Ann and Bob are married, and both currently on disability benefits, but both looking to get back to work.
They have a child under one year old.
They want to create some savings for that child.
Do they get a child trust fund? How do they pick one? Or do they get something like a Nationwide "Smart Account"?
Ann and Bob are unlikely to be able to put more than, say, the amount they get in child benefit into the account each month.
If they have any spare money to save then they can't be poor.
I thought the whole idea of child benefit was to provide money for people to raise their kids properly when they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to do so. In these times of austerity, if they can afford to put all that child benefit away into a bank account it raises the whole question about how necessary some of these benefits really are.
Chris
Very unsympathetic replies there. Parents have been known to sacrifice there own well-being for their offspring, you know. As for the OP, I'm probably wrong, but hasn't the government sponsored child savings thing been abolished? So take your choice of what you can find.
That was probably the original intention. It was also paid to the mother in case the father did not give the wife enough "housekeeping".
People who don't need it don't have to claim it. I don't think the government forces it on us ;-)
We're not poor but our child benefit is necessary to make ends meet and we are very frugal.
The child trust fund was indeed abolished by the new government, as part of the instant austerity/responsibility measures announced by George Osborne. The kid in question is 'under a year old', so may well have been born before the policy was changed.
I don't get this. I am quite a generous soul by nature, but surely the child once adult could be reasonably expected to look after themselves? Why should this child have an advantage over any other whose parents didn't arrange some manner of severance payment? And in the meantime, I'd guess and say the parents need every penny they have to make the next 17 years as comfortable, happy and secure as they can. Coat fetched.
Rob
In message , Tiddy Ogg writes
Yep! It is one of the petty things this government has done away with.
To get back to the OP, Nationwide always used to be top of the list of children's saving accounts, but I'm not sure whether that is still the case.
That's right, but in this case it sounds as though they were claiming it. The fact that they are then able to put the full amount of the benefit away as savings suggests it was not really needed.
Remember that these benefits don't come from nowhere. Someone else had to work and pay taxes to provide this. That person may have liked to have had that money for his own children.
Chris
Not any more. They pay a measly 0.75%, which can be beaten elsewhere. It would be very difficult to keep up with inflation right now though.
Child benefit is similar in effect to a tax allowance. Perhaps those who don't "need" their tax allowance should not get it?
Child benefit is a universal benefit, it is not related to income.
The OP is clear that the *maximum* the parents can save will be the amount of child benefit; they will not be able to afford this every month.
That information is useful to help people avoid suggesting products which need large opening balances or minimum monthly deposits or a large balance before any interest kicks in.
Some parents chose to drink; smoke; drive; have cable tv; have holidays. These parents don't, and would like their child to be able to (for example) afford tertiary education; housing; etc.
"Thanks" for the content-free reply.
There was a 2 phase abolition - the very generous original 'top ups' were much reduced (but to a still generous) amount; and then they were abolished.
The child missed the original scheme, but does qualify for the transition "we're closing this and you all get less money" scheme.
IMHO there's pretty much nothing to suit right now. Interest rates are very low and inflation is very high. All the 'best' savings products have too many strings attached. If you are prepared to keep moving the money around many banks offer a higher "introductory" rate but, even then, the money would be dropping in real terms.
Why the assumption that people would have to drink, smoke etc in order to be poor?
In addition I would expect that poor people, with savings, would get less help with tertiary education.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.