3 ms·

It's crazy. I absolutely don't need it but for some reason I qualify.

toyg 10y ago
In UK? You always qualify, but you'll have to pay it all back if your income goes over a threshold. In its current form, it's basically an interest-free loan for 12 months.
pjc50 10y ago
It's not really for you - it is child benefit, after all. Think of it as basic income for kids, to keep them clothed and out of the factories. I'm in favour of bringing back the Education Maintenance Allowance, and making it very slightly performance-related.
- _Understated_ 10y ago
  Haha, of course :) However, I am not in favour of Government handouts. How much money did it cost to give me £80 back? £100? £150? Would it not be better to reduce my tax so I pay £80 less each month?
  - takno 10y ago
    It costs maybe 81 pounds a month to give you your 80 pounds. If it was means tested it would cost massively more per person you gave it to. In addition plenty of needy people would go without because they didn't know about it, or couldn't fill out the forms, or got arbitrarily sanctioned because their meeting with the job centre was on a day when the "advisor" hadn't met his sanctioning target
  - pjc50 10y ago
    It might be cheaper to take the money and give it to everyone than build an elaborate means-testing system that requires taking far more information, a more complex computer system, more arguing over corner cases, and so on. Straight handouts appear to be by far the most effective way of reducing poverty and its negative effects. It's rather like the War On Drugs; you can choose a system that moralises at people or one that improves their outcomes, but if you want to improve outcomes you have to give up moralising control.
humanrebar 10y ago
The government has interest in people investing in future growth (children), so it's subsidized. The alternative would be to tax childless people more heavily so they are always revenue-neutral with respect to retirement, health, and disability benefits.

toyg 10y ago

In UK? You always qualify, but you'll have to pay it all back if your income goes over a threshold. In its current form, it's basically an interest-free loan for 12 months.

pjc50 10y ago

It's not really for you - it is child benefit, after all. Think of it as basic income for kids, to keep them clothed and out of the factories. I'm in favour of bringing back the Education Maintenance Allowance, and making it very slightly performance-related.

_Understated_ 10y ago
Haha, of course :) However, I am not in favour of Government handouts. How much money did it cost to give me £80 back? £100? £150? Would it not be better to reduce my tax so I pay £80 less each month?
- takno 10y ago
  It costs maybe 81 pounds a month to give you your 80 pounds. If it was means tested it would cost massively more per person you gave it to. In addition plenty of needy people would go without because they didn't know about it, or couldn't fill out the forms, or got arbitrarily sanctioned because their meeting with the job centre was on a day when the "advisor" hadn't met his sanctioning target
- pjc50 10y ago
  It might be cheaper to take the money and give it to everyone than build an elaborate means-testing system that requires taking far more information, a more complex computer system, more arguing over corner cases, and so on. Straight handouts appear to be by far the most effective way of reducing poverty and its negative effects. It's rather like the War On Drugs; you can choose a system that moralises at people or one that improves their outcomes, but if you want to improve outcomes you have to give up moralising control.

humanrebar 10y ago

The government has interest in people investing in future growth (children), so it's subsidized. The alternative would be to tax childless people more heavily so they are always revenue-neutral with respect to retirement, health, and disability benefits.