they don't have time for Students' Union meetings and similar destructive rubbish.

David Lindsay

Congratulations to George Osborne on having just lost his party the 2015 Election. Means-testing Child Benefit? Never mind the Election; Osborne has lost the plot. Those who are going to lose out are very, very likely to vote. And these days, they cannot protest by voting Lib Dem. Think on.

Liberty

The really important task is to remove benefits for any children more than two - for new applicants - and for mothers under 18 or 21. I suggest full benefit for the last child, half rate for the second and none thereafter. England is the most densely populated country in Europe. a shortage of skills is due to rotten education, after all 45% of our 18 yr olds go to university. An ageing population is not a more disabled population as ageing means postponing the age of dependency not extending it. Japan's solution is automation not immigration. We could do that.

Victor Southern

For the first time ever I agree with Verity. I supported myself from age 16.
We have far too many coddled young people who have no appetite for work or study. Far too many who are totally unfitted to become adults. Far too many who do not understand money and believe it grows on trees.

ancien prof

When I was teaching, most of my Sixth Form students had a weekend and evening job. Stop Child Benefit at 16! And limit it to two children. And for heaven's sake, stop paying it for children that live overseas. Those who want children ought to be able to afford them and shouldn't expect the rest of us to fund them. After all, why tax people to be "green" on the one hand while paying people to over-populate the planet on the other?

Daedalus

Not gone far enough as far as I am concerned. Should be no child benefit for more than 2 children, keep it at the current levels for no 1 and no 2 and then no more or as it is for existing children under 16. This should come into effect in July 2011 for new children, existing familys would carry on as they are now. In 2026 CB should end altogether for everyone. No CB for couples who earn more than £50K combined income, but brought in in 2013 to give people a chance to work out how to replace the benefit.
We have more than enough people in the country already without bringing more in. We need to manage the population down whilst still working out equitable pension provision.

Daedalus
Daedlaus

Noa Zrk

Verity 8:55pm

Noa Zrk - Well, on this I don't agree with you. Many young Americans ... I don't know,but I might venture to say "most" - work their way through college. Apart from any self-worth it develops, it also means they don't have time for Students' Union meetings and similar destructive rubbish.

Verity.

My point was that, if as Kittler claims, the state indirectly 'invests' £50k per student in fees, excluding the student's own contribution of £30k (via a loan, trust or BankofM&D), then assuming that student gets a good job as a result the indirect investment is repaid, with interest, through tax, together with the direct repayment of their loan.

That represents a good deal for UK PLC. Unlike the benefits bred career NEET that will cost over £1m over its lifetime.

But it all breaks down when graduate level employment evaporates.

To exemplify:-

I have three children, all of whom have or are working their way through both college and university under and post graduate courses. All have debts from university, the youngest will incur a debt of £30k at graduation, with little or no prospect of future worthwhile work. The eldest, a qualified solicitor currently earns £13k pa as an admin assistant. She expects to be made redundant shortly as her job is outsourced to India. Not unnaturally she wonders whether her 5 years of effort were worthwhile.

Given these, structural, circumstances the challenge for politicians is to persuade the younger generations that they will be better off taking on that pressure and debt or simply taking the NEET option straight from leaving school at 18.

HFC

Did Osbourne say he would cease Educational Maintenace Allowance (EMA)?

Up to £30 per week for pupils 16-19yrs to encourage them to stay in education.

Usually spent on makeup and mobile phone charges in my experience.

Kennybhoy

For the first time in a couple of years I must say that I entirely agree with Verity(aka the Fearty One).

Alas, and in this respect Britain differs from the United States and even perhaps Europe, it is not just the lumpen who have a sense of entitlement. Large parts of the respectable working and middle classes have it too.

PuppetMaster

The fundamental problem is that credit from abroad is no longer available, so the state has to shrink in size by at least 30%, assuming it wishes to carry on with the welfare state model.
The government is adopting a salami slice technique to cutting the size of the state, in the hope that this will distract people from the fact that our banks are bankrupt, our housing bubble has popped, we can't pay civil service pensions, etc.
Will it work? Looking at the comments here it has certainly distracted a few people, but the drop in our living standards over the next few years will be so large that I doubt this sort of minor cut will engage people for all that long.

