Where it all started « Policy « Child Benefit Government Committees Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance: Where it all started Child benefit was phased in from 1977 to 1979 by Labour, replacing family allowances and child tax allowances. Child tax allowances Child tax allowances were first introduced in 1798, though they were abolished again in 1805. They were reintroduced in 1909. The amounts related to the age of the child. They were limited to taxpayers (working people) and were worth even more to higher rate taxpayers. Family allowances Family allowances were the subject of a White Paper in 1942, but there was disagreement among Labour and Conservative politicians about the way they should be implemented. The Beveridge Report , written by the civil servant William Beveridge, proposed an allowance of eight shillings per week for all children, which graduated according to age. It was to be non-contributory and funded by general taxation. After some debate, the Family Allowances Bill was enacted in June 1945. The act provided for a flat rate payment funded directly from taxation.

The recommended eight shillings a week was reduced to five shillings, and family allowance became a subsidy, rather than a subsistence payment as Beveridge had envisaged. You can find further details on the Beveridge Report on the national archives website. Family allowances were introduced in 1946, with the first payments being made on 6 August. At that time, they were only paid for the second child onwards, a further watering down of Beveridge’s scheme. In 1952, the Conservative government reduced food subsidy, which had been in place since the war. From October 1952, family allowance was increased by three shillings per week in order to advance the potential effect on nutrition. As a means of encouraging families to keep children in education, the Family Allowances Act of 1956 extended the family allowance to all school children, although the bread subsidy was abolished. In 1961, Cabinet agreed that the majority of apprentices be excluded from the family allowance provisions, but dismissed proposals that family allowance for the second child be abolished. Family allowance provisions therefore remained intact in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act of 1962.

Believing family allowance was not widely supported among its constituency, the Labour government of 1964 was unenthusiastic about the issue. However, in 1966, pressure groups (especially the Child Poverty Action Group) forced it to address family allowance. Cabinet debated the respective merits of an increase in the existing family allowance, or a new means-tested family supplement that was supported by the Chancellor, James Callaghan. Following the Conservative electoral victory in 1970, Sir Keith Joseph introduced Family Income Supplement (FIS). It was designed to replace further increases in family allowance with a means-tested supplement for the poorest families, and was in some ways similar to the scheme devised by Callaghan under Labour. There was a low take-up rate of FIS, which proved unpopular, especially as it was accompanied by the withdrawal of subsidised milk for children. Child benefit Back in power, Labour had originally intended to merge family allowances and child tax allowances in the new benefit called child benefit in the mid 1970s, but under financial pressure decided to abandon these plans. Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) was instrumental in ‘changing their minds’ and in 1975 the child benefit bill was enacted.

The bill replaced family allowance with a benefit for each child, which was paid to the mothers. The act was not implemented immediately because of the economic crisis of the mid-1970s. Eventually, child benefit was phased in from 1977 to 1979. In 1984, there was a major social security review, announced by the Conservative government and leading to a Social Security Act in 1986, with a new system being introduced in 1988. Many supporters of child benefit believed that it might be abolished, means-tested, or taxed. CPAG was the catalyst behind the formation in 1985 of Save Child Benefit, a grouping of originally about sixty organisations, ranging from women’s organisations to trades unions and from churches to children’s charities. In the event, as a result of campaigns by Save Child Benefit and others, child benefit was retained. Many proposals were put forward to restructure, reduce or radically change child benefit. But in 1990 the Prime Minister, John Major, declared that child benefit ‘is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support’.

He restructured child benefit, to introduce a higher rate for the first or eldest eligible child. In July 1998, the Labour government abolished one parent benefit (the addition to child benefit for lone parents, originally introduced in 1976). They did this by incorporating one parent benefit into the main child benefit rates. It was abolished for new claimants and existing claims were frozen. Between April 1997 and April 2003, the rate of child benefit for the first child increased by 25.3 per cent and the rate for subsequent children by 3.1 per cent in real terms. Most of this increase took place in 1999 for the first/eldest eligible child and coincided with the administration of child benefit moving from Social Security to the Inland Revenue, which has now become HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). In 2004, the Government introduced new immigration rules, which now mean that someone has to have a ‘right to reside’ in the UK in order to be able to claim child benefit, therefore excluding many migrants from entitlement.

Under the Child Benefit Act 2005 , child benefit is now available for young people completing a course which they started before their nineteenth birthday (up to age 20). Those in specific unwaged training programmes are also eligible. These reforms rectified long-standing anomalies. Recouping child benefit from higher rate taxpayers Neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat General Election manifestos mentioned Child Benefit. However, in his speech to the Conservative Party conference on 6 October 2009, the then Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, had said: We will preserve child benefit, winter fuel payments and free TV licenses. They are valued by millions. In his Budget speech on 22 June 2010, the Chancellor said that the Government had had to take a “difficult decision” about child benefit: I have received many proposals about this benefit. Some have suggested that we means-test it; others that we tax it. All these proposals involve issues of fairness. The benefit is usually claimed by the mother. To tax it would mean that working mothers received less than the non-working partner of higher earners. To means-test it, we would have to create a massively complex new system to assess household incomes. I do not propose to do those things.

