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

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust. I did not read the other posters as saying low income families must buy cheap items. I read those posters as showing how easy it can be done on less than £500 which is a practical starting point for anyone who is subject to a limited budget. Looking at available capital and a list of cheap items gives more scope to then select item(s) that they want to be more extravagent on, instead of spending the lot on 1 or 2 items and then wondering where the rest is coming from.

JenniMc

Perhaps the £500 grant should only be given for the 1st child. If someone chooses to spend the money wisely then the majority of what they buy should be suitable for any other children they have. Obviously they will still have to buy new mattresses and a new carseat but I personally think people should be willing to fund at least some things themselves.

People don't need brand new stuff for every child. I'm planning on keeping my pram to use it if we have another baby. If we don't use it again then perhaps I'll be able to pass it onto a family member or friend to save them some money.

When DH and I decided to start a family, we never once thought about what money we'd get to buy stuff. We planned to buy it all ourselves. It ended up being less expensive than we thought as we did receive the £190 grant (we could have managed without it if needed) and family members also bought stuff or gave us money towards larger purchases.

I think everyone has the right to start a family but I find it difficult to understand why families relying on benefits have more than 1 or 2 children. DH and I might have 1 more and that is likely to be it as we couldn't really afford more than 2. I don't understand why some families don't stick to what they can afford.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

Deepmistrust. I did not read the other posters as saying low income families must buy cheap items. I read those posters as showing how easy it can be done on less than £500 which is a practical starting point for anyone who is subject to a limited budget. Looking at available capital and a list of cheap items gives more scope to then select item(s) that they want to be more extravagent on, instead of spending the lot on 1 or 2 items and then wondering where the rest is coming from.

Did you read my post where I have asked people, that disagree with the amount of the grant, to write to the DWP, and ask for how the £500 is costed?

Bear in mind, that they cannot cost for secondhand items such as bottles, mattresses etc. They will also be expected to cost for items that are suitable for use. Which is probably why they don't stipulate that everyone must only spend £49.99 on a pram from Argos (etc etc). They probably have costed for the fact, that a cheap rickety pram from birth is not always suitable, and not always the bargain it may first seem (hence my post about a similar mistake I made once).
There are many considerations when costing the grant. Put it this way, if you are in employment, you will receive £108 (ish) per week from the GOVERNMENT for 9 months by way of SMP. That amounts to several thousands of pounds (over 4 thousand pounds of taxpayers money). Those not in work, or otherwise eligble for the grant, do not necessarily qualify for SMP, may be, therefore entitled to (measley in comparison) a £500 grant of taxypayers money.

Those people entitled to SMP would not necessarily paid anywhere near the amount they are entitled to back (in the qualifying weeks) in NI contributions.

Deepmistrust

JenniMc wrote: »

Perhaps the £500 grant should only be given for the 1st child. If someone chooses to spend the money wisely then the majority of what they buy should be suitable for any other children they have. Obviously they will still have to buy new mattresses and a new carseat but I personally think people should be willing to fund at least some things themselves. Yes, but not practical always. What if the person didn't qualify for the first child. Hence, they may qualify for the second or subsequent children. Who knows when a person may end up in need? Not always is it at the point of the birth of their first child.

People don't need brand new stuff for every child. I'm planning on keeping my pram to use it if we have another baby. If we don't use it again then perhaps I'll be able to pass it onto a family member or friend to save them some money. Not always practical for people to keep prams etc. Especially if they don't always intend to have more children. These ideas are all very well in theory, but government cannot produce policy on the social fund, on these notions that everyone will do as you do. It just wouldn't work.


