Child benefit cuts
Comments
-
That's exactly what I mean, but I don't know what the solution could be.bails87 wrote:I know what you're getting at, but I don't want to see kids suffering because of the benefits being cut. But I also don't want to see people having kids for the benefits.
Ultimately, there could never be a solution that keeps everyone happy though.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
That's exactly what I mean, but I don't know what the solution could be.bails87 wrote:I know what you're getting at, but I don't want to see kids suffering because of the benefits being cut. But I also don't want to see people having kids for the benefits.
Ultimately, there could never be a solution that keeps everyone happy though.
Kids shouldn't suffer from it, people need to be made to work and if they can not support there children as they are the work shy unwashed type, then the kid is sadly probably better of going into care to be honest, sounds harsh but i don't see a any other way to get it back in line
and for those who have worked and paid there way, and find there in a bad situation until they find a new position then as i said before, an accessed uployment benefit could help sort this out.0 -
Thewaylander wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:
That's exactly what I mean, but I don't know what the solution could be.bails87 wrote:I know what you're getting at, but I don't want to see kids suffering because of the benefits being cut. But I also don't want to see people having kids for the benefits.
Ultimately, there could never be a solution that keeps everyone happy though.
Kids shouldn't suffer from it, people need to be made to work and if they can not support there children as they are the work shy unwashed type, then the kid is sadly probably better of going into care to be honest, sounds harsh but i don't see a any other way to get it back in line
and for those who have worked and paid there way, and find there in a bad situation until they find a new position then as i said before, an accessed uployment benefit could help sort this out.
Unfortunately, in this sense, "care" is apparently not an accurate description.0 -
I think the benefit system has got out of control. No one should be entitled to benefits of any kind unless they have paid into the system for a minumum qualifying period. Those who have paid in should be able to reclaim some of that money through credits but these should be means tested so the one that do require that bit of help receive it. Any family with an income over £40k shouldn't be allowed to claim as they don't really need it. I don't make the laws nor do I take any benefits and by the time I retire the state pension probably won't even exist.
Since this is one of the areas that I cover in my work I should point out to those who are earning just above the proposed £44k per annum that you should up your pension contributions as these are offset against your income for the purpose of tax credits. Consult a good accountant and they will save you more money than their fee.0 -
Child care compared to chav care with the example of a non working parent who has never worked having children to support themselves.
I honestly believe the child will be better off in care untill the mother/fathters in quest do acutally start working and can prove they are finacial viable to care for there child, though it does introduce another child care cost for the goverment to pay.0 -
The disabled so long as they can't work should get benefits. Both of my brothers are handicapped but have worked since leaving school with only a short period of unemployment. Some of the jobs they have done have been really bad but they've always had the pride to work for a living. Sometimes they've needed the disability living allowance but after the cockups with this and demands for repayment they don't claim what they are entitled to.
I don't see why school leavers should get benefits it will encourage them to get jobs, any job. The welfare system was set up to help those who needed it not the current system that allows generations of families to live on handouts.0 -
I'm with craig Bails,
The things you are bringing up are so the minority that they could almost be assessed ona case by case basis for what is reasonable.0 -
I'm with the ex pat,
I got 2 kids under 4, wife works part time, and earns around 10K I earn around £45K
I dont mind losing it and understand the need, but its totally wrong and narks me that a household with two 40K earners would still get it...it should be based on combined incomes of both parents which would be fair (that would the liberals keep bangin on about)0 -
I don't mean to be condescending, but do you really need ANY child benefits if your household brings in £40K+
People get by comfortably on far less, can you really complain that you're hard done by when your own wages are almost double the national average?0 -
What is mad is that all the red tape to implememt these cuts are going to cost MORE if we just left them in place!0
-
supersonic wrote:What is mad is that all the red tape to implememt these cuts are going to cost MORE if we just left them in place!
I was wondering about that. Is that for definate? There's going to be a lot of that going around, I know my council just cut a disabled worker scheme which cost less per head than the benefits the people that it used to subsidise will now get paid, but it comes out of a different budget so it's a win :evil:yeehaamcgee wrote:What I meant is that they get pregnant, not to start a family, but as a way of freeloading on benefits.
Thing is though, that's ridiculously hard work for not a lot of money.As Mark Thomas said once, I wouldn't push an action man out of the end of my knob for £80 a week. Never understood how anyone can ever see having kids and going on benefit as a good lifestyle choice, it's not an easier option than just getting a half-decent job, at least they only last 35 hours a week. For all the tabloid chat fairly few people really are better off on benefits.ex-pat scot wrote:This is going to make one hell of a difference to us. In fact it will be cheaper to ask my employer to give me a large pay cut to bring my salary down below the £44k level.
