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

Percy1983

To put it quite simply if you decide your not going to contribute ever you should have enough for basic accommodation (4 walls, roof, heating and running water) and basic food. You should not have enough money for Sky TV, Flatscreen TV's PS3's etc.

The end of the day the lifestyle of the the unemployed should not be comparable to me and my better half who have worked hard for qualifications and the jobs that follow, but it is. You can make a living out of having children and that is a pure and simple fact, you should not be able to make a living out of the government all the government should do is help you survive. All luxuries should have to be earned not reward for doing nothing.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

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

I'm answering all those who have quoted my words and replied.

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. No, actually no pram is practical in my situation, I have no need for a pram. I said it may not be practical in many peoples situation (and I supported this from previous experience of buying unsuitable prams myself), a significant difference to being 'offended' (how odd to assume I was offended), and nor was it relevant to whether the pram suits MY purpose. I stated that I had used a similar pram that lasted. Your experience differs, then your needs probably differed from mine (and others), did you have to use the pram 7 days per week, 5 of which involving a several mile round trip accross various terrain on a daily basis to do your school run? And did the pram survive from newborn until 4 years of age, if so, then yes, the Argos pram must be for you, a true bargain. (rhetorical, there is no need to 'expand' on your needs). I expanded on your questions, not that I had to give any detail. You offered any detail, I was never prying into your life, though you seem overly interested in the number of children I have, and how I make my purchases, and seem like you can judge whether I should be able to buy a new pram or reuse an old one, out of my own bleedin' money. I 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. Basically, you have your needs, you accepted one grant (£190), and I think (I am attributing this to the right person i hope?) you also said you had family who also financial supported you, by buying some equipment. Yet, you seem to have issues with the amount of £500 granted to low income families? Does that seem a fair summary?


I have clearly stated I have no idea how it is costed. Then, fair enough, how do you suppose to be able to tell those in receipt of it what they should or shouldn't buy, or more to the point tell them that £500 is too much, if you haven't seen how it is costed? How do you know that other expeneses are not also included? Or more relevantly, that the government has to use a method of costing for these goods to ensure that everyone can access them. I.e. not everything can be sourced second hand. And not everything can be sourced at the rock bottom price.

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. Weekly income is not increased for being pregnant. The grant is a one-off payment to help with expenses. Not weekly living costs. If you mean AFTER the birth, then the taxpayer funds those on SMP, aswell as those on IS. I too, would expect a reduced income, if my employers had to replace me for 9 months, and I didn't actually have to go to work in that time.


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. Nope, I'm stating one very likely scenario. The only complication is your refusal to accept that receipt of the grant does not necessarily mean that they haven't ever paid into 'the system', but rather they haven't paid enough in the small 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.

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 (assuming you mean they have both just had babies I dispute they have no change 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) But workers on maternity leave are not working, they are in receipt of state benefit (SMP) Even a mother previously on IS is not classed as unemployed, she wouldn't need to be signing on - she is equally entitled to her 'maternity' as any mother. I fully support SMP, but then I fully support the Sure Start grant for low income families if they so need it too, I also recognise that in both cases, both mothers are in need of some financial assitance (possibly), and that a civilised country like the UK can, and should offer it.

To be honest, you've not really cut to the chase in any of this. I'm thinking that you dont support the Sure Start grant (correct me if I'm wrong), but you do support the HiP grant (as you benefitted from it)?

You do support tax-payer funded maternity pay to working mothers, but not to those mothers in recepit of Sure Start grants?

daska

sh1305 wrote: »

There is nothing to stop someone on CB benefits filling in a HC1 form - help with health costs.

Sorry, I think you ought to go back and re-read what I actually posted. I'm not suggesting cutting help with health care costs. I'm specifically referring to the perks which claimants of CB based benefits CAN'T apply for on means tested grounds. As help with Health Care costs can be applied for I fail to see how your comment is at all relevant.

daska wrote: »

I'd cut all the add on perks which are automatically paid if you qualify for an 'income related' benefit but which can't be claimed for on means tested grounds by someone receiving the 'contribution based' equivalent.

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust. I will answer your comments by all means but you are totally confusing your judgment of me by attributing posts to me which are not mine.

These are the comments you have aimed at me but were made by another poster:
-Assumption I have said £500 grant is too much.
-Assumption I have said what £500 grant should be spent on - nearest I have come on that one is to say start with cheapest list and see what is left to change some items to more expensive ones.
- I have never received the £190 grant.
- I did not state family helped out.

