Previously known as Libdemchild

Monday, 4 October 2010

Baffling day to be a child

I came home from school, turned on the TV and was shocked at the announcement by George O about the removal of child benefit payments. A whopping amount of 1.2 million households will be affected. Child benefit is a universal benefit- every child qualifies at birth. George O is messing with this ideology and this bothers me because:
1. Every child benefits regardless of whether they're rich, poor or in the middle at present.
2. Children are being targeted with this removal.
3. The benefit is a way of recognising that children are essential because they're the next generation.

People at the lower end of the tax bracket are most affected by this cut because they are the ones who have least amount of disposable income. Most of their money goes on the children and (I am going to be brave here) that this is the group who spends money on private education because the state system doesn't always suit their needs.  There is a link between what parents spend their money on and the future of their children. Child benefit can act as a saving  for when the child goes to university or if the child chooses to do something else.

On Sky News tonight there were people who said that 'people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them'. This is a chicken and egg situation. The child universal benefit is something that is given to a child when it is born. By removing this they are taking away a right that, at the moment, doesn't depend on tax rates.

People with children are being targeted. Some time ago I blogged about my playscheme being cut. It has now been saved but the subsidy has been withdrawn.

I worry about my generation because the cost of everything is going up and where is the money to provide us with the skills for the future?         


  1. It's only families with one earner in the 40p tax bracket who are affected, i.e. those earning nearly £44,000 and more.

    Chris Dillow quotes an academic paper which suggests that the children of high-earners who claim the benefit do not benefit from it:

  2. Dear Frank,
    I read the paper you refer to. I agree that the children of high-earners may not benefit but if it is taken away then the recognition of children as the next generation will be removed.


Blogger Template Created by pipdig