Should the tax and benefits system prioritise families? poll discussion

dronid

KimYeovil wrote: »

Falsely, falsely quoted.

I am confused.

Yes, I think Kim was suggesting that if you were poor and childless (rather than the poor and with children) you got nothing and indeed attacked sometimes. Is that right Kim?

I recognise that when people are in difficulties they should be assisted by the state but there should be no priority for families - whoever you are you should be supported. However it should be assessed effectively and used efficiently. It's public money ultimately. Unfortunately there are a minority of people who can't be bothered to try to work and (sadly, a majority it seems - not on here at all!) who are on the chicken nugget end of the nutritional food chain. Money poorly applied is waste.

Unfortunately while improving school dinners is popular, improving the standard of living at home seems less so. The 'I can live how I want' brigade need support and education to show them how much better they could live. I would love to see some budget cookery programmes on TV - particularly now when they're needed.:D

Mozette

robpw2 wrote: »

i am upset by this poll/thread and the blatant discrimination that it shows.
not all straight couples can have children -no option for that
gay couples both male and female ..

we would end up with people having children for the sake of getting more money and this is not the right reason to have children


the benefits system should be their to support those who need it not because you have a family i didnt force you to have children

I don't see that the poll doesn't cover all sexual orientations, given that it doesn't specify sexual orientation.
I know several gay parents, some single, some couples - are you saying you can't have kids if you're gay? Nonsense!
Granted there isn't an option for those who can't have children, but if you are unable to, then presumably you have either resigned yourself to the fact, or intend to pursue other options such as adoption or surrogacy. In which case, E F G or H, surely?

cavim

The constant prioritisation of "families" (meaning people with children) by politicians and the press infuriates my partner, child-free friends and me on a daily basis, so much so that we've all considered moving abroad. Many of our child-free friends have already moved abroad and others are making plans to go. [Funny how we don't see the politicians doing anything about keeping those, mostly "professional" people here in this country....!!]

Even more infuriating is that:-
- I was employed full time for over 30 years, a large proportion of which I was a "higher rate taxpayer" (average earner in today's terms!), working between 40 and 60 hours a week and travelling 3-6hrs a day to work and back for much of the time to ensure I stayed employed
- I had no (maternity) career breaks
- despite having the highest qualification and many years' experience in my industry, I was made redundant just before I reached 50 (ageism is alive and well, despite the new legislation)
- I've never been able to get benefits because of my partner's earnings level (even though I contributed the higher percentage of income to our living expenses for years, and my partner's earnings only covered half the mortgage and essential bills, not the whole amount)
- I had a battle to get any job seekers' allowance after redundancy because the target-driven staff in the Job Centre decided I was self employed, even though I'd set up a sole trader business several years' prior but had stayed employed instead, so it was a dormant business [I never did get the basic JSA I was legally entitled to - had to give up after several months' fighting and admit defeat]
- I had to cash in all my savings and we've had to downsize our house, get rid of my car and have virtually no social life now, in order to be able to (almost) survive financially.

And what really angers me is that the majority of people that seem to be able to have 2 (or more) cars, drink and/or smoke copious amounts, have holiday homes or go abroad on expensive holidays, and/or buy lots of clothes, are the families (ie with children) on tax credits or benefits.

Everyone I know over 50 who hasn't had children, especially professional females who've worked all their lives, are really struggling financially and many are having to take minimum wage jobs just to pay the bills on their now-downsized homes.

Tax credits should have the same income qualification levels for everyone, whether or not people have children. At the moment the limits for people with children are vastly higher than for those without (something like £50,000 compared to £18000?? - I couln't find the actual amounts on the government's "calculator" website pages!). Child benefit is something else (though every 20s/30s mum I've ever known spent the child benefit on herself or on holidays abroad!).

Give the benefits and tax credits to people who deserve them, whether they have children or not, and take into account how many years' people have contributed into the government's coffers.

And/or get rid of the State benefits system for anyone reaching adulthood from, say, 2010 onwards & let people build their own financial pot of money. I'd be very well off now if that had been the case when I started work, instead of having to use every penny I've saved for years trying to keep a roof over my head!
:mad:

Fran

I was employed full time for over 30 years, a large proportion of which I was a "higher rate taxpayer"

With respect, if both you and partner were working all that time with a decent income you must have managed your money badly to be in the "poor" situation that you are portraying.

.. we've all considered moving abroad. Many of our child-free friends have already moved abroad and others are making plans to go.

That's good, the children that you resent paying for won't have to look after you in your older age and there will be more for the increasing pensioner population.