From that you have somehow managed to assume I have issues with the £500 grant.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

Deepmistrust. I will answer your comments by all means but you are totally confusing your judgment of me by attributing posts to me which are not mine.

These are the comments you have aimed at me but were made by another poster:
-Assumption I have said £500 grant is too much.
Then what are you arguing against? I have repeatadly asked for clarification, in fact I've already asked you to clarify this one.
-Assumption I have said what £500 grant should be spent on - nearest I have come on that one is to say start with cheapest list and see what is left to change some items to more expensive ones.
- I have never received the £190 grant.
- I did not state family helped out. I did indeed use brackets to ask if this was you, rather than scroll back through pages and pages. I'm sorry you missed the question in my last post.

From that you have somehow managed to assume I have issues with the £500 grant. NO I asked a question. It's right up there asking for clarity in bold letters.[/QUOTE]

I really did highlight the fact that I was asking for clarity in what you were actually arguing for/against.

I'm still none the wiser. I am genuinely interested if you would just clarify what your argument is for/against?

EDIT: Having scrolled back another poster made those comments in the middle of various posts between me and you. So of course I apologise if you think I was stating you had said them, (though in fairness I did ask for clarification in my last post, to save scrolling back - which I've already done now anyway). I'm replying to several people who are quoting me on here, to be honest, names are not that memorable. So if I occassionaly misattribute something to another person, then I am sorry.

LizzieS_2

No, actually no pram is practical in my situation, I have no need for a pram. I said it may not be practical in many peoples situation (and I supported this from previous experience of buying unsuitable prams myself), a significant difference to being 'offended' (how odd to assume I was offended), and nor was it relevant to whether the pram suits MY purpose.

We do agree on the underlying focus of this one. You've given an example
of why a cheap pram is unsuitable and I've given an example to say sometimes it is. Overall we are both agreeing the pram cost is different for different circumstances.
Your experience differs, then your needs probably differed from mine (and others), did you have to use the pram 7 days per week, 5 of which involving a several mile round trip accross various terrain on a daily basis to do your school run? And did the pram survive from newborn until 4 years of age, if so, then yes, the Argos pram must be for you, a true bargain. (rhetorical, there is no need to 'expand' on your needs).
Overall I think the underlying question is answered in my above comment. For specifics, I did have to use the cheap buggy on the terrains you state but not to the same extent. Would it have lasted in the situation you state? I cannot answer other than when I did use rocky terrains it survived the journey without obvious damage.
You offered any detail, I was never prying into your life, though you seem overly interested in the number of children I have, and how I make my purchases, and seem like you can judge whether I should be able to buy a new pram or reuse an old one, out of my own bleedin' money.
I did not say you were prying although I accept it could have come across that way. Yes I did ask you how many children you had - I think you took that one the wrong way, I hadn't checked previous posts to the one you mentioned giving away prams (did not know the number) and just had visions of prams being replaced willy nilly. I accept it is your choice and your money, my other comment was purely that I see replacements sometimes as a waste (must be the eco in me!). And yes I suppose you can say the same about me using a pram then a buggy.

Basically, you have your needs, you accepted one grant (£190), and I think (I am attributing this to the right person i hope?) you also said you had family who also financial supported you, by buying some equipment. Yet, you seem to have issues with the amount of £500 granted to low income families? Does that seem a fair summary?
I think we have cleared this one up as the comments were not mine.
Then, fair enough, how do you suppose to be able to tell those in receipt of it what they should or shouldn't buy, or more to the point tell them that £500 is too much, if you haven't seen how it is costed? How do you know that other expeneses are not also included? Or more relevantly, that the government has to use a method of costing for these goods to ensure that everyone can access them. I.e. not everything can be sourced second hand. And not everything can be sourced at the rock bottom price.
I think you were basing this one on the assumptions in last comment. I have answered how I think it is worked out - averages of different shops.


Weekly income is not increased for being pregnant. The grant is a one-off payment to help with expenses. Not weekly living costs. If you mean AFTER the birth, then the taxpayer funds those on SMP, aswell as those on IS. I too, would expect a reduced income, if my employers had to replace me for 9 months, and I didn't actually have to go to work in that time.
We agree on income not being increased due to pregnancy. I wasn't commenting on the grant at all here - just weekly income. For simplicity I was meaning before birth (after birth the mothers costs do not increase, the babys does but this may or may not be paid by tax credits depending on income). I wouldn't expect employers to give full pay either - point was just that only the working mothers had a reduction to income.