TomTom

Sp some families get Child Benefit + Educational Maintenance Allowance....better off than a single person on unemployment pay

Robert Allen

There are a number of things that separate us from the animal kingdom and procreation isn’t one of them. I’m surrounded by middle class families who flaunt their four-child status whilst hypocritically supporting a green earth agenda. Each one of these kids is going to consume a significant portion of the world’s resources, yet the family expects the state to subsidise their gratuitous lifestyle. Can’t we have them doctored or something?

rockard

Not before time has this hand-out been withdrawn. People earning good sums of money should be able to cope without it with a healthy bit of budgetry prudence

TomTom

Labour is brilliant ! Barbara Castle was able to turn Child Tax Allowances into Child Benefit by combining it with Family Allowance and the Conservatives scrap it for top-rate taxpayers (one of the highest tax rates at modest incomes in the OECD)

Gordon Brown renames Social Security Payments "Tax Credits" and they stay intact.

Net Result is that Procreation becomes a full-time occupation for those without Work for which they are rewarded up to £26,000pa Tax Free and the single-earner household is penalised in favour of the dual-income household by withdrawal of any recognition of Children in their budget.

The Middle Income Groups should demand massive tax cuts immediately and a shrinkage of the Politicians' Patronage State - where even the House of Commons now has an exclusive taxpayer-funded creche !

Lynda Hill

Tough but Fair - I think not Mr Osbourne. You have blindly focused on the amount of earnings and not what(and how many children)those earnings have to support! Not all high tax earners (the tax bracket covers a huge variation) on 40% are rich, they already pay more tax into the system, they are now being penalised again. Mr Osbourne has not considered that a so called 'high earner' and sole breadwinner may have to spread that amount across more people - therefore this perceived wealth is mythical. I also think the banding for so called 40%rs has to be changed - there is obviously a vast difference from 37k to 150k. Perhaps a fairer way would be to tax at 30% those on 37 to 65k and then 65k to 150 at 40%, 150k plus at 50%. A gradual step up would be fairer.
A better,fairer and simpler idea with Child Benefit would be to stop Child Benefit at 16 years even if in full time education. This would be fairer as there is already a scheme in place via EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance)whereby a 16+ child in families earning less than 30k can claim this allowance. Also 16/17/18 year olds can and do work part-time or weekend jobs - the loss of benefit at this time would not be felt as severely at this point in family life. Therefore the perceived 'vulnerable' would not be dis-encouraged from seeking higher education, the teenagers would get a work ethic and the families would not have to 'support' their 16/17/18 year olds where they could buy some things for themselves. This parallels real life more than this unfair fantasy dreamt up by the Chancellor.
I do feel extremely let down by the PM and Mr Osbourne when I relied upon their absolute statements not to tamper or cut CB. Why say it if you are not willing to stand by it? The PM spoke on the campaign trail of not breaking promises - yet less than 6 months on he has! Silly little me believing the words of a politician who wanted and got my vote!

Liberty

Withdrawing it after the second child is greater priority.

Lynda Hill

The PM keeps referring to 'better off families'. Those families which have combined two earnings of 86k are factually better off than one earning 44k - yet they still receive the benefit!
Also some families have more than 2 children (not by choice) because they have twins or triplets - are they going to be penalised because Mother Nature deemed to give more than one baby? Remember what Child Benefit is - for the benefit of the child. So if a family has two earning 86k and has 4 kids and another has one earner bringing just over 44k with 4 kids, then the government thinks it's okay to use the tax from the one earner to give to the double earners for their 4 children? Crazy!! We are going to create a mass of struggling middle class underdogs who do not qualify for Tax credits, EMA or Child Benefit or any help ever!

Kennybhoy

Young Maister Lindsay opined.

"Congratulations to George Osborne on having just lost his party the 2015 Election..."

Maybe, but it would be a honourable defeat.

Kennybhoy

Liberty opines.

"Japan's solution is automation not immigration. We could do that."

Robotic children and granchildren? Any society that would seriously consider such a path DESERVES to be supplanted by Islam.

Barry Bilge

"Child benefit ending at 16 would send out a message that at 16 a child should start earning its way in the world."

Child benefit is a subsidy in part to make up for a loss of income that becoming a parent can cause through having to care, or find care, for the child. By 16 they shouldn't need adult supervision.

Tracey Scott

Victor I also supported myself from age 16 but in case you haven't noticed things have changed and it is much more difficult now for a 16 year old to find work. A lot of employers will not take anyone on under the age of 18 due to cost of enhanced disclosure of existing staff etc. I have an 18 son in full time education and his child benefit is a godsend.