I know that many working people feel that their child benefit is the one thing that they get without asking from the state. So instead, to control costs, we have decided to freeze child benefit for the next three years. This is a tough decision, but I believe that it strikes the right balance between keeping intact this popular universal benefit, while ensuring that everyone across the income scale makes a contribution to helping our country reduce its debts. In his speech to the Conservative Party conference on 4 October, Mr Osborne announced that child benefit would also be withdrawn from higher rate taxpayers: We still pay over a billion pounds a year in child benefit to higher rate taxpayers. Believe me, I understand that most higher rate taxpayers are not the super-rich. But a system that taxes working people at high rates only to give it back in child benefit is very difficult to justify at a time like this. And it's very difficult to justify taxing people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more than them. These days we've really got to focus the resources where they are most needed. We've got to be tough but fair. That's why we will withdraw child benefit from households with a higher rate taxpayer.

Child benefit would continue to be paid for all children, but would be clawed back from families containing a higher rate taxpayer from 2013. HMRC would implement the policy “through the existing PAYE and Self-Assessment structure. The announcement provoked strong reactions in certain sections of the media. Particular attention was focused on the perceived anomaly whereby single earner couples earning just over the higher rate tax threshold would have their child benefit clawed back, while dual earner couples each earning just below the threshold would keep the full amount. The Spending Review published on 20 October 2010 confirmed that child benefit would be withdrawn from families with at least one adult paying higher rate income tax, from January 2013. The Spending Review estimates that the clawback of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers will yield savings of £2.5 billion a year by 2014-15 – considerably more than the previously announced figure of £1 billion. The latest estimate takes into account losses due to “possible tax planning” and “non-compliance”, estimated at £280 million a year and £60 million respectively for the first full year (2013-14).

Updated 9 June 2016 The Cabinet Papers | The Beveridge Report and child benefit The Beveridge Report and child benefit The Beveridge Report Family allowances were the subject of a White Paper in 1942, but there was disagreement among Labour and Conservative politicians about the way they should be implemented. The Beveridge Report, written by the civil servant William Beveridge , proposed an allowance of eight shillings per week for all children (apart from for a family's first child if one parent was working), which graduated according to age. It was to be non-contributory and funded by general taxation. After some debate, the Family Allowances Bill was enacted in June 1945. The act provided for a flat rate payment funded directly from taxation. The recommended nine shillings a week was reduced to five shillings, and family allowance became a subsidy, rather than a subsistence payment as Beveridge had envisaged. Conservatives extend family allowance During the late 1940s, although family allowance was substantially devalued by inflation, there was little support for increases within government. In 1952, the Conservative government reduced food subsidy, which had been in place since the war.

From October 1952, family allowance was increased by three shillings per week in order to advance the potential effect on nutrition. The Chancellor, Richard ‘Rab’ Butler , regarded cuts in family allowance as a potential means of economy, but John Boyd-Carpenter , at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, successfully resisted this. As a means of encouraging families to keep children in education, the Family Allowances Act of 1956 extended the family allowance to all school children. The government was, however, anxious to make economies, and the bread subsidy was abolished. Family allowances remained a target for the Exchequer. In 1957, the Chancellor, Peter Thorneycroft , proposed cuts in public expenditure including family allowances. He argued that in removing the allowance for a second child, more money would be available for larger families where nutritional problems were more severe. Boyd-Carpenter effectively presented counter arguments. Thorneycroft resigned after the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan , vetoed his proposals. In 1961, Cabinet agreed that the majority of apprentices be excluded from the family allowance provisions, but dismissed proposals that family allowance for the second child be abolished.

Family allowance provisions therefore remained intact in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act of 1962. Child Benefit Act Believing family allowance was not widely supported among its constituency, the Labour government of 1964 was unenthusiastic about the issue. However, in 1966, pressure groups (especially the Child Poverty Action Group) forced it to address family allowance. Cabinet debated the respective merits of an increase in the existing family allowance, or a new means-tested family supplement that was supported by the Chancellor, James Callaghan . In 1967, the Cabinet endorsed a nominal increase for the fourth child, prompting the Minister of Social Security, Margaret Herbison , to resign. A general increase in family allowances was agreed for 1968, but it was funded out of the family tax allowance. This 'claw-back' of funds from higher-earning families proved politically unpopular. Following the Conservative electoral victory in 1970, Sir Keith Joseph introduced Family Income Supplement (FIS). It was designed to replace further increases in family allowance with a means-tested supplement for the poorest families, and was in some ways similar to the scheme devised by Callaghan under Labour.

There was a low take-up rate of FIS, which proved unpopular, especially as it was accompanied by the withdrawal of subsidised milk for children by Margaret Thatcher ('the milk snatcher') as Education Secretary. Having opposed FIS during its period in opposition, Labour's Barbara Castle was responsible for a Child Benefit Bill, which was enacted in 1975. The bill replaced family allowance with a benefit for each child, which Castle insisted was paid to the mothers. The act was not implemented immediately because of the economic crisis of the mid-1970s. Replacing tax allowance, child benefit was finally put into force. Content Family Allowance - The Canadian Encyclopedia Sociology Family Allowance A family or child allowance is a monthly government payment to families with children to help cover the costs of child maintenance. The Family Allowance began in 1945 as Canada's first universal welfare program. A family or child allowance is a monthly government payment to families with children to help cover the costs of child maintenance. The Family Allowance began in 1945 as Canada's first universal welfare program. Benefits were awarded without reference to the family's income or assets — based on the idea that all Canadian children are worthy of public support.

