Budget 2010: Budget 2010: Child tax credits up for one and two-year-olds

sunnyone

scootw1 wrote: »

There are such things as cooler bags, clingfilm and lunchboxes you know. I used to take mine in a lunchbox when I was young. And the kids don't need to throw their bags around either. Why don't you just tell your child to be careful?

There should be absolutely no need to pay £20 a week for food (that works out at £4 per lunch). It just takes a bit of planning to get packed lunches done for them and for the child to be careful with it.

cool bags, lunch boxs and cling film would prevent his lunch getting tampered with and my son dosnt want packed lunches, he dosnt eat anything that could go into a packed lunch a decent meal should be available within school and it should be resonabled priced.

We went out for lunch today and our son ate more than both of us put together with two visits to the carvery for full plates, hes a growing lad that is never full and a threebean wrap certainly wouldnt fill him up, hes currently eating a jacket potatoe with tuna 5 days a week at school with toast afterwards to help fill him up but he starving by 3.30 and we have to feed him straight after school.

scootw1

sunnyone wrote: »

cool bags, lunch boxs and cling film would prevent his lunch getting tampered with and my son dosnt want packed lunches, he dosnt eat anything that could go into a packed lunch a decent meal should be available within school and it should be resonabled priced.

We went out for lunch today and our son ate more than both of us put together with two visits to the carvery for full plates, hes a growing lad that is never full and a threebean wrap certainly wouldnt fill him up, hes currently eating a jacket potatoe with tuna 5 days a week at school with toast afterwards to help fill him up but he starving by 3.30 and we have to feed him straight after school.

When I was young I was given food to eat by my parents and if I didn't eat it I would do without. I really do think a lot more parents need to start doing this with their kids as I really do think it's the atttiude "I'm not eating that" which is where things have gone wrong these days. I always got a packed lunch because, quite frankly, my parents could not afford expensive meals all the time. That principle should be applied to other things such as consoles, mod cons etc. If you can't afford it, don;t give in just tell them you can't afford it.

JimmyTheWig

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

The problem with the system now is for those with more than 3 or 4 children are better off not working which is a ridiculous situation. You should always be better off working.

And what do you think the people staying at home with these children are doing? Surely they are working - very hard indeed.

The going rate for a childminder around our way is £5 per hour per child. Therefore if you've got 4 small children then you'll be paying out £20 a hour. I don't think many people would be better off in paid employment in this situation, do you?

JimmyTheWig

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

And what do you think the people staying at home with these children are doing? Surely they are working - very hard indeed.

The going rate for a childminder around our way is £5 per hour per child. Therefore if you've got 4 small children then you'll be paying out £20 a hour. I don't think many people would be better off in paid employment in this situation, do you?

Oh, hold on.
Did you mean the family was better off when neither parent was working? I agree that that's a problem.

janninew

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

And what do you think the people staying at home with these children are doing? Surely they are working - very hard indeed.

The going rate for a childminder around our way is £5 per hour per child. Therefore if you've got 4 small children then you'll be paying out £20 a hour. I don't think many people would be better off in paid employment in this situation, do you?

I see your point about them being worse off, but what would happen if everybody in the Country decided to have 4 children and not work! Who would pay for all the benefits then?

liam8282

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

And what do you think the people staying at home with these children are doing? Surely they are working - very hard indeed.

The going rate for a childminder around our way is £5 per hour per child. Therefore if you've got 4 small children then you'll be paying out £20 a hour. I don't think many people would be better off in paid employment in this situation, do you?

If the parents are a couple, what is to stop one parent working nights whilst the other looks after the kids and vice versa?

If you want 4 kids, you should support them yourself, not expect benefits to pay for your family.

The Chinese birth control / benefits system I posted before was a tongue in cheek comment, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

If this country introduced a similar policy, with benefits only for your first child, there would soon be a sharp drop in families with 3 plus children that don't work.

krisskross

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

And what do you think the people staying at home with these children are doing? Surely they are working - very hard indeed.

The going rate for a childminder around our way is £5 per hour per child. Therefore if you've got 4 small children then you'll be paying out £20 a hour. I don't think many people would be better off in paid employment in this situation, do you?

But why have 4 children if you can't afford to support them?

We have 4 children but we both had 2 jobs plus obviously looking after our own children, so yes we did work hard.

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

But why have 4 children if you can't afford to support them?

We have 4 children but we both had 2 jobs plus obviously looking after our own children, so yes we did work hard.

There is the issue of becoming disabled after having children or losing a job. Both of which happened to my dad and we had to struggle on one wage for a while.

liam8282

^ A disabled person would receive disability benefits, a person losing a job would receive jsa.... You don't choose to become disabled, or choose to lose your job.

I think the point people are trying to make is about those who choose to live off benefits, rather than support their families themselves.

Indie_Kid

liam8282 wrote: »

^ A disabled person would receive disability benefits, a person losing a job would receive jsa.... You don't choose to become disabled, or choose to lose your job.

I think the point people are trying to make is about those who choose to live off benefits, rather than support their families themselves.

Because of the stupid rules, my dad didn't receive jsa. Thankfully, he has recovered to be able to work full-time.