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

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

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?
No, it wouldn't be a good idea. Never mind the fact you are calling for the numbers to be limited according to income. So let's not pretend you are doing this for humanity. If you really thought people needed culling for the good of the Earth, then you wouldn't do it according to income. *I really had to explain that*.

So maybe I am pushing as social darwinism, but if the population keeps growing it will be forced anyway as we outstripe resources.
There is a reason that the pseudo-science of social darwinism has been debunked an infinite number of times, by minds far brighter than yours.

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.
You clearly have no understanding of genetics either *shock*.

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. Non-sequitur.

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? Yes, that's right. Cull all the lazy wealthy people, and leave hard working low-income families alone. For once you might have had a bright idea. *sarcasm*

You keep telling me I am wrong, but you aren't giving me another way of sorting the problems we have.
As the problems we have lie in far greater scenarios that you seem to be able to comprehend (i.e. no, the poor of the world are not responsible for any destruction of the earth). There will never be a scenario in which you are right. Not in this respect, for sure.

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. You are scum for your ideas of social darwinism, and your ideas that poor people = scum. Not for whether or not you work hard. I actually do pity you.

Please read something.

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

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?

Yes and as I said before I did not read their posts in the same way you appear to have taken offence at. As to how it is costed, I have no idea. As to what it should be, I haven't and will not state a figure.

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).

The record is getting stuck here with a £49.99 pram. They do not stipulate how the money should be used at all for any item. What is in their list is unknown - it could just be what we can all agree are basics or it could include a wider range of items.

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.

Not sure why you raised this as a point - there is an obvious flaw to your case here. Those getting SMP are more often than not taking a reduction in income (which perhaps with an unplanned pregnancy cannot afford). Those not in work get a bonus payment they would otherwise have not got. Looking at the figures realistically, the worker is expected to plan ahead and is automatically assumed to be able to manage on a reduced income, while the non-worker is rewarded with extra for making no personal effort.

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.

Agree. The main point here is that they have made some effort to pay into the system.

I very much doubt this grant will be dropped at the budget. If the Government were to reduce child benefits in some way, I would suggest £545 baby addition is more likely to go and the maternity grant have an increase.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

I very much doubt this grant will be dropped at the budget. If the Government were to reduce child benefits in some way, I would suggest £545 baby addition is more likely to go and the maternity grant have an increase.

"Yes and as I said before I did not read their posts in the same way you appear to have taken offence at. As to how it is costed, I have no idea. As to what it should be, I haven't and will not state a figure."

Taken offence? Countering smears against people on means tested benefits, is actually allowed. But you seem to have a lot to say on the price of prams, and this grant, so I assumed at least some basic knowledge as to how it's costed, surely?

"The record is getting stuck here with a £49.99 pram. They do not stipulate how the money should be used at all for any item. What is in their list is unknown - it could just be what we can all agree are basics or it could include a wider range of items."

As I've stated, no one has mentioned any other items that I've listed, instead the people involved in this discussion DO INDEED seem stuck on the notion of a cheap pram. In addition to the list of basics I've quoted, I guess there are other costs that are taken into account also.

"Not sure why you raised this as a point - there is an obvious flaw to your case here. Those getting SMP are more often than not taking a reduction in income (which perhaps with an unplanned pregnancy cannot afford). "

How on earth does it matter whether their tax-funded payments will mean a fall or a rise in income? The principle remains, that the taxpayer funds SMP (those who qualify) to the tune of £4k per pregnancy (not including WTC/CTC and CB) and the lower income familes receive a £500 per pregancy (also not including WTC/CTC and CB).Besides the grant is a one off payment, not a regular income. I suppose this is a perfect example of not applying a principle equally.

"Agree. The main point here is that they have made some effort to pay into the system."

And where does eligibility for the Sure Start grant imply that *those* people have never paid *into* the system? Particularly as the NI contributions are based upon a narrow window of an eligibility period.

And as the NI contribution to receive SMP can be as low as £10 per month, then I fail to see how you justify that as an 'attempt' whereas imply that those in receipt of Sure Start grants, are less worthy as they haven't contributed this amount in the qualifying period.


On a slightly different aspect. All those in favour of cutting benefits because of they myth that "the country can't afford it", I sincerely hope they are as vocal when opposing Trident, or troop deployments to foreign countries, or the bailing out of the banks - only for them to continue to crush small businesses whilst still taking whopping bonuses. And it goes without saying, that I hope the likes of the Social Darwinist up there includes those MP's who have done very nicely out of the taxpayer, when wittering out "scum" insults on the internet.

shegirl

:rotfl::rotfl:wardrobes are essential for babies now are they?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I really do wonder what planet you are on.

Ps seeing as you keep going on about cot mattresses I suggest you look around,they can cost under £40 NEW so that's not going to bump the cost up to £500 is it

Deepmistrust

shegirl wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:wardrobes are essential for babies now are they?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I really do wonder what planet you are on.