When DH and I decided to start a family, we never once thought about what money we'd get to buy stuff. What makes you think that is the first thought on the minds of those that also get the grants you also got? We planned to buy it all ourselves. It ended up being less expensive than we thought as we did receive the £190 grant (we could have managed without it if needed) Good, I'm happy your financial situation wasn't as dire as some families. and family members also bought stuff or gave us money towards larger purchases. and I'm happy you had a financially supportive and family to help you, unlike some families -

I think everyone has the right to start a family that's true, they do. Everyone, regardless of income has a right to procreate, should they so want to. but I find it difficult to understand why families relying on benefits have more than 1 or 2 children. But earlier you said you didn't consider the finances (as to where you could get money to buy stuff), so I'm confused, which is it? Was the finance grants relevant when you started a family or not? DH and I might have 1 more and that is likely to be it as we couldn't really afford more than 2. I don't understand why some families don't stick to what they can afford. Again, another contradicion, in one post you're saying they cost next to nothing, and the next they should only have 1 or 2 kids if they 'can't afford' more. Since when does any reproductive being consider every financial situation viable, when doing what comes most natural to any of us? If they choose to have more than they 'can afford'. Then they are unlikely to have a very high standard of living, so when the rest of us are abroad for our hols, or living in big houses, they aren't. They have already accepted what they can afford when they have the number of children they do.[/QUOTE]

Again, the logical conclusion of this kind of train of thought, is to either turn into China, or to sterilise poor people.

JenniMc

Deepmistrust wrote: »

JenniMc wrote: »

Perhaps the £500 grant should only be given for the 1st child. If someone chooses to spend the money wisely then the majority of what they buy should be suitable for any other children they have. Obviously they will still have to buy new mattresses and a new carseat but I personally think people should be willing to fund at least some things themselves. Yes, but not practical always. What if the person didn't qualify for the first child. Hence, they may qualify for the second or subsequent children. Who knows when a person may end up in need? Not always is it at the point of the birth of their first child.

It is true that people may not quality first time round. However, most of what they bought for that first child should be fine for the second so they still shouldn't need a £500 grant.

People don't need brand new stuff for every child. I'm planning on keeping my pram to use it if we have another baby. If we don't use it again then perhaps I'll be able to pass it onto a family member or friend to save them some money. Not always practical for people to keep prams etc. Especially if they don't always intend to have more children. These ideas are all very well in theory, but government cannot produce policy on the social fund, on these notions that everyone will do as you do. It just wouldn't work.

So is it more practical for the government to continue to give out £500 grants rather than have people store some items that they may use for future children?

When DH and I decided to start a family, we never once thought about what money we'd get to buy stuff. What makes you think that is the first thought on the minds of those that also get the grants you also got?

Can I just point out that we received the £190 grant but not the £500 grant so it is not 'grants you also got'. I'm not saying it is their 1st thought. I'm saying that it never came into our minds as we decided to have a baby when we were able to afford one.

We planned to buy it all ourselves. It ended up being less expensive than we thought as we did receive the £190 grant (we could have managed without it if needed) Good, I'm happy your financial situation wasn't as dire as some families.

Our financial situation was due to us both working fulltime hours plus overtime whenever it was available. It isn't just down to luck. I do feel sorry for people who struggle but not everyone helps themselves (please note that I'm talking about everyone).

and family members also bought stuff or gave us money towards larger purchases. and I'm happy you had a financially supportive and family to help you, unlike some families -

We were lucky but we would have paid for everything ourselves if needed. I have no problems buying second-hand stuff when needed. I would just have bought more of it if I had to.

I think everyone has the right to start a family that's true, they do. Everyone, regardless of income has a right to procreate, should they so want to. but I find it difficult to understand why families relying on benefits have more than 1 or 2 children. But earlier you said you didn't consider the finances (as to where you could get money to buy stuff), so I'm confused, which is it? Was the finance grants relevant when you started a family or not?

I'm not sure if you're really confused here or just trying to be awkward. I had considered our finances before starting a family to make sure WE could afford it. I didn't spend any time thinking about what the government would give us.

DH and I might have 1 more and that is likely to be it as we couldn't really afford more than 2. I don't understand why some families don't stick to what they can afford. Again, another contradicion, in one post you're saying they cost next to nothing, and the next they should only have 1 or 2 kids if they 'can't afford' more. Since when does any reproductive being consider every financial situation viable, when doing what comes most natural to any of us? If they choose to have more than they 'can afford'. Then they are unlikely to have a very high standard of living, so when the rest of us are abroad for our hols, or living in big houses, they aren't. They have already accepted what they can afford when they have the number of children they do.