Since the 1980s, however, such allowances have been increasingly targeted to low-and-middle-income families. Development Investigation into the causes of poverty in England and elsewhere in the early 20th century demonstrated that family size was a significant factor. Wage rates in industrial society reflect the worker's production, without regard to the worker's family responsibilities. What may be an adequate wage for a single person can be a poverty-level existence for someone else doing the same job with a family to support. Family allowances paid by the state (or less frequently by some form of payroll tax) were proposed as not only an attack on poverty but also a way to advance the principle of "horizontal equity" between workers bearing the costs of raising the next generation, and those without such responsibilities. The idea of family allowances was discussed in Britain, Australia, the United States, Canada and in the League of Nations in the 1920s. In 1929 a Canadian parliamentary committee was asked to hear evidence and consider the subject. A Québec commission of inquiry into social welfare issues (1930-32) also received submissions on the topic. Neither recommended family allowances.

Creation Little more was heard on the subject in Canada until the Second World War , when Canada's plan for post-war reconstruction was released in 1943. The Marsh Report was a comprehensive attack on poverty and economic insecurity. It was based upon a broad scheme of social insurance supported by universal family allowances, a national health system and a large-scale national employment program. The plan was too radical and expensive for the federal Cabinet of the day, but political and economic factors prompted Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King to select the family allowances discussed in the report as a vote-getting device in the next election. This was also a bid to outflank the political left, which was making electoral gains. The move by King had the backing of economists. The majority predicted large-scale unemployment at the war's end — as happened following the First World War . Family allowances were also seen as a means of maintaining purchasing power. From a constitutional viewpoint, a program of family allowances was well within the spending jurisdiction of the federal government, so few provincial hackles were raised. Controversy Critics, though, called family allowances a waste of taxpayers' money because they went to rich and poor households alike.

They said the "baby bonus," as it was then described, was a bid for votes in French Canada, where large families were more common. It was suggested the money be distributed by way of services rather than by cheque. Meanwhile, supporters of family allowances argued the service approach alone was paternalistic and that the allowances enhanced the autonomy of families. Despite some half-hearted opposition by the Conservatives in the House of Commons in 1944, the legislation was passed unanimously on second reading — a remarkable event for such a momentous piece of legislation. Growth and Decline Tax-free family allowance payments varied according to age. For children under age five, these were $5 per month; for six-to-nine-year-olds $6; 10-12 years, $7; and 13-15, $8. The average payment per child was $5.94 — considerably below the Marsh Report's recommended minimum payment of $7.50 per child. Initially allowances were reduced for the fifth and subsequent children but this provision was removed in 1949. Even with the program's popularity it was largely neglected by the federal government.

And despite inflation, between 1945 and 1973 only one marginal increase in the benefit was legislated. This extension was prompted by Québec, which had instituted a similar scheme on its own in 1961. In 1972, in response to public concern about growing poverty in Canada, the federal government attempted to replace the universality of the program by connecting allowances to family income. The proposal would have paid maximum benefits to the poorest 36 per cent of families, partial benefits to 34 per cent and no benefits to 30 per cent of families. Allowances were to be based on the previous year’s income and the plan was heavily criticized for its inadequate attack on poverty and its administrative complexity. The legislation never made it through the House of Commons before the federal election of October 1972, which returned a minority Liberal government. But the New Democratic Party , a strong proponent of universality, held the balance of power. Faced with a minority, the government dropped its selective plan and introduced a new Family Allowances Act, which incorporated selectivity with universality by declaring family allowances taxable.

However, even high-income parents could retain a portion of their benefit, and thus the principle of "horizontal equity" was observed. In 1978, with the Liberals again commanding a majority in Parliament , a major restructuring of family allowances occurred. It expanded the role of the tax system in child support, which saw a diminished role for family allowances. The government instead established a Refundable Child Tax Credit of $200 per annum for families with incomes of $18,000 or less. As incomes rose above this level, benefits would be taxed away to disappear entirely at $26,000. As the median income for families in 1978 was $19,500, a majority of families received some benefit from the new program, which came into effect in 1979. In 1985, a Conservative government in Ottawa concerned about government debt and deficits, announced a four-year plan to restructure family benefits. Beginning in 1986, family allowances were partially indexed to the cost of living.

The refundable child tax credits were to be increased for three successive years, from 1986 to 1988, to $549 per annum. Beginning in 1989, they were also to be partially indexed in the same manner as family allowances. The qualifying income ceiling was also dropped from $26,330 to $23,500. By 1989, the Conservative government ended the universal nature of family allowances by requiring upper-income parents to repay all of their benefit at tax-filing time as part of its program to target social benefits to low-or-moderate-income recipients. Paradoxically, it maintained and increased a tax deduction for child-care expenses, which provided the greatest benefit to high-income families. Legacy In 1992, with a minimum of public discussion, the Conservative government then replaced the Family Allowance with a new Child Tax Benefit, into which Family Allowance, the Refundable Child Tax Credit and a non-refundable child tax credit were consolidated.

The new benefit — paying a maximum of $85 per month per child up to the age of 18 — was tax-free and income-tested on the basis of net family income as reported in the preceding year's income tax returns. Maximum benefits are gradually reduced as family income exceeds the income ceiling. The Canada Child Tax Benefit continues to exist. It remains targeted at low-and-middle-income families. A National Child Benefit supplement, which was announced in 1998 to help eradicate child poverty, provides some additional income for families. However, the program was being phased out as of 2009. In the early 21st century, Canadian families were also able to apply for a Universal Child Care Benefit, which provided $100 a month in taxable income for each child under the age of six to help off-set the cost of childcare. A child disability credit was also available for families with a child with a prolonged physical or mental impairment. Despite the efforts since 1978 to target family allowance and tax support for child dependents to low-and-moderate-income families, the incidence of child poverty in Canada is second highest among Western developed nations — second only to the US.

