GM I like aspects of your idea. It would be simple to do should the tax office find the time to implement it. That should keep costs low. Im making up my mind of what the recipient would appreciate more. They would technically get the same amount of cash but not in weekly payments - just pay a smaller tax bill so have more disposable income over the period. It may not be as noticeable then and planned to be allocated to the child in the same way. Although we cannot guarantee now how the benefit is spent on the child. Does weekly payments help them budget/ease cash flow for child expenses? If they do not have any income or income lower than the allowance it could be wasted and they would not see the benefit. (unless the system is tweaked so they get a refund). Also the income tax base your estimated liability on the last submitted return. If a change in circumstances occurs which would give rise to being able to claim the benefit they would not be possibly quick enough to respond. (the tax office are behind currently we don't want this to be to anyone's detriment.) This would suggest people would have to notify need for the benefit. Some may be unaware they can claim it or may not want to have to claim which could lead to them being disadvantaged. Although if social security department brought it in as a means tested allowance people may have to notify them as well. How does it work now - is it automatic on registering a child's birth or do you have to elect for it? I guess new residents to the island have to notify so a form and current procedure would be in place that could be adapted for purpose. One thing to consider is that social security and income tax are reportedly now working closer together. They could implement systems between them to detect people who would be due the allowance but not receiving it to help ensure no one is slipping through the gaps. Apparently Australia has a sliding scale of allowance. They get more the lower their income. Something else to consider is the £15.40 a week does not meet childcare costs as it is. Does income support plug the difference there? Should how much savings a person have effect their right to claim? When looking for a cut-off point I definitely think joint income should be assessed as PLP points out as this would be fairer. I think it would need to be looked at what point it affects other bills such as mortgage repayments/utilities/food or how it would change the behaviour of mothers staying home or choosing to work. We don't want them to be in a position where they are forced to make choices they don't wish too. Empowered women are essential for the health of our economy. Should we have a buffer zone on the cut off income where it's set a bit higher than where we expect it not to be needed as a safe guard? Could we still do this and as Taff states still live within our means? (Such a great motto). Would love to hear more how people felt. Also on Twitter now as @daniellesebire if anyone wishes to chat private about any of my posts.
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
