If this is the approach that the Government is taking, then they will be most relieved that they have tested the waters with their proposals to cut child benefit for families where at least one parent is earning over £44,000 a year.
Reaction so far has been mixed. Newspapers appear to be divided in their opinions; The Times and The Sun praise George Osborne for his "brave decision", whilst the Daily Express and the Daily Mail are clear in their criticism of plans that, in their view, amount to "a tax raid on families". Even the Telegraph (up until recently a bastion of the Conservative cause) brands the plans as "brutal" and "unfair".
Given that there is the clear possibility that the Conference is being used as a sounding board for some of the more controversial cuts, the Government may well be tempted to water down their proposals in the face of vocal opposition from Middle England. However, Messrs. Cameron and Osborne must resist this temptation.
I have long been of the opinion that too much money is wasted by Government in providing benefits to those who have no need for them, Child Allowance being a particular offender.
Based on rough calculations (an average of two children in a household, £20.30 p/w for the first child, £13.40 p/w for the second child, 11,721,722 children in the UK) the Government pays out over £10bn a year in financing this benefit.
Worth £19.3bn - but still entitled to £33.70 a week
Seeing as it is not means tested, this means that the likes of Richard Branson and Lakshmi Mittal are just as free to receive this benefit as you or I. The fact that these payments are being made to families who have no need whatsoever of an extra £20 a week goes to show just how much money has been needlessly wasted by previous Governments.
We English have a reputation for being averse to change. If we are successful in opposing changes such as this, then we may feel the warm glow of victory for a short while, but we will only have ourselves to blame when we find ourselves stuck with a colossal deficit in ten years time.
This really is a case for scrapping the benefit now, in order to feel the benefit later.
Posts
As a parent who has struggled on very little for the last 3 years I can categorically say that there wouldn't be a need for benefits at all if you could get your first £10,000 of income tax free AND there was affordable housing! I wouldn't need child benefit, tax credits or housing allowance if I got and kept my first £10,000 and the rental for a home wasn't over £600! The problem comes not from dishing out £20 a week to people who don't need CB (although I think that the proposal to stop giving these people the money is an excellent way of saving money), it's from a system that means even if you earn £16,000 you can't actually afford to live without State help! Which is ludicrous in my opinion... I have lived in several ex-council houses where the rent has been around £600. Houses I couldn't afford to buy myself, and I can only afford to live in because I have been entitled to housing allowance - so the local authority pay a private landlord £400 (in essence) for me to live in a house they used to own and I could have been paying the local authority £200 a month if it had still been a council house! Over ten years the LA will be paying out far more money than they would have ever got for selling the property in the first place. No wonder we have an enormous deficit....
ReplyDelete