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

Percy1983

My point is you say that people are claiming what they are entitled to, my argument is:

Why are they entitled to it? what have they done to deserve such benefits.

Its great you are the great defender of the benefits system and all those who use it, but do you not feel that you taxs shouldn't be paying for the lifestyle the unemployed seem to get whcih in many cases can be better than those who do choose to work?

The whole benefits system needs a shake up and less money needs to go out, not to save money (great side effect) but purely based on the fact that many receiving the money have done nothing to deserve the money they are being given.

You make out I want to keep the rich up and the poor down, this is far from the case. I want there to be a separation between workers and none workers, I want people to take responsibility for themselves not expect everybody else to pay for them.

Is that really such a bad ideal?

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I wish someone who actually thinks about their argument could put one forward.

You may actually find you are the one with a closed mind here, you dismiss everything I say as wrong point blank, while I am purely displaying an opinion and trying to understand yours. Yes maybe I will never understand but right now I can't see why you have any motive to want things to stay how they are?

Just think about it, yes I could be completely wrong, but what if it is in fact you who has got it wrong? what if the best solution is somewhere in the middle?

daska

liam8282 wrote: »

You are only considering childcare, when I did mention other benefits including this.

It is wrong to try and manipulate what somebody has written by extracting only part of a sentence and to ignore everything else.

I would say a £144 per week benefit is a massive benefit in anyones eyes, also when you start to add this to WTC, CTC, Child Benefit, rent reduction, the list goes on..................


However, in the case you mentioned where the person is going out to work, I do think that they are the people that the current benefits system was designed to support.


But at the moment is far to easy for people to abuse and gain from.

I quoted your post without annotating it. It is wrong to try and manipulate what somebody has written by claiming they've done something they haven't.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

My point is you say that people are claiming what they are entitled to, my argument is:

Why are they entitled to it? what have they done to deserve such benefits.
You hadn't actually made that point, at all.
In fairness, your last post refered to 'fraudsters'. Not even a topic I am interested in, when discussing the benefits systems (I have already stated that fraudsters will exist whatever system there is - they are a minority, and government policy around benefits is not dictated to, by the fact that there will always be a minority of fraudsters - there are procedures already in place to deal with those people). In fact, it wasn't even something was being discussed. Really, your comments were ridiculous, especially the one where you asked if I was one.

Its great you are the great defender of the benefits system and all those who use it, but do you not feel that you taxs shouldn't be paying for the lifestyle the unemployed seem to get whcih in many cases can be better than those who do choose to work?

I'm no defender of "the benefits system". At no point have I defended the benefits system. You clearly haven't read single post I've wrote objectively. If I'm defending anything it's the RECIPIENTS of benefits. As it's usually people like you attacking people like them, because you dislike the system. There is no logic in that.

In addition, where is this absurd notion that the unemployed are living the life of riley come from? Have you even survived on unemployment benefit? And if so, did you find yourself with more money than people in work?
Even people in lowpaid work are assisted by tax credits. So I truly fail to see, how unemployment benefit is somehow preferable. I certainly wouldn't want to live on just £65 per week.

The whole benefits system needs a shake up and less money needs to go out, not to save money (great side effect) but purely based on the fact that many receiving the money have done nothing to deserve the money they are being given.

What is this "deserve" you keep bringing up? Do you think that to claim benefits, you should have done something remarkable? People have rights, and they expect their governments to create provision for people in society who are out of work (for whatever reason). This doesn't involve lavishing them in riches. But they get basic assistance with housing costs which usually cover only the lowest rents, and in return they are expected to be seeking work. They are penalised if they refuse to seek work. For even the die-hard unemployed (those that blatantly refuse to seek work), well you can rest assured at least in the knowledge that they will never better their standard of life, they will never improve their job prospects, and they will remain poor, (yes poor), for their entire lives. If they so choose to remain on the breadline, then I pity them already. But I would not starve them, or their children, as I value our society far more than that.

You make out I want to keep the rich up and the poor down, this is far from the case. I want there to be a separation between workers and none workers, I want people to take responsibility for themselves not expect everybody else to pay for them.

Again, my discussion related to (originally with Liam) Working Tax Credit (WORKING being the key word). I haven't made anything of the sort out, as I haven't (till now) had to defend the strawman arguments that you are producing. Most people DO take responsibility for themselves. Again you are attacking the people, because you think there is a fault with the system.

What do you mean "a seperation"? Do you want to tattoo numbers onto the unemployed, so we can point at them and laugh?
I don't understand where you are going with this, and have you taken it to it's logical conclusion? I tend to find you must take your argument to it's logical conclusion in order to figure out if it is ethical or moral, and to where it will lead. The logical conclusion is (as you seem to be looking for some kind of removal of JSA?), that we will still have unemployed people (a capitalist system will only ever survive if there are more workers - or would be workers to you- than jobs) so, we shall stigmatise and starve the unemployed, and their children? Is that really what you want?

Is that really such a bad ideal?
See above.


