Should the tax and benefits system prioritise families? poll discussion

JimmyTheWig

scootw1 wrote: »

You seem to be implying that this couple should have been saving all their money up for the time when they were unemployed.

If they had of done (and/or had a decent insurance policy in place) then they would be better off now, wouldn't they. From that respect, yes they should!
Maybe their problem was their insurance advisor.

Mary_Hartnell

As a society living on an overcrowded unsustainable island, we do need enough children to avoid a collapse of our society.
Children cost a fortune to raise in this technological puberty lasts till you're 25 society.

So I am against subsidising people who have more than 2 children.

I believe that raising children is the most RESPONSIBLE job you do in a life time;
So I expect that every child should be the first priority of TWO adults, and a child does better with a MALE in its life.
As the African saying goes "It takes a whole village to raise a child", so the majority of children should have the support of a family (especially grandparents) and a community of adults.

Obviously this takes money BUT the relationships, role models and support are much more important, than simply throwing money at the situation.

This ideal just demonstrates how far we are from it in this island, and we wonder why in spite of our wealth we come well down in the polls of quality of life. We have some stressed unhappy delinquent feral children.

As they say of dogs "There are not bad dogs only bad owners".
.

Mary_Hartnell

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

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.

Well it was 20 years ago so perhaps times have changed?
It was a good flat too, one that would have taken two mature salaries to buy.

Fran

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

I know of an example - in the club and in a flat at 17. Well it was 20 years ago so perhaps times have changed?
It was a good flat too, one that would have taken two mature salaries to buy.

Clearly at the age of 17 there were other issues and this person was very vulnerable.

bluegreenworld

I was blessed :A with a special needs child and if it wasnt for the tax and benefits system I wouldnt be able to survive as I cannot work due to the severity of his challenges.

Perhaps it is difficult to get these polls fine tuned enough to deal with the variations of human beings and doings out there...

If it were,:A I think I would change my vote to say that people with children ought to at least show that they can sustain some sort of acceptable support for their children - but hey, I didnt book a special needs child its just the way he is and I lost my job because no nursery could handle his needs.:A

Mozette

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

As a society living on an overcrowded unsustainable island, we do need enough children to avoid a collapse of our society.
Children cost a fortune to raise in this technological puberty lasts till you're 25 society.

So I am against subsidising people who have more than 2 children.

I believe that raising children is the most RESPONSIBLE job you do in a life time;
So I expect that every child should be the first priority of TWO adults, and a child does better with a MALE in its life.
As the African saying goes "It takes a whole village to raise a child", so the majority of children should have the support of a family (especially grandparents) and a community of adults.

Obviously this takes money BUT the relationships, role models and support are much more important, than simply throwing money at the situation.

This ideal just demonstrates how far we are from it in this island, and we wonder why in spite of our wealth we come well down in the polls of quality of life. We have some stressed unhappy delinquent feral children.

As they say of dogs "There are not bad dogs only bad owners".
.

That very much depends on the type of male. There are plenty of responsible single parents, and there are plently of irresponsible couples with children.
A child does better with decent responsible parent(s), of whatever sex.

bluegreenworld

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

As a society living on an overcrowded unsustainable island, we do need enough children to avoid a collapse of our society.
Children cost a fortune to raise in this technological puberty lasts till you're 25 society.

So I am against subsidising people who have more than 2 children.

I believe that raising children is the most RESPONSIBLE job you do in a life time;
So I expect that every child should be the first priority of TWO adults, and a child does better with a MALE in its life.
As the African saying goes "It takes a whole village to raise a child", so the majority of children should have the support of a family (especially grandparents) and a community of adults.

Obviously this takes money BUT the relationships, role models and support are much more important, than simply throwing money at the situation.

This ideal just demonstrates how far we are from it in this island, and we wonder why in spite of our wealth we come well down in the polls of quality of life. We have some stressed unhappy delinquent feral children.

As they say of dogs "There are not bad dogs only bad owners".
.

What about people who, like me, seek help and support for a disabled child and simply get threatened with jail and not further support when he is not attending school adequately ? There are no extended members in my family who would have my child or offer me any support so my marriage collapsed. What next? Put me in jail because 20 or 30 others I know wouldnt offer me any help?

Who educates parents these days where extended families have become units of 2 isolated adults?

And forgive me for being a bit angry, but am I supposed to give my child to a better family to satisfy your requirements of having an extended family who will help? Wouldnt that just add another trauma to his life - which is pretty poor as it is.

The dog idea doesnt hold water as I have a healthy child who is fine and this little chap who is falling apart.

The_Rock-man

MSE_Lawrence wrote: »

Poll started 8 September 2008:

Should the tax and benefits system prioritise families?

The benefits and tax credits systems provide more support and finances for families or single parents with children rather than singles or couples without

• The arguments for include: Bringing up children is costly and can be difficult. This helps provide better welfare for the nation’s children, to ensure all can start on a stronger footing.

• The arguments against include: People shouldn’t have children unless they can afford them. In an overpopulated planet why should those who choose to not have kids be financially disadvantaged? We all contribute via taxation we should all gain equally.

Excluding the specific child benefit, and looking more at family tax credits and benefits, which of these is closest to your situation and view?

A. My kids live at home: Families should be prioritised
B. My kids live at home. Families should NOT be prioritised
C. Kids have left home: Families should be prioritised
D. Kids have left home: Families should NOT be prioritised
E. No children but hope to have one day: Families should be prioritised
F. No children but hope to have one day: Families should NOT be prioritised
G. No children & don’t plan on any: Families should be prioritised
H. No children & don’t plan on any: Families should NOT be prioritised

Please vote here, or click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

Voted F: Why where here goes,
My main problem here is with this one statement "Should the tax and benefits system prioritise families?" This means that no matter what the familes should get first cut of the benefit cash from what I can tell. What about the disabled that need more money to pay for help etc. A C E & G all say shove them they dont matter as much as families.
IMO it a baddy defined poll, where only B, D, F & H should be picked just because of this one thing. If it said Familes prioritised over healthy singles or couples without children then I would said E.

As you can see your saying Families are more importent than anything else the Tax & Benefits system is for, where really it should be to make life decent for all that need more money then they earn for what ever reason.

scootw1

What about the disabled that need more money to pay for help etc

Not all disabled people need extra money for help. I know a lot of "disabled" people who go drinking all day long so they obviously don;t need it

Mary_Hartnell

Fran wrote: »

Clearly at the age of 17 there were other issues and this person was very vulnerable.

I only met the person in question once and admittedly I got most of the background working with "big sister". Their parents were in cramped housing, possibly because they had come to England as economic migrants and therefore did not have many points with the council.
Big sister had worked hard both at school and out in the world of work and boot strapped her way to affording a "studio" flat in London in her mid twenties. Her nose was a bit out of joint to find her sister the centre of attention with her parents and living in subsidised accommodation, twice as valuable as hers, living on benefit.
As I say this was 20 years ago and the system is, I believe more slanted towards need rather than patience on the waiting list. So if one fatherless child does not work have two to stay the centre of attention.