Québec continues to provide a program of universal family allowance up to age 18. However, as of 2005, the family benefits program was replaced with a refundable tax credit simply known as child assistance. The amount is calculated each year based on family income and the number of children in the family under the age of 18. Supplements are also available for handicapped children. Q&A: Child benefit changes - BBC News BBC News Q&A: Child benefit changes 13 January 2012 Close share panel Child benefit is claimed by nearly all families with children, regardless of their income. It is one of the few non-means-tested benefits left, but Chancellor George Osborne has announced it will be axed for better-off parents. What was announced? From 2013, the coalition government will withdraw child benefit from families in which one or both parents are higher-rate taxpayers. The measure will affect people earning more than £42,475 a year. That means people in the 40% income tax bracket, and those whose taxable earnings are above £150,000, who therefore pay the new 50% additional rate of income tax.

The proposal means that if both parents earn less than £42,475, they will continue to receive child benefit. But families with one main earner on, for example, £43,000, will see their benefit stopped. Mr Osborne said it was not a decision the government had "taken lightly". "It's a big decision for us, but we think it's absolutely necessary and fair, given the financial situation we face," he said. Who will be affected and how much will it save the Treasury? The Treasury says about 15% of families will lose out. In real terms, this means 1.2 million families will be affected, while 6.6 million will see no change to their child benefits. The Treasury says the annual child benefit bill is about £12bn, and the cutback will save £1bn a year. How could the government stop higher earners claiming? The chancellor has suggested that any higher-rate taxpayers in receipt of child benefit may be asked to declare this fact on their self-assessment tax returns, implying they would then face an extra tax charge.

It might be simpler for HM Revenue & Customs, which administers the child benefit system, simply to cross-reference claimants against their tax records. The child benefit claim form already asks for full details of a spouse or partner. Even simpler would be to put a warning at the bottom of the form, warning higher rate tax payers that they are no longer eligible and they might be prosecuted if they still claim. How much is child benefit? Child benefit is worth £20.30 every week for a first-born child. For each subsequent child, there is an additional weekly payment of £13.40. The money is not taxed. In the emergency budget after the general election, Mr Osborne announced child benefit would be frozen for three years. Who can receive it? It is available for every child in the UK below the age of 16; child benefit is paid to the parent directly responsible for care of the youngster. You may get child benefit if you pay towards bringing up a child who does not live with you if no-one else is claiming the benefit for them. Those in full-time education remain eligible until the age of 19, but the cut-off point for children registered for work or training is 18.

How many parents claim it? Child benefit is taken up by 96-97% of the eligible population, according to HMRC . Which department administers the benefit? HMRC is responsible for the administration of child benefit; previously it was overseen by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Whose idea was it? After World War II, bringing up several children was encouraged to restore the birth rate. And in 1945 the Family Allowance was introduced to provide benefit for second and subsequent children. In 1975, then Labour Social Affairs Secretary Barbara Castle put forward the Child Benefit Act, proposing additional benefit for the first child. And between 1977 and 1979, child benefit replaced the Family Allowance and Child Tax Allowance. What has this got to do with child tax credits? Nothing. That is an entirely different and more complicated system introduced by the last Labour government. Where can I get further information? Contact the Child Benefit Office inquiry line (Great Britain residents): 0845 302 1444/ Textphone: 0845 302 1474.

Northern Ireland residents, telephone 0845 603 2000. The HMRC website has more information on eligibility. Family Tax Changes Harper government announces tax changes for families Posted February 15th 2015 The Harper government recently announced a package of tax changes for families that will include a limited form of income splitting for couples with children, the replacement of the child amount with enhanced UCCB benefits, and increased claims for childcare expenses. The changes to income splitting will be in effect for the 2014 tax season, and the remaining measures will take effect for 2015. The Family Tax Cut The family tax cut will allow couples with at least one child under the age of 18 to claim a non-refundable tax credit equal to the amount that would be realized by transferring up to $50,000 of taxable income from the higher-income to the lower-income spouse or common-law partner. The maximum claim will be limited to $2000.

The credit will only be available to couples who are both Canadian residents at the end of the year, and who are not separated due to a breakdown in their relationship at the end of the year and for a period of at least 90 days commencing in the following year. It will, however, be available in the event that one spouse or common-law partners dies during the year. Their child must be under the age of 18 at the end of the year, and must ordinarily reside with the couple throughout the year. An exception to this rule, according to the Department of Finance, is that this requirement could be met if the parents of a child remarry or enter into new common-law partnerships during the year, or if a child is born, adopted, or passes away during the year. The credit is unavailable to individuals who were confined to a prison or similar institution for 90 days of more in the similar year, but could be claimed by the individual’s spouse or common-law partner. Couples are ineligible for the credit if either partner fails to file an income tax return, elects to split pension income , or becomes bankrupt.

Enhancement of UCCB Benefits Effective for 2015, the Universal Child Care Benefit will be increased from $100 to $160 per month for children under the age of six, and a new benefit of $60 per month will be paid for children over the age of five and under the age of 18. While these enhancements will take effect as of January 2015, they will not be reflected in monthly payments until July 2015. Taxpayers who have already registered for the Canada Child Tax Benefit or related provincial benefits will not have to reapply to receive the enhanced benefit. Also effective for 2015, the amount for children under 18 at the end of the year will be eliminated, but the family caregiver supplement to the child amount will remain in effect. According to the Department of Finance materials, the enhancements will take effect as of January 2015 but will not be reflected in monthly payments until July 2015. This means that a retroactive adjustment will be included with July cheques.

