Archived Forums

Many years ago the "family allowance" now the child benefit was never paid for the first child but then was for the second and subsequent, then it changed to all children, now they are looking at capping it to two children only...they have already stopped the child tax credit for a lot of families and this is anothher money saving idea...the reality of children like ours is that most of the birth families do not or never have worked, so all of their money is in the form of one benefit or another, so reducing the child benefit will harm only those that work, but it most certainly not be a deterrant.

Hmmmm, can't help feeling that DS's birth mum may not stop to consider the financial implications next time she gets pregnant!!Idiotic decision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20077758No the chances of children dying is not bigger if the parents get less money, as the money they have is generally not spend on the children but on drugs etc. That are the parents who's children are taken into care. For that group in most cases only a little operation will solve a lot of suffering, for their offspring and themselves as well.For the hard working people who have 3 or 4 it will make a difference and those children gett less.

This is just one of the horrendous cuts that are going through. My LA has employed new benefit advisors/income maximers as people on low incomes are going to be really hit hard. I personally feel its another way of demonising folks who require any form of benefits. The policy makers are not naive enough to think taking money from people will solve social problems and deprivation, but its an easy way of doing it.I am in the fortunate position of never having claimed any benefits, apart from child benefit. I would hate to need benefits as the policy makers seem to be potraying people as "scroungers", and the folks like myself who have had their salary frozen for more than three years could easily become resentful of others who are potrayed as sitting at home having lovely lives. Mmmm, a ploy perhaps? Thats my moan over Well not quite, what about the organisations who are avoiding paying millions in taxes? Seems we don't need to be informed of how socially unacceptable they are

Mine stops altogether in January because dh earns over the threshold. And it makes me mad actually. I stay at home because I have no real choice. Given my kids difficulties they just wouldn't cope with me not being available for them if the whatsit hits the fan.I will lose £180 approx every month. And that makes a huge difference.

As I understand it, it is only for people planning their families ie those in the future, not those who already have children, but I may be wrong.I think it is quite a sensible ruling. Most of us can only really afford to have 2 children these days and deciding to have a third child is a big decision to most responsible parents. If you can afford to then childrens allowance won't make much of a difference to that decision.It's the benefit families who keep on producing a child every year to get a bigger house and benefits and who use the new baby as an excuse to not be able to get a job, they are the ones who need to know that after two children that's it you are on your own. Have another child and you pay for it yourself!I have a neighbour near me. She had 3 children in he first relationship, broke up with him. A few ears later she met new partner (who has 3 children with someone else). They now have a 4 year old, 3 year old, 2 year old, 1 year old and guess what she is pregnant again. Neither of them have ever worked and we the tax payers are paying for their house and their 7, soon to be 8 children. These are the people that need to be stopped, which brings me to the contraceptive question.I think the Government should pay these people to have contraceptive injections or lose you benefits! The injections are temporary, so that if they improve their situations in the future (ie get a job) they can decide to have a child if they can afford it themselves. Allowing these feckless parents to keep reproducing children that we have to pay for is so wrong and gives the wrong example to their children. "Don't work, get housed, get benefits and you can have as many babies as you like - You will also get looked after when you get old and you won't have to sell your house to pay for your care like the mugs who work all their lives". What a country!!

Ooooh goodie! A debate!I think we need MORE children We have too many elderly people I heard yesterday. More pensioners than children for the first time ever....We need a policy of having more (well cared for) children

Yes PT and when the population drops the Government will do a huge turnaround and will pay people to have children. Haven't we been here before - Deja vue!

That's why kids on low income get free school meals. For some, that's the only cooked meal they have, as the parents waste the benefits on beer and fags.Perhaps benefits should be given out in the form of vouchers rather than cash so that they have to be used for purchasing food and clothing, like they did in the war.

