If benefits stop as the government have no money

krisskross

mitchaa wrote: »

An instant saver would be limiting CTC and CB to a maximum of 2 children, that in itself would save the country billions.

And I can hear the anguished cries about starving children etc already.

When people accept that when they have children it is their financial responsibility not the taxpayers then things might change.

pepsicola_2

krisskross wrote: »

Just had a check up. In 1974 for 3 children the benefit would have been £5.18. this is equivalent to £38.88 today.

In 1979 the child benefit was £4 a week per child, equivalent to £14.58 in todays money.

its all very well saying an amount is the equivalent of such and such in todays money but you need to take into account how far that money went in 1974 how much was a loaf of bread or pint of milk?

mitchaa

krisskross wrote: »

When people accept that when they have children it is their financial responsibility not the taxpayers then things might change.

And the only way people will realise that is by cutting child related benefits.

pipkin71

pepsicola wrote: »

its all very well saying an amount is the equivalent of such and such in todays money but you need to take into account how far that money went in 1974 how much was a loaf of bread or pint of milk?

Very good point pepsicola.

Pipkin xxxx

krisskross

pepsicola wrote: »

its all very well saying an amount is the equivalent of such and such in todays money but you need to take into account how far that money went in 1974 how much was a loaf of bread or pint of milk?

That is why it has been translated into the buying power at today's values.

edit: a pint of milk in 1979 cost 16.5p a pint. therefore the CB of £4 would buy 24 pints. That is 13.63 litres.

Today milk is about £2.12 for 3.4L so todays family would spend less than £9 on the same amount of milk. So in effect if spent on milk the CB has a lot more buying power today than it did in 1979

bestpud

mitchaa wrote: »

£158bn raised through income tax, £161bn spent out in Social welfare.

Absoloute ludicrous, the benefits system is long due a drastic overhaul. Something i believe the tories will do when they come into power.

So i really do think the moral of this thread is highly possible. I can see (hopefully) big benefit cuts coming soon.

An instant saver would be limiting CTC and CB to a maximum of 2 children, that in itself would save the country billions.

I think you may be right as something has to give. It is starting already with single parents.

I'm not sure how easy it is to reverse benefits such as tax credits though, because lower paid jobs have the wages are set with this in mind. Thus employers would have to increase wages or the country would be in a worse mess because people still have to pay their mortgage etc.

Also, I have a feeling the tax credit system is as much about keeping tabs on people as helping them tbh. After all, the system is hardly cost effective is it? I don't think the govt will be that keen on losing track of all those people!

I still think the cuts should be aimed at the unemployed who are able to work before working families though.

Having a limit on the number of children is a popular choice and one which would likely be introduced though, simply because it is an easy choice!

The easy choice is not always the best or the most cost effective one. And it would be wrong to cut benefits to a working family with 4 children, when there are still able bodied families with 2 children not working and still able to claim. How would that promote a work ethic?

bestpud

krisskross wrote: »

That is why it has been translated into the buying power at today's values.

The figures can't be argued with though. It was worth a lot more then that it is now, which means benefits are not a new phenomenon. Yes we have tax credits now but then when you look at the reduction in real costs of child benefit...

Oldernotwiser

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Good post krisskross.

at Matalan and can not afford to buy or even rent a place on his own, (as he is single and has no children he is not entitled to any benefits) which most of us who worked in the 70s could do.

Have to disagree with you on that. I don't know anyone who was able to buy or rent a place on their own in the 70s. In fact, it always amazes me that people in their twenties nowadays think that they ought to be able to have a whole flat to themselves rather than share with others. Remember "Man About the House" - that was (and perhaps still should be) the norm.

Oldernotwiser

Were this situation to arise it would sort out those who have real clinical depression as opposed to those who are a bit stressed and down because they don't like their job (or any other). Rather like the way in which you're supposed to tell who has flu and who has a bad cold. Tell the sufferer that there's a £100 note lying in the back garden. The person who gets out of bed to get it is the one who has the cold!

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Have to disagree with you on that. I don't know anyone who was able to buy or rent a place on their own in the 70s. In fact, it always amazes me that people in their twenties nowadays think that they ought to be able to have a whole flat to themselves rather than share with others. Remember "Man About the House" - that was (and perhaps still should be) the norm.

Oh well, everyone I know had their own place, but thinking about it they were all couples - so yes, you are correct.

Senior moment there!