Sure STart Grant cut off for consecutive children?????

Deepmistrust

Jowo wrote: »

The OP should stop invoking the spectre of Fascism to argue why the state should continue to supply a bonus to new mothers and appreciate that the cuts have come about because the country is spending more on benefits that it gets in income tax receipts. It's the 'generosity' of Labour which led to a skewed system whereby quite insanely 9 out of 10 households qualified for tax credits, including workless ones.

The OP should work their way through this site to find money saving tips to improve their budget, one which focusses on cutting expenses as increasing income through benefits is going to get a lot tougher now the UK is broke. She should start with downloading the Budget Planner on the tools section.

Although I agree with many of your points, I have to say there are far greater wastes of money in this country than scrapping financial assistance for low-income familes to help with new-born baby costs.

There are far bigger targets (albeit not as easy ones) when considering the state of the economy.

moomoomama27

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Although I agree with many of your points, I have to say there are far greater wastes of money in this country than scrapping financial assistance for low-income familes to help with new-born baby costs.

There are far bigger targets (albeit not as easy ones) when considering the state of the economy.

But they are providing assistance!! The £500 SSMG is NOT being SCRAPPED! It's being limited to £500 for the first child. Which is plenty to set yourself up with baby things. Many baby items (cot/pram/sterilisers/highchair/bouncy chairs etc) are more than reusable for subsequent children, as are clothes!

The only real outgoings with a second or more child, is a new mattress for cot up to £40, bottles/dummies if using them, and nappies and wipes, everything else can be re-used!

bestpud

gorgeousgeorge wrote: »

Do you think that there will be a drop in babies being born after April 2011 because of the cuts lol, I very much doubt it! for the matter of losing 1k in the first year.
Those who wish to have children and will lose out on the grants and benefits will just have to find the money elsewhere I guess careful household budgeting, and the purchase of only neccessities as well ( none of these fangle dangle things that arent always needed )

Yes I appreciate that things for a baby can be expensive to buy, but If a list was written of exactly what was needed, and some shopping around, and even trying freecycle and other sites like that would help

If a child is wanted badly, money will be found to provide for it one way or the other

I'm not so sure! This is the second post of this kind since the budget! Well the second that I have seen anyway!

Of course wanted babies will still be born but I think the cuts will deter some from adding to their brood.

moomoomama27

bestpud wrote: »

Of course wanted babies will still be born but I think the cuts will deter some from adding to their brood.

I would ttally agree with that, the £500 SSMG as well as the HIPG is seemingly a GREAT incentive to people when decided on having another child! Forget the fact that having a child should be viewed very differently, it's about using children as cash-cows for many! Shocking, but true!

gorgeousgeorge

bestpud wrote: »

I'm not so sure! This is the second post of this kind since the budget! Well the second that I have seen anyway!

Of course wanted babies will still be born but I think the cuts will deter some from adding to their brood.

I hope it deters the ones that just have children so they can get extra benefits :mad: My son ( who is 19 ) was telling me last night of the amount of both girls and boys from his year that are already parents, some with 1 and some with 2 children.... and of course none of the parents are working and they have been housed in a new apartment block in our town, which costs a bloody fortune :mad:

Looks as if both my son & daughter (23) will be at home forever as there is no hope of them getting a council or H/A home, and I dont want them struggling to pay a mortgage.
Not that they want to move out anyway lol, they both have it easy here....;);)

Indie_Kid

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Although I agree with many of your points, I have to say there are far greater wastes of money in this country than scrapping financial assistance for low-income familes to help with new-born baby costs.

There are far bigger targets (albeit not as easy ones) when considering the state of the economy.

The HIPG & CTF aren't income based.

Jowo_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Although I agree with many of your points, I have to say there are far greater wastes of money in this country than scrapping financial assistance for low-income familes to help with new-born baby costs.

There are far bigger targets (albeit not as easy ones) when considering the state of the economy.

Yes, where the cuts should be targetted is open to great discussion. There is a plethora of allowances, credits and benefits that Labour introduced over the last decade, plus other areas where the new government can make savings.

Some issues of affordability can be blamed on the govt policies, others just simply have to be dealt with at the level of the individual household budget.

There never used to be this degree of upfront financial assistance for mothers in the past and this did not damage the birthrate in the UK, nor act as a constraint on the certain communities here that for religious or cultural reasons have much higher birth rates.

In fact, on Discussion Time, there are numerous threads asking 'how did families manage before tax credits' simply because people are genuinely baffled by the degree in which some households are now subsidised which wasn't available when they were growing up and did not act as a deterrent to family size.

Fiddlestick

sysky wrote: »

was considering trying for another baby but if its too late already we cant afford to loose that and the baby element for the tax credits and that would be it for us.

Excellent.

Why should me - as a single person and a tax payer - be expected to pay for your lifestyle choice?

If you can't afford another child then don't have one, simple.

bestpud

gorgeousgeorge wrote: »

I hope it deters the ones that just have children so they can get extra benefits :mad: My son ( who is 19 ) was telling me last night of the amount of both girls and boys from his year that are already parents, some with 1 and some with 2 children.... and of course none of the parents are working and they have been housed in a new apartment block in our town, which costs a bloody fortune :mad:

Looks as if both my son & daughter (23) will be at home forever as there is no hope of them getting a council or H/A home, and I dont want them struggling to pay a mortgage.
Not that they want to move out anyway lol, they both have it easy here....;);)

Going OT a bit but do you charge them rent?

I've started charging dd(18) now she is earning as I think it will help with the transition into the real world if she is used to 'losing' a portion of her wage every month.

Not that she is in any great hurry to move out but I think she'd like her own space - wouldn't we all! :rotfl:

Deepmistrust

Fiddlestick wrote: »

Excellent.

Why should me - as a single person and a tax payer - be expected to pay for your lifestyle choice?

If you can't afford another child then don't have one, simple.

You're not paying for her choice. You're paying taxes, and if you think you'll be paying any less taxes whether the grant is available or not you are sorely mistaken.

Using your logic, you're also funding illegal and immoral wars, you're also bailing out banks, you're also paying MP's expenses.

And likewise, (again using your own logic) I funded your education, and possibly (if you have them) you owe me for your student loans, you will also want me to pay for your childrens child benefit in the future if you so have them, and you will want me to take care of you if you fall ill.