I mean what people can afford themselves rather than needing the government to fund. Plenty of people don't live in big houses or go abroad every year. I know that I don't. I'm not talking about every family anyway. There are families that work hard and do whatever they can to provide for their kids themselves. However, there are also families that have more kids than they can afford to look after without completely relying on the government. I just don't agree with it.
[/QUOTE]

Again, the logical conclusion of this kind of train of thought, is to either turn into China, or to sterilise poor people.

I'm not suggesting either of those options!! I just think people depend too much on the government. Out of curiousity, does anyone know how many other countries give out these kind of grants?

Percy1983

You will find there is people who make a living off having children so they are infact being paid to have children.

I am not against help for families with disabled children, as I say I won't have any children until I can support them (called forward planning), now a disabled child can cost more and isn't something you can plan for. Basically if you can't afford children don't have them you can control that, if a child is disabled and to which there is little you can do about that then any help with additional costs is fair.

You may say who am I to decide who has the rigthh to do what, to which I agree but can you not see that letting some people have children is actually wrong?

You argue its everybodys right to have as many children as they like, but what about the rights of those children who are being brought into the world not for love but because mum and dad (if both present) can't be bothered going to work?

Basically for what is 2 children (me and my brother) being brought up in a stable home with parents who both worked which seems to have rubbed off and made 2 adults with a work ethic, there is probably 2 geneations of chav's (6-10 of them) which have never worked and claimed just about everything they can in that same time period.

Keep that going a few more generations and we will have more none working chavs than working people (see groeth in benifts bill over the years).

So a license to have children may work out, eg:

A couple who ahve been together 5 years and can finacially support children... approved
A 15 year old chavette wants a kid (father not important) so she can get a house init.... denied

Does that really sound like such a bad idea?

Yes call me a Nazi, but you talk about human rights, but I should have the right not to support the scum of this country and pay for them to generate an army of scum while I do the sensible thing and earn everything I want and god forgive bring my children up in a stable evironment (financially and emotionally).

For all the rights people have there should be responsibilities, eg you have the right to have children, but you are responsible for hose children financially.

Deepmistrust

JenniMc wrote: »

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I'm not suggesting either of those options!! I just think people depend too much on the government. Out of curiousity, does anyone know how many other countries give out these kind of grants?

I'm going to just break this down into shorter quotes - for ease.

"I didn't spend any time thinking about what the government would give us."

Yet you imply that others (that qualify for the Sure Start grant, must therefore be thinking about what the governmen give them.

"So is it more practical for the government to continue to give out £500 grants rather than have people store some items that they may use for future children?"

Why or where would families (possibly in temporary accomodation, or flats) store numerous big items, in the off chance they one day might have more children. That is even assuming the equipment is of any use. For example, assuming a parent buys that £49.99 pram, what is to say it is of any use after 4 years of use with child number 1? (which also takes me back to my point about buying quality, rather than the false economy of buying bargain rickety prams).

But my main point is, which no one has even attempted to refute, or investigate: Is why would government policy be dictated to the hairbrained ideas being offered on here? Surely this grant is costed, so that reasonable quality goods, that can be expected to last a reasonable amount of time, can be sourced to meet the expense that a new baby brings. I sincerely doubt the civil servants that cost this up, are about to consider the multiply 'what if' scenarios being offered on here. Hence, it has been decided that £500 is what it costs as a start up.

Even assuming a bargain pram, why is everyone also ignoring other expenses such as a Real Nappy system, cot, mattress, sterilising equipment, bottles, wardrobe, bedding, car seat, clothing etc, anyway?

"Can I just point out that we received the £190 grant but not the £500 grant so it is not 'grants you also got'. "

Ok, but principle is the same, you qualified, and claimed a grant to which you were entitled. Moot point.

"However, there are also families that have more kids than they can afford to look after without completely relying on the government. I just don't agree with it."