Taxpayers who are already registered for the Canada child tax benefit or related provincial benefits will not have to reapply in order to get the enhanced UCCB benefit. However, there will undoubtedly be taxpayers whose income is too high to get the Canada child tax benefit who have not bothered to apply. In order to get their $60 per month they will have to complete Form RC66 Canada Child Benefits Application. The existing tax treatment of UCCB benefits will apply to the enhanced benefits. In the case of couples, they will therefore remain taxable in the hands of the lower-income spouse. In the case of single parents, they will have the option of including the payments in their own income or in the income of a dependant for whom they are claiming the amount for an eligible dependant. Elimination of the Child Amount Effective for 2015 the amount for children under 18 at the end of the year will be eliminated. However, the family caregiver supplement to the child amount will remain in effect. The elimination of the child amount will not completely negate the savings realized from the enhanced UCCB benefits. However, it will substantially reduce them when the UCCB benefits are included in income at a higher marginal rate.

For example, the annual tax savings afforded by the child amount in 2014 is $338. The value of the enhanced UCCB benefit if included in income at a marginal federal/provincial tax rate of 36 per cent would be $461 (calculated as [$60 x 12] x 64%). This would be the marginal tax rate of an Alberta resident in 2014 with taxable income between $87,907 and $136,270. On a more positive note, lower-income parents who were previously unable to fully utilize the child amount because they were not taxable could benefit from the full enhancement of $720 per year.

Deduction for Child Care Expenses Increased Effective for 2015, the maximum dollar limits in the calculation of the deduction for child care expenses will all be increased by $1,000 as follows: From $7,000 to $8,000 for children under 7; From $4,000 to $5,000 for children aged 7 to 16 and infirm children over 16; From $10,000 to $11,000 for disabled children. The weekly limits where a child is staying in a boarding school or camp will be increased proportionately from $175 to $200, $100 to $125 and $250 to $275. The new package of changes is focused on providing two parent families a tax break and they should see the savings when they file their 2014 tax return. At H&R Block, we believe our clients are entitled to the highest level of service. Our tax advisors are some of the best in the business, and are here to help you with any tax situation you might have. It’s our guarantee.

Social Security payments for people caring for children, 1912-2008: a chronology – Parliament of Australia Introduction This is one of a series of chronologies dealing with the history of Social Security Payme nts produced by the Research Branch. The other chronologies in the series are: Social Security Payments for the Aged, those with Disabilities and Carers, 1909 to 2008: A Chronology Social Security Payments for The Unemployed, the Sick and those in Special Circumstances, 1945 to 2008: A Chronology Payments for sole parents are included in this document and those for widowed people in the document dealing with payments for those in special circumstances. The Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) makes, or has made in the past, a number of payments for children and child carers. This paper provides a short history of the development of these payments and a chronology of changes to each payment from their introduction to the present day. The date from which measures take effect has been used to date changes. This means that certain measures which may have taken effect under one Government may have actually been legislated for under the previous Government.

Where changes have been recently announced but not passed into law by the Parliament, they are placed according to the expected date of effect. Many changes that appear at the time of updating to be of minor importance and small administrative modifications to payments have not been included. Rates of payment are generally not given in the text, but can be found in the tables. In the text, imperial currency is used until 1966 and decimal currency is used after that date. In the tables decimal currency is used throughout. Note on Sources and further reading In addition to the Commonwealth Budget Papers and Social Security legislation, the following publications have been used in the preparation of this paper: Department of Social Security, Annual Report, various Department of Family and Community Services, Annual Report, various Department of Social Security, Developments in social security: a compendium of legislative changes since 1908, Research and Statistics Branch Research Paper no. 20, Canberra, 1983 Kewley, T. H., Social security in Australia 1900-72, Sydney University Press, Sydney, 1973 Kewley, T.

H., Australian social security today: major developments from 1900 to 1978, Sydney University Press, Sydney, 1980. List of Acronyms A Short History of Payments for Families The First Step Financial assistance to families with children was first introduced by the Fisher Government in October 1912. It took the form of a Mate rnity Allowance of five pounds (over two weeks wages for an unskilled worker) paid without a means test to both married and unmarried mothers. The measure was presented as an anti-poverty measure paid as a universal payment to avoid the stigma of charity. A similar payment had been introduced in 1911 in the UK, but it had been less generous and insurance based. The allowance received considerable public support and was claimed automatically in practically all cases of confinement by the late 1920s. It survived the cost cutting by Government during the Depression but was paid at a lower rate and subject to a means test from 1931 until 1943. The allowance was eventually abolished in 1978 by which time other child payments were considered to have made it unnecessary.

Recognising the Costs of Children The introduction of a form of child endowment was a subject of political debate during the inter-war ye ars both in Australia and the UK. Finally in 1941 the Menzies Government introduced a payment of five shillings per week for each child in a family after the first. A similar payment was not introduced in the UK until 1945. The introduction of child endowment dovetailed with the view expressed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration when delivering the judgement in the Basic Wage Enquiry 1940-41 that the basic wage was only adequate for a family of three. The new payment was also used to justify the deferment of any increase in the basic wage for six months. Eligibility for Child Endowment was extended to the first child in a family in 1950 by which time the original rationale based on the basic wage had ceased to hold sway. Further payments for children of invalid pensioners and beneficiaries were introduced during the war years (child allowance in 1943 and Additional Benefit in 1945) to assist with the support of the first or unendowed children of pensioners and beneficiaries.

