You do realise that an EU citizen in order to enjoy freedom of movement is required to be economically active, i.e. earn a steady income in the host country. A 3 hours cleaning job or selling the Big Issue don't count. It needs to be a job paying NMW and at least part time.
Really, care to provide evidence of that and I've come across quite a few EU citizens selling the Big Issue.
More about the actual subject - would you like to stop Germany paying child benefit to my neighbours three grand children whose dad lives in Germany? Unfortunately that would mean that my neighbour wouldn't be able to look after them any longer.
It also makes perfect that CB is paid by the country that receives tax from the economically active person... in this case the children's dad. The kids don't pay tax in the UK so why should the UK pay their CB?
Presumably their education, healthcare etc should be paid for by Germany too. The simple, obvious solution is CB should be paid by the country the child resides in.
Not to me. Many immigrants are here to work and if they brought their entire family with them we would be paying benefits at UK rates and for the schooling and other expenses of their children.
Why do we pay child benefit. Surely we shouldn't pay anyone child benefit for a life choice.
Do you realise the bureaucracy this will cause. The DWP will now have 28 different rates of child benefit to pay for each EU member state depending where the child is living at any one time. It's beyond stupid.
Please tell me that under the current system the DWP checks that these kids exist and live where the claimant claims they live rather than simply taking the claimant's word for their existence/location and that said kids aren't also being claimed for by the other parental unit back home as well.
If they are then setting the rate accordingly should be an absolute doddle.
If it's a problem it can only because they aren't making the aforementioned checks, which, having watched those benefit cheat programs hosted by Dom the diminutive slaphead Littlewood, wouldn't surprize me in the least.
Please tell me that under the current system the DWP checks that these kids exist and live where the claimant claims they live rather than simply taking the claimant's word for their existence/location and that said kids aren't also being claimed for by the other parental unit back home as well.
If they are then setting the rate accordingly should be an absolute doddle.
Yes I'm sure the processes are already in place and the computer systems are geared up to pay 28 different rates.
Please tell me that under the current system the DWP checks that these kids exist and live where the claimant claims they live rather than simply taking the claimant's word for their existence/location and that said kids aren't also being claimed for by the other parental unit back home as well.
If they are then setting the rate accordingly should be an absolute doddle.
If it's a problem it can only because they aren't making the aforementioned checks, which, having watched those benefit cheat programs hosted by Dom the diminutive slaphead Littlewood, wouldn't surprize me in the least.
Given the administration costs relative to the benefit paid I doubt very few checks are done thoroughly for children resident abroad. What would you accept as evidence - how many kids can prove addresses as documents will be in an adults name. Do you suggest we send a DWP official to check each child exists - unworkable.
That's the beauty of paying it in the country the kid lives in - the government will have records like GP data and school rolls to prove the child exists and is living there.
Given the administration costs relative to the benefit paid I doubt very few checks are done thoroughly for children resident abroad. What would you accept as evidence - how many kids can prove addresses as documents will be in an adults name. Do you suggest we send a DWP official to check each child exists - unworkable.
That's the beauty of paying it in the country the kid lives in - the government will have records like GP data and school rolls to prove the child exists and is living there.
So in other words you think it's as open as much abuse as those who might consider abusing it feel fit with little risk of being found out.
I must have missed the silver lining. Dave asked for nothing and got less. It's really quite embarrassing, but every gaffe he makes seems to just go over his head. Cameron is an absolute clown.
Well, I assume the reason for requesting this change is that more migrants come from countries where child maintenance, where it's paid, is less than here.
Which is a good reason for paying the person who lives with the child.
You've lost me, particularly if you are agreeing that the system is open to abuse with little or no checks being carried out in those native European countries to legitimise claims
You've lost me, particularly if you are agreeing that the system is open to abuse with little or no checks being carried out in those native European countries to legitimise claims
The person living with the child would claim in the country they are living in.
Surely the question should be why child benefit is paid for a child whose parent isn't directly looking after them regardless of the country the child is in. Next we will be learning that the parents of children in care receive child benefit - or at boarding school.
You can be responsible for a child without being their primary carer. For example, if you are a single parent with a job that requires you to go away a lot, your children may be routinely cared for by their grandparents, but remain your responsibility.
In that case, you would retain the child benefit, but the grandparents could, if they qualified on income grounds, claim child tax credit for them because one of them would be the child's primary carer.
Comments
Really, care to provide evidence of that and I've come across quite a few EU citizens selling the Big Issue.
Presumably their education, healthcare etc should be paid for by Germany too. The simple, obvious solution is CB should be paid by the country the child resides in.
Why do we pay child benefit. Surely we shouldn't pay anyone child benefit for a life choice.
Please tell me that under the current system the DWP checks that these kids exist and live where the claimant claims they live rather than simply taking the claimant's word for their existence/location and that said kids aren't also being claimed for by the other parental unit back home as well.
If they are then setting the rate accordingly should be an absolute doddle.
If it's a problem it can only because they aren't making the aforementioned checks, which, having watched those benefit cheat programs hosted by Dom the diminutive slaphead Littlewood, wouldn't surprize me in the least.
Yes I'm sure the processes are already in place and the computer systems are geared up to pay 28 different rates.
It is nowhere near as comical as Cameron and the EU Negotiations.
Mind you it was probably updated with new amendments sneaked in, bit like the human rights convention and the asylum treaties.
Either that or the European court of justice did a ECHR style making it up as they go along, goal post moving judgement.
Actually, I find it some of the attitudes on here more embarrassing than comical.
It's fairly simple. Free movement to work means everyone should be treated the same.
I'm sure you do, as I am the same can be said of you by others.
Free movement to work and free movement to claim state handouts isn't the same thing.
Given the administration costs relative to the benefit paid I doubt very few checks are done thoroughly for children resident abroad. What would you accept as evidence - how many kids can prove addresses as documents will be in an adults name. Do you suggest we send a DWP official to check each child exists - unworkable.
That's the beauty of paying it in the country the kid lives in - the government will have records like GP data and school rolls to prove the child exists and is living there.
So in other words you think it's as open as much abuse as those who might consider abusing it feel fit with little risk of being found out.
Unfortunately, I'm reluctantly inclined to agree
Which is a good reason for paying the person who lives with the child.
You've lost me, particularly if you are agreeing that the system is open to abuse with little or no checks being carried out in those native European countries to legitimise claims
The person living with the child would claim in the country they are living in.
Exactly, it isn't rocket science.
Presumably from said countries welfare system or from ours?
If the former then I fully agree.
Hear, hear! Sadly sometimes even my own.
Can't you let Dave off his indiscretion?
can you tell your parents to pay all the money back that they received for you when you were a child then
You can be responsible for a child without being their primary carer. For example, if you are a single parent with a job that requires you to go away a lot, your children may be routinely cared for by their grandparents, but remain your responsibility.
In that case, you would retain the child benefit, but the grandparents could, if they qualified on income grounds, claim child tax credit for them because one of them would be the child's primary carer.