You may actually find you are the one with a closed mind here, you dismiss everything I say as wrong point blank, while I am purely displaying an opinion and trying to understand yours. Yes maybe I will never understand but right now I can't see why you have any motive to want things to stay how they are?

Like I said you have to take your beliefs to their logical conclusion. You very much should like you want some kind of serious reduction, if not scrapping of many benefits that the unemployed receive. I would genuinely like to see your conclusion of what will happen when you drastically slash the £65 per week they receive.

The classic mistake in your post, is claiming that I want "things to stay as they are". Please stop misattributing arguments to me, I have never implied that I want things to stay as they are. On the contrary, I want to see a change to the entire system. Not so much the benefits system, but the entire system, that keeps people unemployed in the first place.

In that respect, I'm even more radical than you. But that is for another argument.

Just think about it, yes I could be completely wrong, but what if it is in fact you who has got it wrong? what if the best solution is somewhere in the middle?

You need to stop seeing the unemployed as your enemy. The working person has many enemies, and the unemployed and the poorest people in the country, are not one of them.

liam8282

Deepmistrust go back and read my posts, specifically read the point:

"These are just my opinions on the subject, if people disagree with them or have a differing opinion fine. No need to break down every sentence that somebody writes and try to get a full explanation of it."

It is clearly you whittering on about your facts about this and facts about that, when everything you are writing is your own, heavily biased opinion.

I don't have a problem with your opinion, just that you are trying to pass off everything you say as fact, and whatever you say is right and if anyone disagrees they are surely wrong.

It appears you just want the last word in your petty rant, so I'll leave it for you to whitter on to hearts content.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Deepmistrust go back and read my posts, specifically read the point:

"These are just my opinions on the subject, if people disagree with them or have a differing opinion fine. No need to break down every sentence that somebody writes and try to get a full explanation of it."

It is clearly you whittering on about your facts about this and facts about that, when everything you are writing is your own, heavily biased opinion.

I don't have a problem with your opinion, just that you are trying to pass off everything you say as fact, and whatever you say is right and if anyone disagrees they are surely wrong.

It appears you just want the last word in your petty rant, so I'll leave it for you to whitter on to hearts content.

I'm sorry, did you think you could post up the falsehoods that you base your bigotted opinions in, and expect them to be uncountered?
(yes you actually did say, amongst many that unemployed people got 'free childcare'). It's not my problem if you can't distinguish facts from opinions. The only person attempting (poorly) to pass off opinion as fact is yourself.

Just because you can't have the internet to yourself, to whine about benefits recipients without having your smears countered, is no reason to have a meltdown.

LizzieS_2

mumps wrote: »

I brought up four, marked the things I never had, lots of the other stuff was given to me as presents. I didn't have car seats for first two as we didn't have a car.

Just thought I would mention this, mine are all grown up and I don't have much of an opinion on what people should get now.

I created a list based on what people generally find essential before the birth of their first. In all honesty I did not buy some of the items on that list either.

LizzieS_2

liam8282 wrote: »

Personally, I don't agree with people profiting from any form of benefits, (my personal idea of profiting would be earning more in benefits than they would from a full time job on minimum wage).

Neither do I. What is wrong though:
1) Are benefits too high?
2) Are wages too low?

Two couples move into identical houses. Couple A are on benefits and are able to reclaim rent under the Local Housing Allowance Scheme. Couple B work and are unable to qualify for rent as they are not high priority, they take a mortgage out instead.

Both rent and mortgage is £138pw. Council Tax is £15.34pw.

Couple A remain on benefits and produce 2 children. Couple B also produce 2 children and one parent now stays at home to look after the children.

Couple A
102.75 income support
138.00 housing benefit
33.70 child benefit
15.34 council tax benefit
98.84 child tax credit
388.63 total net income
138.00 rent
15.34 council tax
235.29 net income after housing costs

Couple B
200.71 earned income (40 hours less tax and NI)
44.10 working tax credit
98.84 child tax credit
33.70 child benefit
377.35 total net income
138.00 mortage
15.34 council tax
224.01 net income after housing costs

Both before and after housing costs, couple B are £11.28 per week worse off. They then have to pay for school dinners & getting to work.

Even if the working partner of couple B earned an extra £5 per hour, the net result would make them better off than couple A by just £48.72pw less cost of getting to work & school dinners.

katie1

My son was 7 in aprill i take it were looking at a long wait for him to get his payment , do they pay straight into ank or sent it to our address??

AnxiousMum

It will be paid straight into the fund that you chose it to be paid into. They won't send you a cheque (that would be cashable anyways), as the child trust fund cannot be touched.

My son was 7 in September, and I was sent a letter in September or October stating it had gone in.

liam8282

LizzieS

Benefits are too high.

That is basically what I was saying in a round about way, but you have given the exact figures.

There is no incentive for Couple A to work as they know they will be worse off, yet there is the resentment and a sense of "whats the point" from Couple B as they are working but are ultimately worse off.

There is in fact more incentive for Couple B not to work and claim benefits as they would be financially better off, the only reason people don't do this is because they know it is morally wrong.