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

sunnyone

scootw1 wrote: »

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.

My son askes for very little and he certainly isnt a spoilt brat like many of todays kids.

JimmyTheWig

liam8282 wrote: »

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

And when would the parents sleep?

liam8282 wrote: »

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

krisskross wrote: »

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

I didn't say anything about being supported by benefits. I was answering the point about you should always be better off working.
We've got 4 small children. I work full time and we provide for ourselves (apart from non-means tested benefits). My wife would love to go out to work for a few hours a week, but there's no way we could afford it.

liam8282

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

And when would the parents sleep?
.

Average working day / night is 7 hours, plenty of time for sleep.

& why should somebody who chooses to have 4 kids be financially better off, via benefits, than somebody who works full time and gets nothing?

emweaver

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Do you know krisskross, ungrateful was the word that sprang to my mind too.

People get SO much just for having children these days, they should be pleased they are so well looked after.

When they are born they get money for savings, there is extra money now for 1-2 year-olds, when they are three they get money for nursery, there is money at any age for child care, as well as the associated Tax Credts etc.

I personally don't see why there should be anything above the basic Child Benefit, other than for the very poorest of people (and 'poor' does not mean £25k a year).

you dont get money for nursery when they are 3 at all!


also it does go by income those on lower incomes do get more if your on 25k a year you will only get the basic amount

JimmyTheWig

liam8282 wrote: »

Average working day / night is 7 hours, plenty of time for sleep.

So... 7 hours working, 1 hour for lunch, 30 minutes before and after for travelling. That's 9 hours. Each. Doesn't leave much time at all for sleep unless you have a very contrived situation where you can pick your own hours and maximise the time the children are asleep.
Unless you can come up with a sensible timetable that works?

& why should somebody who chooses to have 4 kids be financially better off, via benefits, than somebody who works full time and gets nothing?

I've not said anything about being better off via benefits. Either my wife goes out to work and we pay childcare or she doesn't and we don't. All I'm saying is it's pretty clear in which scenario we're better off. Where do benefits come in?

emweaver

sh1305 wrote: »

Does it actually work out as £19 by the time you factor in council tax benefit, LHA / mortgage payments, prescriptions, etc?

I really dont get how that is correct. You would need to be both on a very low income oo be better off on the dole or have a very high rent and council tax

emweaver

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I'm glad that your morals are higher, but its unbelieveable that those lazy people lying on their backs popping out sprog after sprog get all this extra money. They are using children as cash cows. They produce nothing for this country, contribute nothing and if this continues the Uk will be in a poorer state for the next generation.

I just want to point out that those on benefits dont get more than those working. My husband works and we get the same rate as my sister who is on benefits so I gues you could say the same about working people pop out another child to get more money

liam8282

Some people have an answer for everything.

If one partner works during the day 9-5, the other partner could get even just a part time job say working at Tesco 6-10. At least that way you would be going someway to supporting your own family rather than depending on benefits.

I can understand why people choose not to work, as they are better off for not working and claiming benefits, but does that make it right?

What would the same people do if the government changes after the election and tax credits are overhauled or even scrapped? You would have no choice but to go out and work and support your family.

Before tax credits came along, people appeared to be more responsable, not having umpteen kids they could not afford to support if it were not for tax credits or other benefits paying for them.

liam8282

emweaver wrote: »

I just want to point out that those on benefits dont get more than those working. My husband works and we get the same rate as my sister who is on benefits so I gues you could say the same about working people pop out another child to get more money

Benefits / tax credits have merged in this discussion.

Child benefit is the same rate, but tax credits are based on your income.

moomoomama27

emweaver wrote: »

I really dont get how that is correct. You would need to be both on a very low income oo be better off on the dole or have a very high rent and council tax

Not at all! My husband has a good wage, I work 9 hrs pw. With the benefit for rent and council tax as well as ctc and IS we would be £19 worse of on full benefits. Sad but unfortunatley true.