Nope, I'm stating one very likely scenario. The only complication is your refusal to accept that receipt of the grant does not necessarily mean that they haven't ever paid into 'the system', but rather they haven't paid enough in the small window of an eligibility period.
I am not refusing to accept the permatations (of which this is one of many), all I said was to keep it simple - reason being that other posters may come up with umpteen different scenarios and somehow the basics can be lost.

(assuming you mean they have both just had babies I dispute they have no change to their weekly expenses),
as earlier I was only focusing on before birth to avoid complexities of who receives what for babies needs.

But workers on maternity leave are not working, they are in receipt of state benefit (SMP) Even a mother previously on IS is not classed as unemployed, she wouldn't need to be signing on - she is equally entitled to her 'maternity' as any mother. I fully support SMP, but then I fully support the Sure Start grant for low income families if they so need it too, I also recognise that in both cases, both mothers are in need of some financial assitance (possibly), and that a civilised country like the UK can, and should offer it.

Agree SMP & IS. Sure Start grant I agree with the first child. For subsequent children I am divided as I see the merits of both yours and others comments.

Edit. Sorry I forgot to add questions from your later post.

I am not arguing at all although sometimes it appears that way lol. I made one statement followed by answering what you replied to me. I hope you can see from the above answers that perhaps we have more agreement than you had originally thought. Overall I pretty much agree with the grant. As to how it is spent, I do feel that not everyone thinks through carefully what they actually do need and become unstuck (budgetwise) too soon (applies to both those with grant and those without).

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

No, actually no pram is practical in my situation, I have no need for a pram. I said it may not be practical in many peoples situation (and I supported this from previous experience of buying unsuitable prams myself), a significant difference to being 'offended' (how odd to assume I was offended), and nor was it relevant to whether the pram suits MY purpose.

We do agree on the underlying focus of this one. You've given an example
of why a cheap pram is unsuitable and I've given an example to say sometimes it is. Overall we are both agreeing the pram cost is different for different circumstances.
Your experience differs, then your needs probably differed from mine (and others), did you have to use the pram 7 days per week, 5 of which involving a several mile round trip accross various terrain on a daily basis to do your school run? And did the pram survive from newborn until 4 years of age, if so, then yes, the Argos pram must be for you, a true bargain. (rhetorical, there is no need to 'expand' on your needs).
Overall I think the underlying question is answered in my above comment. For specifics, I did have to use the cheap buggy on the terrains you state but not to the same extent. Would it have lasted in the situation you state? I cannot answer other than when I did use rocky terrains it survived the journey without obvious damage.
You offered any detail, I was never prying into your life, though you seem overly interested in the number of children I have, and how I make my purchases, and seem like you can judge whether I should be able to buy a new pram or reuse an old one, out of my own bleedin' money.
I did not say you were prying although I accept it could have come across that way. Yes I did ask you how many children you had - I think you took that one the wrong way, I hadn't checked previous posts to the one you mentioned giving away prams (did not know the number) and just had visions of prams being replaced willy nilly. I accept it is your choice and your money, my other comment was purely that I see replacements sometimes as a waste (must be the eco in me!). And yes I suppose you can say the same about me using a pram then a buggy.

Basically, you have your needs, you accepted one grant (£190), and I think (I am attributing this to the right person i hope?) you also said you had family who also financial supported you, by buying some equipment. Yet, you seem to have issues with the amount of £500 granted to low income families? Does that seem a fair summary?
I think we have cleared this one up as the comments were not mine.
Then, fair enough, how do you suppose to be able to tell those in receipt of it what they should or shouldn't buy, or more to the point tell them that £500 is too much, if you haven't seen how it is costed? How do you know that other expeneses are not also included? Or more relevantly, that the government has to use a method of costing for these goods to ensure that everyone can access them. I.e. not everything can be sourced second hand. And not everything can be sourced at the rock bottom price.
I think you were basing this one on the assumptions in last comment. I have answered how I think it is worked out - averages of different shops.


Weekly income is not increased for being pregnant. The grant is a one-off payment to help with expenses. Not weekly living costs. If you mean AFTER the birth, then the taxpayer funds those on SMP, aswell as those on IS. I too, would expect a reduced income, if my employers had to replace me for 9 months, and I didn't actually have to go to work in that time.
We agree on income not being increased due to pregnancy. I wasn't commenting on the grant at all here - just weekly income. For simplicity I was meaning before birth (after birth the mothers costs do not increase, the babys does but this may or may not be paid by tax credits depending on income). I wouldn't expect employers to give full pay either - point was just that only the working mothers had a reduction to income.