I'm a little confused about how this is going to happen? It seems that, as the non-working partner, you can simply opt out of Child Benefit - but if you do this then you're putting your state pension at risk because Child Benefit counts towards your contributions? I think that's right.The alternative - again I think - is that you still continue to get Child Benefit but my dh will lose the equivalent through his tax? And will have to do a tax return?

how about us mad people who have birth children and then go on to adopt. are we not allowed to have childbenefit for those we adopt?to be contraversial. surely our country needs lots of children born /adopted to familes who are sensible / intelligent rather than born to familes like the birth families our children are born to.so as usual the middle earners loose out again

Yes, and very annoying. The thing is the people who know their way around the benefits system will never lose out. They're too smart ... they know everything there is to claim. A friend of mine works in a Benefits Office .... and she sees it every day. They know exactly what they're entitled to.This penalises stay at home mums - the changes kick in at one salary of £50k which means that two adults each earning £49 will still get child benefit.Absolutely ridiculous.

So I take it all those who are on adoption leave and about to go on half pay are going to be financially worse off at a time when the Government is actively trying to promote people to adopt. Lets hope it is not the straw that broke the camels back and prevents some hard working, child loving people to think again and decide not to adopt as they cannot afford to provide adequately for their new child!!

Hear,hear Garden.I've said it all along - Every adopted child should come with an allowance until they are 18 as standard, as in the vast majority of cases, the Mum has to give up her job to stay at home to meet the childs needs an allowance would help with this as well as getting therapy and support for their child. It is madness to promote adoption and then not help the adoption to succeed by putting added pressues on families who are struggling financially as well as emotionally. Without an allowance adoption becomes elitist and is only for the well off, which is why I laugh when I see them advertising adoption for all, and by anyone, saying you don't have to be rich to adopt. Lies!!

I agree too Garden. I cannot go back to work. I can't earn anything. And frankly given how tricky two of mine can be I really don't think I could cope with a job as well. My job is here with my kids. They need me to be here. Apart from that what employer would be accepting of the number of appointments that I'd have to disappear off to.When I gave evidence to the Wales Govt on adoption I was keen to stress there should be a presumption that all adopted children would, at some point, require additional support. And we, as adopters, also require that. We'll see.

Ah jmkI think we understand eachother here'adopt and face destitution' doesn't seem as attractive huh?!LolThere was a big thing about the income level of adopters not mattering when we had our children It's just a very blinkered example of how an LA had no idea of the costs ££££ or emotionally of bringing up a child who hurts.The trouble is, CB is one of the universal things that needed looking at but the thing that grates is that it's te fact we all live to a degree within means. If that amount is suddenly reduced whatever level you're at you're going to struggle.When blossom moved we lost all adoption money, DLA etc overnightBut it costs a fortune to keep blossom tickingWe are funding the lot!It sounds to me the old scheme aprilshowers speaks of seems better.The dysfunctional bps that squander the ££ on drink and drugs and sell the furniture that ss gave them rather than have places for their children to sleep need the sort of intervention that remOving children rather than just ££ is needed.Perhaps we can use the ££££££££ of those huge houses that the older population round here live in and refuse to sell to pay for their own care!There's my rant for the morning!

Sadly I think the governments enthusiasm for adoption is just what this cut is, a money saving exercise. A conservative government is by it's very name, 'conservative', more adoptions will save the country a lot of money and expense at least short term. They dress it up differently of course, that they care about the children, and possibly in many circumstances it will benefit the children but legal aid and birth family assessments are being cut, I have heard it is very difficult to get assessments for birth parents now, so this will be speeding up the waiting times, however again saves a lot of money. It all comes down to money under this particular government. Child benefit, I actually think give all benefits out in a voucher method, food vouchers or children's clothing vouchers, that way everybody has to spend that money on their children. We pay a lot of tax in this country and national insurance was set up so that you got what you pay in back in several benefits, but also that those who were poorer also got that money too. People are never going to stop having children because they can't afford them, the only ones that will lose out is the children.

Pear Tree "Perhaps we can use the ££££££££ of those huge houses that the older population round here live in and refuse to sell to pay for their own care!There's my rant for the morning!"I really agree with this, the amount of fuss the older generation have about not letting the tax man get hold of your money to pay for your OAP care, because you have worked hard for it and want your children to inherit, reasonably valid, BUT everybody else is having to pay up somewhere at the moment. These people are the key voters though, nobody wants to upset the wealthy old, so I unfortunately don't think it will happen, little has been done either about the universal winter fuel allowance.

interesting as the latestthing is that the last cut to CB for those on higher incomes may be illegalunderEU rules, so wonder how this one will fare