The rate of Widow Pension when introduced in 1942 was also adjusted to cater for the maintenance of one child. In 1950 when Child Endowment began to be paid to all children it was paid in addition to these other child payments. Between 1956 and 1965 these payments were extended to all children of pensioners and beneficiaries and paid in addition to the Child Endowment. Table 1 shows trends in the numbers of recipients of child endowment and other payments added later. The Introduction of Widow Pensions Income support for widows and some sole parents was introduced in 1942 by the Curtin Government. Curti n had included a commitment to int roduce pensions for widows in his 1940 election campaign policy speech. This form of income support had been included in most proposals from all sides of politics to expand the Commonwealth's involvement in income support since age and invalid pensions were introduced in 1909 and 1910 respectively.

Unlike widow pensions introduced in the UK in 1925 and the USA in 1939, the Australian widow pension was not a contributory insurance-based payment and was therefore available to all widows who qualified under the means test. The structure of the new payment was drawn from the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Social Security which had been asked in 1941 by the Menzies Government to inquire into widow pensions. Consequently the legislation received bipartisan support. By the 1940s considerable numbers of widows were in need of assistance. The 1947 Census counted 134 766 widows under 60 years of age. (Sole parents who were not widows were not counted at that time.) Many of these widows were eligible for war widow pensions but sufficient sole parents and other civilian widows were in financial need to push the numbers receiving Social Security Widow Pensions up to approximately 40 000 by 1950. From the beginning the name of the payment was misleading. It was designed to assist women who had lost a partner and could not be expected to engage in employment due to child care responsibilities or age.

Not all women in this category were eligible. De facto widows, deserted wives, divorced women and women whose husbands were in institutions for the insane were included but single mothers, wives of prisoners, women deserted by de facto husbands and women who had deserted their husband or agreed to separate were excluded. These exclusions reflected the influence on legislators of contemporary moral standards as did the requirement that pensioners be of 'good character' and 'deserving of a pension'. The result was the exclusion of many sole parents from eligibility. An indication of the public attitude to such assistance can be found in the protests from some conservative women's groups about the provision of assistance to de facto widows. Such assistance was condemned as encouraging adultery and undermining the institution of marriage. Three types of Widow Pension were introduced in 1942. Widows with children were given a Class A pension while they had a dependent child. Those without children were given a Class B pension until retirement age if they were aged 50 years or older. Those without children and not old enough for a Class B pension were given a Class C pension for 26 weeks immediately after the death of their husband. Only Class A pensions for widows with children are covered in this publication.

Family Allowances Replace Tax Allowances for Children When Child Endowment was introduced, the Curtin Government abolished tax concession s for children to prevent wealthier parents gaining m ore assistance than parents ineligible for tax concessions. However concessions were reintroduced to the tax system. The monetary value of these concessions grew during the 1950s and 1960s while Child Endowment was eroded by inflation. The 1975 Henderson Poverty Inquiry Final Report recommended the abolition of tax concessions and an increase in the rate of Child Endowment especially for large families in order to redirect assistance to the poorest families. In 1976 the Fraser Government acted on this recommendation by abolishing tax concessions and introducing Family Allowance. The new payment was the same as Child Endowment in most respects but was paid at much higher rates. This was possible because revenue savings from abolishing tax concessions for children were used to increase expenditure on Family Allowance by 300 per cent when compared to expenditure on Child Endowment.

Assistance Extended to Sole Parents Single women with children who were not eligible for Widow Pension because they were deserted wives who had not been deserted for six months, or who had not been married, or in a de facto relationship for the required three years, were given varying amounts of assistance by state government payments. In 1968 the Gorton Government began to partially fund that assistance under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1968. This form of assistance was the main income support for this growing group who were not catered for by the Widow Pension. Commonwealth expenditure under this Act increased from $1.9m in 1969-70 to $9.7m in 1972-73. Sole parents numbered 124 000 at the time of the 1966 Census. Their numbers had grown to 183 100 in 1974 when the first ABS Family Survey was conducted. The Whitlam Government introduced the Supporting Mother's Benefit in 1973 to provide support for single mothers who were not being adequately catered for by existing arrangements.

The rate of payment for this benefit was the same as for pensions in spite of the name it was given. Eligibility for Supporting Mother's Benefit did not commence until six months after the date of separation or birth of a child. As a result the States continued to provide assistance to single mothers until 1980 when immediate eligibility was introduced by the Fraser Government. That Government also extended eligibility to male sole parents and renamed the payment Supporting Parent's Benefit in 1977. By 1980 DSS payments were finally available to all categories of sole parents. Targeting Low Income Working Families The effectiveness of Family Allowance as a means of redistributing income to low income and larger families was severely eroded by the h igh inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s in the absence of indexation. In 1982 the Fraser Government passed legislation for a new payment called Family Income Supplement (FIS) which commenced in May 1983 after the Hawke Government had been elected. This type of payment was new to Australia because it was directed at low income working families with the objective of ensuring that low income working families could receive more while in employment than when unemployed.