Nope, I'm stating one very likely scenario. The only complication is your refusal to accept that receipt of the grant does not necessarily mean that they haven't ever paid into 'the system', but rather they haven't paid enough in the small window of an eligibility period.
I am not refusing to accept the permatations (of which this is one of many), all I said was to keep it simple - reason being that other posters may come up with umpteen different scenarios and somehow the basics can be lost.

(assuming you mean they have both just had babies I dispute they have no change to their weekly expenses),
as earlier I was only focusing on before birth to avoid complexities of who receives what for babies needs.

But workers on maternity leave are not working, they are in receipt of state benefit (SMP) Even a mother previously on IS is not classed as unemployed, she wouldn't need to be signing on - she is equally entitled to her 'maternity' as any mother. I fully support SMP, but then I fully support the Sure Start grant for low income families if they so need it too, I also recognise that in both cases, both mothers are in need of some financial assitance (possibly), and that a civilised country like the UK can, and should offer it.

Agree SMP & IS. Sure Start grant I agree with the first child. For subsequent children I am divided as I see the merits of both yours and others comments.

Edit. Sorry I forgot to add questions from your later post.

I am not arguing at all although sometimes it appears that way lol. I made one statement followed by answering what you replied to me. I hope you can see from the above answers that perhaps we have more agreement than you had originally thought. Overall I pretty much agree with the grant. As to how it is spent, I do feel that not everyone thinks through carefully what they actually do need and become unstuck (budgetwise) too soon (applies to both those with grant and those without).

Fundamentally, I don't think we are disagreeing too much.

The problem with faceless forums, as it's very easy to pick up on minor points in a persons argument.

I do apologise for misattrributing quotes to you - I hope you accept why I did so (responding to several posters).

The crux of my argument is really against those people who claim that the grant is too high or unneeded at all. Or that those people in receipt of it are 'scroungers' (some of the vitriol towards low income families, who receive state assistance, on these threads, is often baseless, unjustified, hypocritical, and often down right disgusting (especially for the people calling for some kind of 'breeding licence'). I also apologise if you think I was lumping you in with those kinds of people.

The fact remains the grant is costed by the government to take into account average costs of what is deemed essential for a baby. What is deemed essential is always going to be subjective, so the people who demand that it can be done by buying a £49.99 pram (etc etc), aren't accounting for the fact that at some point the government has to come to a cost accross the board, of all claimaints. Some people (as you rightly state) will always need more than others (some people may well have family to help them out, or a pram from an earlier child in storage),but this grant can't be costed to account for all these multiple scenarios.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, and again, sorry for any confusion around who posted what.

Percy1983

No response to my last post? (433), really would like to know what I have got wrong with that one?

POPPYOSCAR

Percy1983 wrote: »

No response to my last post? (433), really would like to know what I have got wrong with that one?

oh Percy, don't.... Please don't encourage him!!!!!!

LizzieS_2

Hi Deepmistrust

No need to apologise, I think we got a little stuck over the pram.

Even if the parents have always lived on benefits, I do not believe it is fair to deny a baby. If parents do not cater for baby's basic needs then that is a matter for social services - not a reason to withdraw this benefit for everyone else.

Looking at starting totally from scratch I have listed items which parents as a whole find as essential buys before birth (and probably missed some):

Mothercare Cot bed bundle 2 cellular blankets, 2 flannelette sheets, 2 jersey fitted sheets £35
Argos cheapest cotbed £110 plus mattress £30
Mothercare 10 newborn bibs £6
Mothercare cheapest travel system suitable from birth including car seat £136
Mothercare 10 piece starter set (3 sleepsuits, 3 bodysuits, 1 hat, 2 pairs scratch mitts, 1 pair bootees) £15
Baby monitor cheapest argos £23
Mothercare microwave steriliser £15 & 6 pack of bottles argos £18
Mothercare bath set (bath, top n tail bowl, sponge, cuddle robe, thermometer) £23
Changing bag – join boots parenting club & get one free when you buy nappies otherwise at least £15
Argos wardrobe & drawers (full size are more practical long-term than the novelty nursery ones and are usually cheaper) £160
Argos thermometer £5
Argos baby grooming set £4
Cotton wool balls – around 50p
Free samples of toiletries usually in bounty packs (some full size)
Mothercare changing mat £7
cot bumper - not priced as they are not really recommended

I make that £492.50 for buying in nearly every instance cheaper products (ok I admit I highly rate mothercare bedding). Some of the above are on offer so I avoided busting the budget.

Other products that many parents buy in the first 12 months:
Baby gate
High chair
Car seat for 6+ months