Ps seeing as you keep going on about cot mattresses I suggest you look around,they can cost under £40 NEW so that's not going to bump the cost up to £500 is it

you're not quite understanding this are you?

It's not a matter of what YOU think is 'essential'. But what has been deemed as essential, and costed as such.

Fortunately, the world does not rotate to the tune of what you think should and shouldn't be so. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
So time to leave fluffy land, and realise that this isn't what you think should be so.

And, again the silly mattress comment is about as relevant as your ridiculous bargain pram one.

Percy1983

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.
You clearly have no understanding of genetics either *shock*.

Clearly you have no understanding of the effects of environment over genetics in the development of a child, parents actions are seen as 'normal'... claiming benefits... not going to work...

You keep telling me I am wrong, but you aren't giving me another way of sorting the problems we have.
As the problems we have lie in far greater scenarios that you seem to be able to comprehend (i.e. no, the poor of the world are not responsible for any destruction of the earth). There will never be a scenario in which you are right. Not in this respect, for sure.

Please tell me then what this far greater problem is, as much as you assume I am not intelligent you maybe surprised.

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. You are scum for your ideas of social darwinism, and your ideas that poor people = scum. Not for whether or not you work hard. I actually do pity you.

I have not labelled all poor people as scum, You will find that if 2 unskilled people go out and work they can pay there way in life. Yes by definition they maybe poor but they are earning there money and I don't mind some of the schemes to put a bit more money in there pockets, but it would be better just to increase the minimum wage.

The scum I am referring to are the bone idle chavs who are poor due to being bone idle, why should a penny of my money go to them.

If anybody is willing to do there bit I have every respect for them, but there is many who have never worked and never will and plead poverty.

I must add you say people don't get paid to have children, yet if you do nothing then you have children you income goes up...

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.
You clearly have no understanding of genetics either *shock*.

Clearly you have no understanding of the effects of environment over genetics in the development of a child, parents actions are seen as 'normal'... claiming benefits... not going to work...

Don't be absurd. You are implying that by some kind of licence to have children (ridiculous idea on it's own, can't actually believe I am dignifying it with responses), however, that reliance on state welfare can be breeded out. Regardless of whether a parent is in receipt of some financial assistance, does not follow (why is this board full of non-sequitur, after non-sequitur) that the children of those low income families will necessarily not work? Well done, way to insult the children of working class low-income families, tell them they are predisposed to a life on benefits. Jesus.



You keep telling me I am wrong, but you aren't giving me another way of sorting the problems we have.
As the problems we have lie in far greater scenarios that you seem to be able to comprehend (i.e. no, the poor of the world are not responsible for any destruction of the earth). There will never be a scenario in which you are right. Not in this respect, for sure.

Please tell me then what this far greater problem is, as much as you assume I am not intelligent you maybe surprised.

There are numerous problems on this planet, and there are very few of them that you can attribute to the actions and 'choices' of poor people. If you can't come up with one or two of these situations, then i doubt the second part of your last sentence.



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. You are scum for your ideas of social darwinism, and your ideas that poor people = scum. Not for whether or not you work hard. I actually do pity you.

I have not labelled all poor people as scum, You will find that if 2 unskilled people go out and work they can pay there way in life. Yes by definition they maybe poor but they are earning there money and I don't mind some of the schemes to put a bit more money in there pockets,
We are discussing those people in receipt of Sure Start Maternity grants, upon which you added your twopenneth worth, by calling for restrictions on breeding for people in receipt of benefits. Your memory isn't that poor surely?

"but it would be better just to increase the minimum wage. "
Yes it would be nice to increase the minimum wage. But let's not pretend the goverment have *that* much control over corporations.
The entire capitalist system requires a plentiful of unemployed workers, in order to keep wages down and competition for jobs fierce, in the first instance. There will always been unemployed, as long as we have this system. So, how would you propose to ensure they didn't starve and their children didn't have to beg?


The scum I am referring to are the bone idle chavs who are poor due to being bone idle, why should a penny of my money go to them.
Righto, so now you're talking about a minority of a minority. That's really interesting (not), but I do despair as to why any topic surrounding any type of state assistance from the Social Fund always has to result the same predictable whining about the minority of abusers (any system will always have workshy abusers, the answer is not to get rid of the system, but to prove to even the most workshy how much better off they would be in work).

If anybody is willing to do there bit I have every respect for them, but there is many who have never worked and never will (talking about a minority of recipients again, and not relevant to discussion as a whole. The Sure Start Grant is not about to be scrapped because you think there are some people who won't work) and plead poverty.

I must add you say people don't get paid to have children, yet if you do nothing then you have children you income goes up...
As does their outgoings. And it is still not paying people to have children, no matter how many times you reassemble your sentence.