This was achieved by giving them entitlement to the equivalent of additional benefit for children. FIS proved to be too limited a payment with a limited take up rate. Against a background of increasing concern over the extent of child poverty the Hawke Government made a commitment during the 1987 election campaign that by 1990 no Australian child would live in poverty. The main means employed to fulfil this commitment was a reworking of the system of income tested child payments. Rates of payment increased considerably, Rent Assistance was made available to low income working families and FIS was renamed Family Allowance Supplement and the income test was made more generous. Further development of family payments continued under the Hawke and Keating Governments. The main developments were indexation of rates, assets testing, the amalgamation of Family Allowance Supplement with Additional Pension and Benefit to form Additional Family Payment and the merging of Basic and Additional Family Payment to form Family Payment. The Rationalisation of Pensions for Sole Parent Families The reform of Widow Pensions continued in 1989 with the amalgamation of Widow Pe nsion Class A and Suppo rting Parent's Benefit. The new payment was called Sole Parent Pension.

The two payments had over time become almost identical and catered for essentially the same group. The demise of the Widow Pension marked the end of a transition from payments for 'respectable' widows with a few categories of less reputable sole parents hidden under the umbrella term Widow Pension, to payments based on the objective fact of sole parenthood. New Payments for Two Parent Families During the 1993 election campaign the Keating Government committed itself to introduce a Home Child Care Allowance to provide a source of independent income for women caring for children at home. This payment effectively replaced the tax rebate for dependent spouses with children. The payment was set at a level which was a slight increase on the value of the rebate but it was payable on a fortnightly basis. This allowed parents who were out of the work force for periods as short as a fortnight to qualify. The rebate had been inaccessible to parents who had earned even modest amounts during a financial year. Home Child Care Allowance was absorbed within a new payment within a year of its introduction. It became the basic component of a new Parenting Allowance in 1995.

This new payment which was first announced in the Working Nation statement of 1994, was paid to the parent caring for children in low income families, irrespective of whether their spouse was working or in receipt of an income support payment. During 1994 the Keating Government also committed itself to introduce a form of paid maternity leave in the spirit of ILO convention number 103 as part of the Accord Mark 7 agreement with the ACTU. In 1996 Maternity allowance was reintroduced as a lump sum payment equivalent to six weeks of Parenting Allowance. Payments for Parents Simplified In 1998 the Sole Parent Pension and the Parenting Allowance were amalgamated to form a single payment for people caring for children. The new payment called Parenting Payment was a tentative move towards simplification of the growing range of payments for families. Many of the distinctions between the two superseded payments were maintained in order to avoid reduced assistance for sole parents or the increased cost that a single set of rates and eligibility criteria would involve.

Family Assistance Simplified Simplification of the structure of family payments was carried further in 2000 when a range of payments, child-care fee subsidies and tax concessions for families with children were replaced by three payments. The introduction in 1997 of the Family Tax Initiative, while directing extra assistance to families, did further increase the complexity of the system. The need for simplification was clear. The new Family Tax Benefit provided income tested assistance for each dependent child (Part A) plus a payment for parents who stayed at home to care for children (Part B). Child Care Benefit brought the two existing child care fee subsidies into one payment. Timed to coincide with the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax, these reforms also involved an element of compensation for the effects of that tax on families with children and an attempt to reduce poverty traps for low and middle income families. Payments for Parents and Welfare to Work Reforms In 2003 participation requirements were introduced for Parenting Payment recipients with a youngest child of high school age. This move was prompted by concerns that parents should be encouraged to retrain and reattach to the workforce. The eligibility criteria and paticipation requirements for Parenting Payment underwent major changes in 2006.

As part of a broader set of Welfare to Work reforms, eligibility for new applicants for Parenting Payment was restricted to those with a youngest child aged less than eight years of age if single or six years of age if partnered. Those who would formerly been eligible were now eligible for Newstart Allowance but with a requirement to look for part-time work only. Participation requirements for those remaining on Parenting Payment were also increased. Table 1: Payments for People caring for Children Recipient Numbers from 1942 Part A: 1942-1975 125 900 Notes: (a) Child Endowment families data for 1964 to 1976 does not include those with students aged 16 to 21 only. (b) Includes Widow Pension Class A from 1942 and Supporting Mothers Benefit from 1973.

(c) Includes Family Allowance 1976 to 1992, Basic Family Payment 1993 to 1995, minimum rate of Family payment 1996 to 1998, minimum rate of Family Allowance 1998 to 2000 and at least base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A from 2000. (d) Children for whom more than the basic rate was paid would also have received the basic rate, and are therefore counted under both headings. Includes Additional Pension or Benefit for Children 1976 to 1992, Family Income Supplement 1983 to 1987, Family Allowance Supplement 1988 to 1992, Additional Family Payment 1993 to 1995, more than minimum rate of Family Payment 1996 to 1998, more than minimum rate of Family Allowance 1998 to 2000 and more than base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A from 2000.

Data for Childs Allowance and Additional Pension and Benefit for 1943 to 1975 are not publicly available. Payments for children of Special beneficiaries are not included prior to 1993. (e) Includes Supporting Mothers Benefit 1976 to 1977, Supporting Parents Benefit 1977 to 1989, Widow Pension Class A 1976 to 1989, Sole Parent Pension 1989 to 1998 and Parenting Payment (Single) from 1998. (f) Includes Parenting Allowance 1996 to 1998, Parenting Payment (Partnered) from 1998. Prior to 1996 payments for partnered parents were paid as part of income support for their spouses. No data on the numbers involved is available. (g) Family Tax Benefit data does not include payments made through the Australian Taxation Office.