And that is ****ed up, you're right in the area where it's pretty damn unfair. Not neccesarily more unfair than the fact that lower paid taxpayers were subsidising you mind but still, 2 wrongs doesn't make a right.Thewaylander wrote:the kid is sadly probably better of going into care to be honest, sounds harsh but i don't see a any other way to get it back in line
There's very, very few times when that's a good option. In fact all it ever is, is a least bad option but even then that's rare. Not to mention a bloody sight more expensive than child benefit.Uncompromising extremist0 -
Just heard that they are capping benefits to £500 per week that is the same as someone on a salary of £32k make no wonder some choose a life of handouts. Not a bad life, good pay no work all play0
-
Tell that to people like my "aunt". I use the term losely because she's not actually related, she's the mother of my actual uncle's kids. She's never worked a day in her life, and has repeatedly stated that she got all 6 kids just so she could get the child benefits.Northwind wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:What I meant is that they get pregnant, not to start a family, but as a way of freeloading on benefits.
Thing is though, that's ridiculously hard work for not a lot of money.As Mark Thomas said once, I wouldn't push an action man out of the end of my knob for £80 a week. Never understood how anyone can ever see having kids and going on benefit as a good lifestyle choice, it's not an easier option than just getting a half-decent job, at least they only last 35 hours a week. For all the tabloid chat fairly few people really are better off on benefits.
She does nothing to look after the kids, ultimately, which is probably part of the reason why two of them are now in prison, and one is in a kind of borstal. She is, in a word, scum.
A lot of young girls round here are going down the same path, and several will actually say so, just like my "aunt".
It could well be that there is not enough gainful employment, but given cases like the girl i mentioned above, there's a few of them who just want the money, and let the kids bring themselves up.0 -
I was wondering about that. Is that for definate?
I think to start with yes. Obviously many angles to look at.
One reason for the benefit trap is that there is just no graduation from the benefit to work. You cross a line, and that's it.0 -
Same here on all counts (apart from having only one ankle biter) and TBH not sure how the Stevo family can justify taking money off the state to raise a kid. That said, I've been done over in a bigger way with income tax rises in the last year, so will enjoy the freebie while it lasts.Cat With No Tail wrote:Child benefit contributes an extra £80 p/m to our income. Goes straight into savings accounts for the kids (with a bit extra) which they can have then they turn 18.
To be honest, I'd not really notice if they stopped it, but as long as I get it, I'm not moaning about it.
Don't really see why it's needed, like Thewaylander says, don't have kids if you can't afford to support them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Tell that to people like my "aunt". I use the term losely because she's not actually related, she's the mother of my actual uncle's kids. She's never worked a day in her life, and has repeatedly stated that she got all 6 kids just so she could get the child benefits.
Oh yeah, I know it happens, it's just bloody stupid, the only way it's economic is if you basically abandon the kids but most folks don't do that. A couple of girls from my class at school did the same and thought they were being clever, 5 sprogs in between the 2 of them and they're cursing everyone who ever said benefits sponging was a good idea- they get money and a council house but it's not much and they've got no life at all basically. But, they're basically not bad people, just thick as pig**** so they put in the hours with the kids. I reckon they're probably more representative of this sort of thing than the real horror stories, just that they tend to be quieter and sadder stories.Uncompromising extremist0 -
The system has flaws across the board. My parents live in Spain, but retained a property here after downsizing and freeing up capital. I live here and pay all the bills and upkeep. However I cannot claim housing benefit (if I needed to) as am classed as living with relatives. But I could say they have kicked me out, where they would have to provide me with a house, and many other benefits which would cost them a lot more in the end! And take up a house...0
-
CraigXXL wrote:Just heard that they are capping benefits to £500 per week that is the same as someone on a salary of £32k make no wonder some choose a life of handouts. Not a bad life, good pay no work all play
So how many people will that actually affect? How many people on benefits get more than that now? How many get anywhere near?
A single person can, depending on circumstances, get an absolute max of £130/week, or under £20/day jobseekers benefits. After 182 days that falls to a max of £65/week for jobseekers.
That plus £20 for one child plus £14 for each additional child, if i understand it correctly.
So to be getting £500 you'd have to be unemployed, but for less than 6 months, and have 26 children!
0 -
bails87 wrote:CraigXXL wrote:Just heard that they are capping benefits to £500 per week that is the same as someone on a salary of £32k make no wonder some choose a life of handouts. Not a bad life, good pay no work all play
So how many people will that actually affect? How many people on benefits get more than that now? How many get anywhere near?
A single person can, depending on circumstances, get an absolute max of £130/week, or under £20/day jobseekers benefits. After 182 days that falls to a max of £65/week for jobseekers.
That plus £20 for one child plus £14 for each additional child, if i understand it correctly.
So to be getting £500 you'd have to be unemployed, but for less than 6 months, and have 26 children!