I'm curious to see your attack on *real* wastes of money too btw. You could start with the hardworking expense-fiddling MP's, or even Trident if you want to be exotic. Perhaps we could move onto deployment of troops to foreign countries for oil? Or we could just start with the rip-off of the century; How the banks got billions to splash out on bonuses?

I eagerly await.

kelloggs36

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I'm curious to see your attack on *real* wastes of money too btw. You could start with the hardworking expense-fiddling MP's, or even Trident if you want to be exotic. Perhaps we could move onto deployment of troops to foreign countries for oil? Or we could just start with the rip-off of the century; How the banks got billions to splash out on bonuses?

I eagerly await.

If a person claiming income support has another child, they get increased tax credits because of this. If a working person has another child, does their employer give them an extra £55 per week because of this? No, they don't, the worker has to swallow the costs - their outgoings also increase, but they don't get extra money - maybe child benefit, but so does the person on benefits get that too, so the non-working person gains an extra C£55 per week income per child they have. I think that if a family has already children and finds themselves out of work through no fault of their own, then of course they should get helped as much as possible, but to choose to have more children when already on benefits? I don't think that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for these choices - if they work and have more children then great, but they are then supporting themselves to some degree, but not whilst fully on benefits.

Deepmistrust

kelloggs36 wrote: »

If a person claiming income support has another child, they get increased tax credits because of this. If a working person has another child, does their employer give them an extra £55 per week because of this? No, they don't, the worker has to swallow the costs - their outgoings also increase, but they don't get extra money - maybe child benefit, but so does the person on benefits get that too, so the non-working person gains an extra C£55 per week income per child they have. I think that if a family has already children and finds themselves out of work through no fault of their own, then of course they should get helped as much as possible, but to choose to have more children when already on benefits? I don't think that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for these choices - if they work and have more children then great, but they are then supporting themselves to some degree, but not whilst fully on benefits.

A working person will still have their WTC increased (assuming they qualify for WTC) upon the birth of another child. WTC are paid to working families. IS is paid to non-working families.

As I've asked the previous poster, what do you suggest the children of unemployed workers eat, if (correct me if I'm wrong) as you seem to be calling for no benefits to be paid to non-working families if the child was born during a period of unemployment?

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust
It looks like you are answering every post on here!

To take your points aimed at me.

Taken offence? Countering smears against people on means tested benefits, is actually allowed. But you seem to have a lot to say on the price of prams, and this grant, so I assumed at least some basic knowledge as to how it's costed, surely?

You took exception to the pram suggested by another poster and gave a reason why that pram may not be practical in your own situation. I stated that I had used a similar pram that lasted. I expanded on your questions, not that I had to give any detail. For the grant I have said I did not claim it and even if I had, I would not have spent as much as £500 (I would have spent what I actually did spend). I also stated how I interpretted the posts you had been responding to and made it clear I have no intention of quoting an amount. If that is having a lot to say on the matter, so be it.

I have clearly stated I have no idea how it is costed. I do not for a minute think there is a single list of items adding up to £500, more likely they have come up with several lists from different shops and just taken an average.

As I've stated, no one has mentioned any other items that I've listed, instead the people involved in this discussion DO INDEED seem stuck on the notion of a cheap pram. In addition to the list of basics I've quoted, I guess there are other costs that are taken into account also.

I have just answered the questions you raised to me. I can quite happily give a list of what I bought, what I chose not to buy and rough ideas of prices, so yes I agree it could be what is on your list plus more. As I said earlier though, a list of cheap items is a good starting point - whatever the budget, it is easier to see how much is left to then change some of the items to more expensive ones.

How on earth does it matter whether their tax-funded payments will mean a fall or a rise in income? The principle remains, that the taxpayer funds SMP (those who qualify) to the tune of £4k per pregnancy (not including WTC/CTC and CB) and the lower income familes receive a £500 per pregancy (also not including WTC/CTC and CB).Besides the grant is a one off payment, not a regular income. I suppose this is a perfect example of not applying a principle equally.

We will have to agree to differ on this one. I see no reason why weekly income should be increased just for being pregnant, but at the same time I can see why some reduction is given for those in qualifying employment to have a reduced income.


And where does eligibility for the Sure Start grant imply that *those* people have never paid *into* the system? Particularly as the NI contributions are based upon a narrow window of an eligibility period.

You are complicating matter unnecessarily here, although yes there are lots of different possibilities. I've stuck to comparing a median income earner to one permanently on benefits as that is far more simple for basic comparisons.

And as the NI contribution to receive SMP can be as low as £10 per month, then I fail to see how you justify that as an 'attempt' whereas imply that those in receipt of Sure Start grants, are less worthy as they haven't contributed this amount in the qualifying period.

No, I spot the obvious - workers are given a proportion of their earnings, unemployed keep 100% of theirs. Neither have any changes to their weekly expenses, unless you believe the old eating for two (apologies if you want to be pedantic - worker will save the cost of going to work).