Should the tax and benefits system prioritise families? poll discussion

The_Rock-man

scootw1 wrote: »

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

And I know of some families where most of the benefit money goes on booze as well, so they cleary dont need it ethier.

[FONT=&quot]/sarcasticism off[/FONT]

Mary_Hartnell

bluegreenworld wrote: »

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.

Hi bluegreenworld,

You have my sympathy and my empathy. I have a sibling who had not one but two handicapped children. It is a pretty shattering experience and often does lead to marriage breakdown. In this case, the family pulled together and the system (with a lot of prodding and pushing) came up trumps. The local community also rallied round.
Obviously I cannot comment on your situation without knowing more about your child's disability and your living circumstances.
In the case of my family member, a local support group of similarly affected parents got together, largely funding itself with boot sales and exchanging tips on entitlements:
Educational needs assessments - attendance allowance - respite care etc.
"The system" sent the parents on two/three week long residential courses on how to bring up a handicapped child. This was really a course on how to be a parent that I would like to see given to all prospective/new parents. (BTW it warned about the dangers of wrapping the handicapped child in cotton wool, thus making it even less able to become independent of its parents and alienating the "neglected" normal child)
Grandparents rallied round financing summer holidays etc. as looking after a pre-school handicapped child is a full time job and most families need two incomes these days.

Ah well that was nearly 30 years ago, when the country was much poorer, with no oil but perhaps with less selfish people?

Fran

scootw1 wrote: »

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

The_Rock-man wrote: »

And I know of some families where most of the benefit money goes on booze as well, so they cleary dont need it ethier.

How are you both the experts on how other people spend their money? Do you really know this or are you making your own conlusions based on images in the media that portray this as usual practice?

The_Rock-man

[FONT=&quot]Hmm my second post isn’t that clear that it’s meant to be sarcastic reply to scootw1 comment, I fixed it now.
[/FONT]

scootw1

Fran wrote: »

How are you both the experts on how other people spend their money? Do you really know this or are you making your own conlusions based on images in the media that portray this as usual practice?

Yes I really know as I know the people on the benefits (sad as that may be)

Chrysalis

I expect this is a sensitive subject, I dont have kids and here is my point of view.

I respect that people with children need higher support in times of unemployment but I find it currently disproportionate, and there seems to be parents who believe they shouldnt make sacrifices but simply instead have the benefit system pay for extra costs.

The benefit system is supposed to be a safety net, eg. you get ill or lose your job it is there to make sure you have food on the table and a roof over your head, it may sound harsh but having a child is a choice and people often make that choice when they clearly would not be able to bring up that child without benefit help, like if they have no income.

Some child related benefits damage those without children, eg. the child tax credit. An employer can easier pay low wages with the tax credits system because the child tax credit system is generous, however the flaw is if you dont have children you only entitled to the much less generous working tax credit. Benefits such as job seekers allowance and incapacity benefit are now given out with strictness and claimants are regurly reviewed, child benefit is a unconditional benefit given out regardless of need, to qualify you simply need a child. Council housing, parents get priority over childless adults, an example a young mother who still lives with her parents would get higher priority than a single male/female who has no kids even if that single adult is in a worse financial situation. The recent leak about the £150 fuel payments for all with child benefit was a farce as well, I know many parents who even agreed it was unfair and uneeded. Then we have the payments to take your child to a doctor when it involves none or little cost and a parent shouldnt need paying to take their child for a checkup.

The message I get from the government is they consider been a parent as a full time job and they will pay the wages for doing it. I had also noticed after brown had his child all child related benefits got more generous as well.

So I got no problem with child benefit but I think all other child related benefits should be scrapped, people on child benefit to get regular checkups to see how they getting on and to ensure the child is in good welfare, if someone is then generally struggling still and its justified give them food vouchers for shopping.

I wont be liked for my reply but I feel parents need to be responsible, learn not to spoil their children (many do), instead of buying your 14 year old son trainers make him buy himself from paperound wages like I had to when I was a kid, taught me I had to work for cash and to respect my parents. It is not politically correct but there also needs to be some kind of limit on what benefits are paid out, we shouldnt be seeing unemployed people getting benefits for 3+ children.

Chrysalis

The_Rock-man wrote: »

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.

Thats a good point, the disabled actually have been treated aweful under nulabour they are the big losers. With IB been scrapped and DLA getting stricter.

justthisonce_2

I think the answer about prioritising familes for financial help is well answerd by questions about situations that pople find themselves in when they are no longer entitled to the child based cash. There are a couple of people on the benefit board at the moment who are finding themselves in quite dire straits financially because they are no longer getting child benefit and child tax credits. This money is a major part of their income, the loss of it causes a lot of problems.

I do wish people would stop suggesting that as a country we NEED to have children to look after the older generation etc. Personally we have made our own provision for our retirement, house would be sold to pay for care if needed, good pension plans yielding sufficient income for a modest but comfortable life.

We just need to stop paying people to have children because that is what it amounts to.

sphrp2

Just had a quick look at the results as they stand and at first glance they seem to suggest that the vast majority of people are in favour of prioritising families, but if you split the data into the different categories of respondents, it shows that although 82% of people with children at home support that notion, 75% of all other people disagree (including those that want kids in the future and those that have already been through looking after them). Funny that, eh?!

XRAT

"I do wish people would stop suggesting that as a country we NEED to have children to look after the older generation etc. Personally we have made our own provision for our retirement, house would be sold to pay for care if needed, good pension plans yielding sufficient income for a modest but comfortable life."

Dear Justthisonce,

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? If there is no next generation.., who are you aiming to pay with all your hard earned savings?

We, as a country, do need children. If only for the government to use them as cannon fodder to protect the whole country. We don't just need them as nursing staff for the elderly, we need them as a society.., farmers etc. etc.