Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

POPPYOSCAR

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I sincerely doubt Shegirl or even many 17 year olds chose to fall pregnant. People make mistakes, that's life. We shouldn't force babies to sleep in drawers and clean chimneys because of it.

And on a seperate line; Without children being born, there would be no one to support you in your old age.

And using this logic, I assume that you want to wipe out most of the third world too?

My Chimney Sweep isn't forced to do it as far as I know, judging by the amount I pay him!!!

Deepmistrust

shegirl wrote: »

Oh you really make me laugh!!!

The Sure Start Grant (and the equivilant £100 one I received at 17) is means tested. I was refering to child benefit, hence the comment was in response to you child benefit point, come on, keep up.

The HiP grant isn't used on food.As stated,there were also several 'what are you doing with yours' threads on parenting sites,out of hundreds upon hundreds of replies not one single person was using it for it's purpose.IT is intended to promote health in pregnancy not anything else!It also should not be needed. Wow, yes a few replies on an internet forum qualifies you to declare that HiP isn't needed, by people...that need it hahaha.

Never had a CTF and wouldn't want one.MY responsibility to provide for my son and the whole scheme is absurd and the money is better spent elsewhere. I'm not overly keen on CTF, however, that's my choice. There are plenty of wastes of money in central government, the CTF is way down the list. Of course it's your responsibility to care for your child, but benefits are their to help with the costs of raising children, I assume you don't take your child benefit either then, as you seem so opposed?

Lowering the amount of a Sure Start Grant will not equate to naked children in shop doorways begging for food!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm taking your argument to it's logical extreme. BTW, you accepted a grant 11 years ago, ever heard of inflation?

*Awaits next furious rant demaning sterilisation of poor people.*

Deepmistrust

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

My Chimney Sweep isn't forced to do it as far as I know, judging by the amount I pay him!!!

I do hope you pay at least the minumum wage

shegirl

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I sincerely doubt Shegirl or even many 17 year olds chose to fall pregnant. People make mistakes, that's life. We shouldn't force babies to sleep in drawers and clean chimneys because of it.

And on a seperate line; Without children being born, there would be no one to support you in your old age.

And using this logic, I assume that you want to wipe out most of the third world too?

I was 16 when I fell pregnant,and no it wasn't intended...I intended to never have kids :rotfl:

Babies wouldn't be forced to sleep in drawers etc But basics are what those who cannot afford otherwise should have.

I know people want to have what others have but with life it just doesn't happen like that.Some have more some have less.

The fanciest pram shouldn't matter.

Baby doesn't care if all his/her stuff is Winnie the Pooh or any other matching items!

You do what you an but within your limits.Handing out £500 and for each child does not promote living within your means and does not assist with the desire to do better for yourself so you can have the things you want rather than the things you have to settle for.

The Government needs to cut money.In order to do this,ridiculous things need to go,amounts of money that can easily and reasonably be lowered should be.

DaisyFlower

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I sincerely doubt Shegirl or even many 17 year olds chose to fall pregnant. People make mistakes, that's life. We shouldn't force babies to sleep in drawers and clean chimneys because of it.

And on a seperate line; Without children being born, there would be no one to support you in your old age.

And using this logic, I assume that you want to wipe out most of the third world too?

Firstly my post was a general one and not aimed at anybody as you have implied.

Secondly, yes people make mistakes but it doesnt mean they cant support their own family. Having a child does not render somebody uncapable of working.

Whilst we do need a set number of children to pay into the "pot" many never will as the benefit lifestyle continues generation after generations in some families.

Who mentioned the third world? I doubt they get financial benefits so its a completely different set up to start with anyway.

I must be old fashioned according to you then, I believe if a person is ault enough to bring a child into the world they should be adult enough to know that they have to work to support it.

shegirl

Deepmistrust wrote: »

*Awaits next furious rant demaning sterilisation of poor people.*

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

This was hundreds of women!!!Given what normally occurs on parenting forums I'd say it was a darn good example.

There really is no need at all for the HiP grant.NONE.

Yes I've heard of inflation.But you know what,secondhand seems to be getting cheaper compared to years ago.Also,11 years ago where was Ebay (may have exsisted but certainly not used to the extent it is now),where was Freecycle,where were all the means we now have of selling or freely giving away items including those for babies?

Ps No I'm not opposed to child benefit.It could be something to be considered for cuts for those above a certain income though I suppose but means testing that would no doubt result in higher costs due to administration.

£190 for every woman who gets pregnant every year adds up to quite an amount of unneeded money being spent!

ultrawomble

shegirl wrote: »

No.Hypocrisy would be to say that it's disgusting that any money is given by way of a Sure Start Grant.Not saying that the money should be less,means should be lived within and new should not be expected -certainly not at the expense of the state- and that it shouldn't be given for every child.

There's a world of difference.

So I take it that you'd like to see this benefit (perhaps all benefits?) returned to their level of 11 years ago? You're obviously annoyed that people are getting a means tested £500 Sure Start Grant whereas you only got £100 and no CTF voucher. I expect that there are people on this forum who think that what you received was too much at the time. Their opinion is as valid as yours. Perhaps you were given too much. Are they right?

liam8282

shegirl wrote: »

Where have I said others are not deserving?

That is the impression you put across, especially with comments about how you heard about 1 person buying cds etc.

Not all people who receive it will abuse it.

shegirl wrote: »

I have stated that it should be less than it is and not handed out for every child popped out not that it should not exsist!

Are you talking about the same grant??

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/moneytaxandbenefits/benefitstaxcreditsandothersupport/expectingorbringingupchildren/dg_10018854

It is not handed out for every child popped out, as you put it.

It is probably the same equivalent of what you received 11 years ago.

POPPYOSCAR

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I do hope you pay at least the minumum wage

Yes - and then some!!!!!!!!

Deepmistrust

shegirl wrote: »

I was 16 when I fell pregnant,and no it wasn't intended...I intended to never have kids :rotfl: That's what I was getting at, that I doubted it was intended.

Babies wouldn't be forced to sleep in drawers etc But basics are what those who cannot afford otherwise should have. Maybe we should make poor children wear special hats too, just in case their rags didn't give them away?

I know people want to have what others have but with life it just doesn't happen like that.Some have more some have less. Yes, and a sure start grant isn't exactly opening doors to middleclassdom for folk is it?

The fanciest pram shouldn't matter. Where is this obsession with fancy prams come from? Anyone I know that has been given the grant, has a basic, often 2nd hand pram. A fancy pram would almost wipe out the grant, most people who genuienely need the grant have a long list of stuff they need; Cot, bedding, clothing, steriliser, bottles, nappies etc etc, and stretch it out accordingly.

Baby doesn't care if all his/her stuff is Winnie the Pooh or any other matching items! Huh? Relevance?

You do what you an but within your limits.Handing out £500 and for each child does not promote living within your means and does not assist with the desire to do better for yourself so you can have the things you want rather than the things you have to settle for. But it does help out a low income family meet some costs at an expensive time in their lives.

The Government needs to cut money.In order to do this,ridiculous things need to go,amounts of money that can easily and reasonably be lowered should be. Yes, we could start with illegal wars, foreign aid, and clawing back the case that the bankers have ripped us off for. But no, hey, lets dress poor children in rags instead Yippee!:rotfl:

Everytime you post, I feel that humanity disappears slightly more.