Of course there will always be people who 'cannot afford' the children they have. Should they be denied family and parenthood? That isn't what I want my so-called civilised country to do. The fact remains, lots of families qualify for assistance (yours too). Which is why I find your argument hypocritical, in the least.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

You will find there is people who make a living off having children so they are infact being paid to have children.
I suggest that you understand the difference between accepting a wage in return for labour or service, and accepting financial assistance to raise your families, when in need. So no, *infact* they are not being paid to have children. Not in any meaningful sense. Unless of course you are attempting to suggest that anyone in receipt of any form of state assistance is being *paid* by the state to have children?


I am not against help for families with disabled children, as I say I won't have any children until I can support them (called forward planning), now a disabled child can cost more and isn't something you can plan for. Basically if you can't afford children don't have them you can control that, if a child is disabled and to which there is little you can do about that then any help with additional costs is fair.
Some people don't even plan non-disabled children *shock horror*. So no, planning is not always the means in which children are born.

You may say who am I to decide who has the rigthh to do what, to which I agree but can you not see that letting some people have children is actually wrong?
Are you a troll?

You argue its everybodys right to have as many children as they like, It's not what I argue. That is fact. For a government to remove a persons right to procreate, is an infringement of their rights (something the people of China already suffer). but what about the rights of those children who are being brought into the world not for love but because mum and dad (if both present) can't be bothered going to work?
That is the biggest non-sequitur yet. That some parents don't work (never even mind whether it's a matter of whether they can be bothered or not) does not equate to not possessing love for their children.

Basically for what is 2 children (me and my brother) being brought up in a stable home with parents who both worked which seems to have rubbed off and made 2 adults with a work ethic, there is probably 2 geneations of chav's (6-10 of them) which have never worked and claimed just about everything they can in that same time period. Utter meaningless baseless rubbish.

Keep that going a few more generations and we will have more none working chavs than working people (see groeth in benifts bill over the years).Utter meaningless baseless rubbish.

So a license to have children may work out, eg:

A couple who ahve been together 5 years and can finacially support children... approved
A 15 year old chavette wants a kid (father not important) so she can get a house init.... denied

Does that really sound like such a bad idea?

I don't even think I'll dignify that with much of a response, except to say, if that is what you genuinely believe, then, it's people like you that are in fact (your words) scum.


Yes call me a Nazi, but you talk about human rights, but I should have the right not to support the scum of this country and pay for them to generate an army of scum while I do the sensible thing and earn everything I want and god forgive bring my children up in a stable evironment (financially and emotionally). Personally I am more afronted by the idea that fascist morons like you exist in civilised societies tbpfh.

Do you have any idea what Social Darwinism is?

For all the rights people have there should be responsibilities, eg you have the right to have children, but you are responsible for hose children financially. What on earth do you know about rights? Aside from pathetic whims that you have to impinge upon rights?[/QUOTE]

Seriously, read up on Social Darwinism, and at least understand what you are.

DaisyChainMaker

I was a single parent when I had my first child (not going into the circumstances) and I never got any grants at the time. (Many years ago). I worked, and saved and bought 2nd hand, or accepted items for the baby from family or friends. My son didn't want for anything, and the pram I had was very old fashioned (big old silver cross pram), but wow was it great.

I do think that there are far too many grants, benefits now. As others have said, you don't need new, or the best things. Perhaps people are becoming too dependent on such grants and feeling they are entitled to new or best of everything. A baby needs love and security... not a brand new top of the range pram etc

Percy1983

I believe China has got the right idea on controlling the population, can you honestly say that the population of humans as a species (not just this country) can continue to grow forever. Would you say I am wrong that a limit of 2 children would actually be a good idea and stabilise the population aswell as clearing the problem of people making a living out of having children?

So maybe I am pushing as social darwinism, but if the population keeps growing it will be forced anyway as we outstripe resources.

I will full accept its not an exact science, but hardworking families create hardworking children which go on the make hardworking families, while none working families go on the make none working children.

So to put things into place to reduce the none working and tax the hard working less while stabilising the population is actually a sensible thing to do for the future.

The way things are going we will eventually have more not willing to work than who are willing to work and limited resources to go round, what should we do at that point?

You keep telling me I am wrong, but you aren't giving me another way of sorting the problems we have.

I do like you angle of calling me (somebody has worked my whole life and planning a family I can afford) scum while the chavs who are bleeding this country dry aren't.