Maternity Allowance 1912 to 1978, and 1996 to 2004, Maternity Immunisation Allowance from 1998, Maternity Payment from 2004, Baby Bonus from 2007 Commencement Date Helping Families Prosper Helping Families Prosper Helping Families Prosper Keeping Taxes Low Canadians work hard for their money. That is why the Government of Canada has lowered taxes year after year. For example, the Government has: cut the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 7% to 5%; created the Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA). Nearly 11 million Canadians have opened a TFSA; reduced the lowest personal income tax rate and increased the basic personal amount; introduced pension income splitting; and brought in the children’s arts and fitness tax credits. Overall, the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in half a century. With a balanced budget in 2015, the Government is providing greater tax relief and increased benefits for Canadian families.

These new measures, alongside others introduced by the Government since 2006, will provide tax relief and benefits of up to $6,600 for a typical two-earner Canadian family of four in 2015. Tax Relief and Benefits for Canadian Families Proposed new measures to support families include: An enhanced Universal Child Care Benefit that would provide an increased benefit of up to $1,920 per year for children under the age of 6, and a new benefit of up to $720 per year for children aged 6 through 17, effective January 1, 2015. A $1,000 increase in the maximum dollar amounts that can be claimed under the Child Care Expense Deduction, effective for the 2015 taxation year. The Family Tax Cut, a federal non-refundable tax credit of up to $2,000 for couples with children under the age of 18, effective for the 2014 taxation year.

In addition, the Government has doubled the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit to $1,000 as of 2014, and made it refundable effective for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years. Every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 will benefit from this package of measures. An Enhanced Universal Child Care Benefit In 2006, the Government introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB), which provides all families with $100 per month for each child under the age of 6. The UCCB currently provides direct federal support to approximately 1.7 million families with young children. The Government is proposing to enhance the UCCB by increasing the benefit to $160 per month from $100 per month. Parents would receive up to $1,920 per year for each child under the age of 6. The Government is also proposing a new benefit of $60 per month, or up to $720 per year, for children aged 6 through 17. The enhanced UCCB would replace the existing Child Tax Credit for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years.

By replacing the Child Tax Credit with the enhanced UCCB, all families with incomes too low to be taxable, and who cannot take advantage of the Child Tax Credit, would benefit. How You Can Benefit Enhanced payments for the UCCB would take effect as of January 2015 and would begin to be reflected in monthly payments to recipients in July 2015. The July 2015 payment would include up to six months of benefits to cover the January to June 2015 period. To qualify, parents have to complete the Canada Child Benefits Application form. Parents who have already completed this form to access other child-related benefits do not have to re-submit the form, unless their family situation has changed. An Increase in the Child Care Expense Deduction The Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED) allows child care expenses incurred to earn employment or business income, pursue education or perform research to be deducted from income for tax purposes.

The Government proposes to increase the dollar limits of the CCED by $1,000—i.e., to $8,000 from $7,000 per child under age 7, to $5,000 from $4,000 for each child aged 7 through 16 (and for infirm dependent children over age 16), and to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the Disability Tax Credit. These changes would apply for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years. How You Can Benefit Parents will be able to take advantage of the increased dollar limits for the Child Care Expense Deduction when they file their tax returns for the 2015 taxation year. Parents may claim the deduction for eligible child care expenses incurred to earn employment or business income, pursue education or perform research. Generally, only the lower-income spouse can claim the deduction.

A New Family Tax Cut For couples with children under the age of 18, the new Family Tax Cut allows a spouse to, in effect, transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket, providing up to a maximum benefit of $2,000. Tax relief is calculated on the basis of the difference in federal tax before and after the effective transfer of income. How You Can Benefit The tax relief provided by the Family Tax Cut is effective for the 2014 and subsequent taxation years, for couples with children under the age of 18. To benefit from the credit, each spouse must file a tax return. Either spouse may claim the credit. Doubling of the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit The Government has doubled the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit (CFTC) to $1,000 per child and made it refundable. Making the tax credit refundable ensures that even those who do not earn enough to pay income taxes can benefit from this credit. The CFTC was introduced by the Government in 2006 to help promote physical fitness among children by making it more affordable for Canadian families to register their kids in fitness activities.

The CFTC currently provides benefits to 1.4 million families. How You Can Benefit Parents can take advantage of the new $1,000 maximum per child limit as of the 2014 taxation year. Children must have been under 16 years of age (or under 18 years of age if eligible for the Disability Tax Credit) at the beginning of the year in which an eligible expense was paid. To be eligible, expenses must be for registration fees or membership in a prescribed program of physical activity. Beginning in the 2015 taxation year, the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit will become refundable, increasing benefits to low-income families. Quick Facts About New Support for Canadian Families Every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 will benefit from this package of measures. An overwhelming majority of these benefits will go to low- and middle-income families.

Since 2006, all Canadians have benefited from significant tax relief, including a 2‑percentage-point reduction in the GST, broad-based personal income tax relief, the introduction of the Tax-Free Savings Account to help Canadians save, and the introduction of the Working Income Tax Benefit to help ensure that more low-income Canadians are financially better off as a result of getting a job. The enhancements to the Universal Child Care Benefit, the increase in the Child Care Expense Deduction limits and the new Family Tax Cut are subject to parliamentary approval. Canada child tax benefit for previous years - Overview Canada child tax benefit for previous years - Overview Canada child tax benefit for previous years - Overview Overview How we calculate your CCTB Overview The Canada child tax benefit (CCTB) is a tax-free payment made to eligible families for previous years to help them with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age. As of July 1, 2016, the CCTB is replaced by the Canada child benefit , however, you can still apply for previous years. The CCTB may include the:

Question: What was the name of the government payment that was replaced in 1975 by 'Child Benefit'?
Answer: FAMILY ALLOWANCE