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

Deepmistrust

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

But like so many other threads other things start to come up in the debate. Thats the point I made, when I asked why does every thread relating to benefits end up with the self righteous brigade implying anyone that receives benefits is some kind of scrounger. Those types of people are the minority. Please tell me honestly, are you expecting benefit policy to be centred around the likelyhood of a minority of people abusing it?

This is not a safety net for the needy.

As has been said before the country cannot afford to do this, the money would be better spent on the needs of today e.g. better education etc.
There are a godzillion other ways to stop waste, rather than looking to get it from low income families. Bankers and wars, spring to mind.

Still, lets go after the pregnant woman on benefits. Much easier.

Caroline73_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

It shouldn't even be a choice between one or the other. It doesn't follow that once CTF's have been abolished that Vasectomy will be available free on the NHS.

No it shouldn't be a choice. I just didn't understand the irony that the Government won't fund a £250 vasectomy (when all other forms of contraception are free) but they are happy to shell out £250 on a CTF voucher as well as other grants/benefits and the medical.

wendles1965

What about all the money that has been put in so far are we allowed to take it out.

ultrawomble

wendles1965 wrote: »

What about all the money that has been put in so far are we allowed to take it out.

I doubt it since it belongs to the child.

Deepmistrust

Caroline73 wrote: »

No it shouldn't be a choice. I just didn't understand the irony that the Government won't fund a £250 vasectomy (when all other forms of contraception are free) but they are happy to shell out £250 on a CTF voucher as well as other grants/benefits and the medical.

I agree fully, it should be funded. All 'female' contraception is fully funded, i.e. sterilisation, the pill etc.

Caroline73_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I agree fully, it should be funded. All 'female' contraception is fully funded, i.e. sterilisation, the pill etc.

Our PCT wouldn't fund sterilisation either, but they would have given me a termination or caesarean section if I got pregnant. No logic.

ultrawomble

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

But like so many other threads other things start to come up in the debate.

This is not a safety net for the needy.

As has been said before the country cannot afford to do this, the money would be better spent on the needs of today e.g. better education etc.

The country cannot afford to do a lot of things.

We give HM the Queen £7.9 million a year - can we afford that?

The current administration have pledged a "Triple guarantee" that the basic state pension is to rise by whichever higher of average earnings increase, price inflation or 2.5%, from next year. RPI is 5.3% at the moment - can we afford that guarantee?

Bashing the CTF is easy because the money is paid to the child. It seems that parents are quite willing to bash the CTF because they don't get their hands on the money, but if you were to suggest stopping paying them another universal benefit that actually passes through their hands - something like child benefit at ~£20/week (over £1000 per year) then I don't think you'd find much favour.

The government want us all to save and invest for our futures so giving a new baby a £250 kick start doesn't seem too bad to me.

ultrawomble

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Labour stole money from children. It was one of the first things Brown did.

Children were encouraged to save their birthday and christmas money with Building Society clubs and were then rewarded with shares. Divs on shares are paid with tax taken off and it [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] was up to the parent to claim the childs tax back (as they didn't earn enough money to pay tax). Gordon came in and said the children couldn't have their tax back.

Can you get any lower than stealing from children?

:eek:

Yes, we the tax-payer did benefit from Gordon's actions against the monies saved up from children's birthdays and secular/non-secular festivals. :beer:

But lo! he felt guilty about that and decided to repent by rewarding every child in the Kingdom with a shiny CTF voucher at birth and again on their 7th birthday from the kindness of the tax-payer who'd benefited previously by his wicked actions. :A

Sadly, it would appear that a new bad man has appeared in town and stolen money from children again.


(see what I did there )

vaporate

They have to scrap it. saves 520 million. Less debt.

Parents should pay for their own children. No handouts.

mary671

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Still, lets go after the pregnant woman on benefits. Much easier.

Have read these posts with interest, I am surprised you refer to the self righteous brigade having yourself been so vocal.

My assumption (and I stand to be corrected) is that you benefit greatly from welfare handouts yourself hence your stance on digging your heels in if anyone else says different.

No one wants to see any child in poverty. What most citizens want is a fairer system. We all have choices, and if a couple decide to have children then it is their responsibility to feed, clothe and house that child (as millions of us have done previously) without the reliance on welfare. How on earth do you think we coped before all these benefits were introduced? We did without luxuries knowing we had extra mouths to feed. This generation of expecting everyone else to pay for their decisions has to end.