Migrants to UK 'returning home'

Really2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Do you think investing £250 now and another £250 in seven years time would cost the governemt more than subsidising university courses?

I would have thought your method would cost the government and the taxpayer more

I think it as more to do with the posters children's age. Perhaps missed the the trust fund and now getting near Uni age.:)

Harry_Powell

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No I don't, It was a response to my parent and their parent etc managed.
I was pointing out that it was not all rosy back in them days either, linked to the purpose of the child tax fund was to provide a financial benefit to the children when they get older and hence give them an oppertunity they may not have had otherwise.

It's an investment for the future, hopefully to reduce costs for the government later.



They could, but then the investment would not have the oppertunity to grow over the longer period



Do you think investing £250 now and another £250 in seven years time would cost the governemt more than subsidising university courses?

I would have thought your method would cost the government and the taxpayer more

I think the discussion really boils down to these two questions:

1. Do you think your childhood was deprived because your parents didn't receive childrens tax credits?

2. Do you think your chances of success in life have been ruined because you didn't receive a child trust fund?

(I've no idea of your age, but I'm in my mid 20's and my parents just received Child Benefit to assist in paying for their kids and I had to finance Uni myself. I feel I had a great childhood, even though we didn't have much money. I would prefer not to have student debt but it was my choice to go to university and it is me who will benefit from the course).

As far as the Child Trust fund is concerned. It can be spent on anything at all, and I would imagine that many young people will be having a damned good holiday on it. Rather than handing out £500 to every single child born from 2002 to the end of time, despite whether their parents are living in a sink estate or living in a mansion, I'd rather that it was spent in a targetted way that directly benefits the tax payer. Is that so wrong?

taxi97w

All nationals (at age 14 or so) and foreign nationals (within 5 days upon arrival) must report to their local council (with identification, visas etc) to have their details registered in the population register- the address of the citizen is included in this register. Citizen comes away with population register certificate and a tax file (NI) number
When moving house, you must report this to your new council office to get your address changed in the register.
If you aren't registered, you have no access to employment, a bank account, unemployment benefit, passport, vehicle registration, vehicle license, accommodation etc- as all government departments, in particular, have access to this database. You won't be able to do zip, in other words.

At least this way there is a vague idea of who's where and when. Along with a lot of other positive things to do with deception and false declarations.

MissMoneypenny

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You need to show a bank statement that belongs to a family member showing recent evidence of funds.

Previously it had to be your bank statement and the funds had to be there for some months demonstrating genuine solvency.

Anyone studying more than 6 months officially has no recourse to public funds. However they do get free unlimited NHS care, the right to work part time during term, full time in the holidays and an automatic two year working visa once their course has finished.

Not a bad deal considering you can still get on a full time course for £4000 a year in some places.

Plus students can bring dependants with them such as a wife and a parent and they too get free health care. I'm not sure if the dependants are allowed to work though.

MissMoneypenny

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Just another point on previous generations children.
Keep going back in time, think about films you may have seen like Oliver.
There were many children back then who were utilised unsaviouraly.

Did you not read / hear about young children having to leave school and work?

I trust you would not consider a return to these previous generations times

You don't have to go that far back. Tax Credits was Gordon's baby. No clue how to pay for it, but he implemented it.

Just going back to the late 90s, parents were encouraged to pay for their own children and to work to provide for them, instead of claiming. To help parents come to that decision, there weren't that many benefits to claim. All there was for those families out of work then was, mortgage interest payments, council tax paid, child benefit and income support of about £50 for the whole family to live on - food, bills clothing, the lot! You were allowed to earn another £15, no more or the benefits stopped. If you look on the benefits boards now, some people are trying to work out if it is worth their while working as their benefits are so good.

b0rker

My girlfriend is a Polish migrant so I know a lot of Poles.

I see no evidence of migrants returning home from Inverness.

I only know of one of our friends/acquaintances who has returned home in the past 2 years and that was a girl who ended up being ill.

If anything I am seeing Poles buying houses in Inverness as they see it as a good opportunity to get a discount.

Then again even people who have spent half of their lives growing up under communist control are not as pessimistic about life in general as our resident bears.

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I think the discussion really boils down to these two questions:

1. Do you think your childhood was deprived because your parents didn't receive childrens tax credits?

2. Do you think your chances of success in life have been ruined because you didn't receive a child trust fund?

(I've no idea of your age, but I'm in my mid 20's and my parents just received Child Benefit to assist in paying for their kids and I had to finance Uni myself. I feel I had a great childhood, even though we didn't have much money. I would prefer not to have student debt but it was my choice to go to university and it is me who will benefit from the course).

As far as the Child Trust fund is concerned. It can be spent on anything at all, and I would imagine that many young people will be having a damned good holiday on it. Rather than handing out £500 to every single child born from 2002 to the end of time, despite whether their parents are living in a sink estate or living in a mansion, I'd rather that it was spent in a targetted way that directly benefits the tax payer. Is that so wrong?

You are personalising this and it is great that you personally had a great childhood.
I did too and was brought up in a household with little or no money. Having a good childhood is not about money.

I didn't go straight to Uni (did open uni later in life), primarily because it was not instilled into me of that career path. My previous generations had never went to Uni so they did not have the knowledge to pass on and possibly financial implications was also a factor

There are a lot of children out there who are not as fortunate as ourselves. It's not their fault and you can put the blame on their parents if you want, hence the Child Trust Fund is about providing an oppertunity for their future, so that all have the oppertunity.

Your right, they could spend it on anything they want, clothes, holidays, cars etc, they could also use it for other things like university, start up a business, invest further, put towards a deposit for a flat

You argue the £500 could be better targetted in benefitting the tax payer, I'm sure it does to an extent, you just don't see it. I think there are far more ways that the tax payers money could be better spent.

Just one MP travelling economy class instead of travelling business class saves you the £500, let alone all the other wasted tax payers money.

We have different opinions, but Child Trust Fund is by far the worst way of utilising tax payers money.

IveSeenTheLight

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You don't have to go that far back. Tax Credits was Gordon's baby. No clue how to pay for it, but he implemented it.

Just going back to the late 90s, parents were encouraged to pay for their own children and to work to provide for them, instead of claiming. To help parents come to that decision, there weren't that many benefits to claim. All there was for those families out of work then was, mortgage interest payments, council tax paid, child benefit and income support of about £50 for the whole family to live on - food, bills clothing, the lot! You were allowed to earn another £15, no more or the benefits stopped. If you look on the benefits boards now, some people are trying to work out if it is worth their while working as their benefits are so good.

I would whole heartedly agree with you that there are too many benefits paid out and when it comes down to people choosing to work or continue to claim benefits based on whether it is worth coming off benefits then it is wrong.

The Child Trust Fund is not a benefit for these adults though, it's an investment for the childrens future.

Harry_Powell

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I would whole heartedly agree with you that there are too many benefits paid out and when it comes down to people choosing to work or continue to claim benefits based on whether it is worth coming off benefits then it is wrong.

The Child Trust Fund is not a benefit for these adults though, it's an investment for the childrens future.

I don't think you can be objective on this issue, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this ISTL.

Harry_Powell

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

We have different opinions, but Child Trust Fund is by far the worst way of utilising tax payers money.

I don't agree with you that it is by far the worst way of utilising tax payers money, but it is up there in the Top 10.