But many other benefits are part of that figure ie housing benefit, council benefit etc.0 -
You're no fun, I want them to clamp down on these 26 children+ families!supersonic wrote:bails87 wrote:CraigXXL wrote:Just heard that they are capping benefits to £500 per week that is the same as someone on a salary of £32k make no wonder some choose a life of handouts. Not a bad life, good pay no work all play
So how many people will that actually affect? How many people on benefits get more than that now? How many get anywhere near?
A single person can, depending on circumstances, get an absolute max of £130/week, or under £20/day jobseekers benefits. After 182 days that falls to a max of £65/week for jobseekers.
That plus £20 for one child plus £14 for each additional child, if i understand it correctly.
So to be getting £500 you'd have to be unemployed, but for less than 6 months, and have 26 children!
But many other benefits are part of that figure ie housing benefit, council benefit etc.
Edit: The point is, it might just be lip service to make it look like they're doing something really good, when in actual fact it the people claiming over £500 account for 0.00000001% of the benefits budget. Might be.0 -
I think there are other benefits apart from sprog benefit...not even Catholics I know have managed 25 kidsbails87 wrote:So to be getting £500 you'd have to be unemployed, but for less than 6 months, and have 26 children!
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Jobseekers' allowance, income support, employment support allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit, child benefit and child tax credit as others have said it soon mounts up. This doesn't include the many other subsidised benefits they also get such as prescriptions, cheap entrance to council facilities, low rate energy supply and the list goes on.
Bails before you try and make out I'm some ogre that hates the benefit system I don't but people that deserve it the least take the most from it whilst the vunerable that do need it suffer further. If I had my way the able bodied would be forced to work at minimum wage within the public sector to give something back to the community rather than just take.0 -
I'm not so sure. Almost everyone I know who lives on benefits and has a council house will have a massive telly, SkyHD, Playstations3/xbox, etc, nice laptops, and go out on the pi** about 3 or 4 times a week.Northwind wrote:... I reckon they're probably more representative of this sort of thing than the real horror stories, just that they tend to be quieter and sadder stories.
But then they moan that they're struggling to put food on the table, and fuel in the car.
It seems very common round here, at least, but I don't know if the Welsh system is more lenient or something like that.
I mean, most bloody things in Wales are paid for by a grant, from a company that survives on another grant, and so on and so forth anyway. Completely messed up economy/political structure.0 -
I don't mean to be condescending, but do you really need ANY child benefits if your household brings in £40K+
That's exactly what the government hoped people would say, let the politics of envy cloud the real issue with what they're trying to do. Even on £ 45k a year plus £ 1700 is not small beer, do people on that income need that extra money to sustain a basic standard of living, no.
The Tories have spun this so most people won't give a Sh1t about what they're doing because it only affects the rich (i.e. people paying higher rate tax). Two points to consider:
£ 45 k is not rich, comfortable maybe, rich no (put it into context, 3.5 times £ 45k is £157k, the average house price is currently around £ 225k so someone earning this can't afford an average house!).
Secondly while at the moment it only affects the 'rich', it's the first easy swipe at a universal benefit, the threshold can now only go down and it will regardless of who is in power.It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
I've bought a new bike....ouch - result
Can I buy a new bike?...No - no result0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Northwind wrote:It seems very common round here, at least, but I don't know if the Welsh system is more lenient or something like that.
Same everywhere whilst the elderly continue to struggle.0 -
It's not envy though, it's just cold hard maths.stumpyjon wrote:I don't mean to be condescending, but do you really need ANY child benefits if your household brings in £40K+
That's exactly what the government hoped people would say, let the politics of envy cloud the real issue with what they're trying to do.
If people get by on half that, do you really NEED help when you're pulling in 45K? REALLY?
Just because you CAN have something doesn't mean you should have it, or need it.0 -
45k is nearly twice the average wage in this country.0
-
And both Sonic and Yeehaa have made my point for me again. They've blinded everybody to what they're doing by playing to your prejudices. I don't disagree that households on £ 45 k or more should lose their benefits, I do object to the Tories getting everybody on side by attacking a small proportion of the population who can't fight back. Very easy to demonise Higher Rate Tax Payers. Why couldn't they stand up and say we don't think households with a joint income of £ 45k should get benefits. Because then two income households on average wages would be affected and a lot more people would be suddenly realising they're consider to be well off .
I don't know what most people's definition of rich is but to me it's someone who doesn't have to think to closely about spending money, I have to be fairly careful with what I spend and really don't feel very rich.It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
I've bought a new bike....ouch - result
Can I buy a new bike?...No - no result0 -
It's not being prejudiced though, it's called being logical. As an engineery type, that's how I look at things.stumpyjon wrote:And both Sonic and Yeehaa have made my point for me again. They've blinded everybody to what they're doing by playing to your prejudices.
Christ almighty, I don't pull in half of that, but I get by fine, with zero state benefits. I'm sure there are benefits I could be claiming, but I'd feel like a fraud.
The money SHOULD be there to help people get by, which, let's be completely frank, you don't NEED if you've got more than double the average salary.0