And what really angers me is that the majority of people that seem to be able to have 2 (or more) cars, drink and/or smoke copious amounts, have holiday homes or go abroad on expensive holidays, and/or buy lots of clothes, are the families (ie with children) on tax credits or benefits.

Is this what you have been fed or is this based on fact? Do you have access to other people's finances, because I don't know the true financial details of anyone.

Child benefit is something else (though every 20s/30s mum I've ever known spent the child benefit on herself or on holidays abroad!).

Deciding what they have spent the money on is in your imagination, your opinion of people with children is somewhat bigoted!

XRAT

Too many hard working people are unable to afford children, support should be through the ability to utilise both parents tax allowances. This would encourage at least one parent to work. It would also allow more families the choice whether they bring up latch key kids or have one full time carer. Most self employed people (and M.P.s) 'employ' their partners to achieve this already.
In this country we seem to encourage those who have no inclination to support their own offspring to provide the next generation. They in turn become an electorate who vote to perpetuate the situation.

JimmyTheWig

cavim wrote: »

the majority of people that seem to be able to have 2 (or more) cars, drink and/or smoke copious amounts, have holiday homes or go abroad on expensive holidays, and/or buy lots of clothes, are the families (ie with children) on tax credits or benefits.
...
(though every 20s/30s mum I've ever known spent the child benefit on herself or on holidays abroad!).

You must move in different circles to us, then.
Families around here can't afford to live without their child benefit. And I really can't imagine how someone on benefits could afford a holiday home.

Agree with Fran that something must have gone wrong with your finances. With all that high earning work you should have been able to pay off your mortgage.
And did you not redundancy insurance? Or is that not something you know about?

Louby_Lou85

I may go completely off on a tangent here ha but I think that the benefits available at the minute definately have the wrong priorities. I know people who have lived at their parents and wanted to move out, so have got pregnant so they can get a flat off the council quickly, and it doesnt matter to them because the council pay their rent, and they get child benefit etc. And it isnt fair that people who dont/cant have families are left to struggle on a low income or whatever just because they dont have kids.
Im on an income of less than £6000 because im a student, and because im a student (one without children may I add) i dont qualify for any benefits at all. Im struggling with the energy price increase at the moment, and british gas have a tariff for vulnerable people on low incomes, but alas its only for those who have children, or a disability or on council tax benefit. I dont pay council tax because im a student, but they sneakily class that as council tax exemption, not council tax benefit. So it looks like i'll freeze, like probably many others will this winter!
Is it just me being selfish? Or should something be done to even things out?

barnaby-bear

As far as tax allowances are concerned wouldn't it be easier to allow people to make their own decisions. We have a personal tax allowance of around 5k that reflects individuals have basic housing, food etc needs.

If a family choose to have one person working full-time and earning 40k (maybe by doing lots of overtime) they get one tax allowance and even partly taxed at 40% - but both earning 20k they double the tax allowance. The couple aren't earning any different and their basic needs haven't changed. How they distribute childcare/labour is a personal issue in my opinion. Actually this is independent of having children at all. Perhaps the tax system should reflect family units childless or not.

scootw1

Fran wrote: »

With respect, if both you and partner were working all that time with a decent income you must have managed your money badly to be in the "poor" situation that you are portraying.

You seem to be implying that this couple should have been saving all their money up for the time when they were unemployed. I think if you have a good job you should be able to at least enjoy that money, not just pay out for the bills and save it up for your old age.

Fran wrote: »

That's good, the children that you resent paying for won't have to look after you in your older age and there will be more for the increasing pensioner population.

The way this country is going I think a lot of the kids these days will join their parents as part of the sick/dole brigade

Fran wrote: »

Is this what you have been fed or is this based on fact? Do you have access to other people's finances, because I don't know the true financial details of anyone.

While not as extreme as the poster quoted I have found people on benefits to be living very well thank you very much. Out in the pubs all day, running a car, living in nice houses. And these are people who have never worked.

while there are obviously people out there with kids struggling to make ends meet there are also an awful lot who don't work or have never worked and have kids and live very cushy lives (and that was not fed to me, I can see it with my own eyes)

JimmyTheWig

Louby_Lou85 wrote: »

I know people who have lived at their parents and wanted to move out, so have got pregnant so they can get a flat off the council quickly

The worrying thing about this is that people believe it, and people do it.
The fact is there have been various posts on these boards over the last few months where teenagers have got pregnant and have found that they _can't_ just walk into a council flat. They are being offered run-down B&Bs in run-down areas.

This is a dangerous myth to perpetuate.