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

Deepmistrust

sh1305 wrote: »

The HIPG & CTF aren't income based.

HIPG and CTF's are not what I was discussing either.

nottslass_2

I really can't believe that someone would base their decision whether to have another child on the Bases of a measly £500 - or do we just assume that they are they are that Dim they haven't worked out kids tend to cost quite a bit more.

leveller2911

Deepmistrust wrote: »

That you stopped at two, was your choice, probably because you wanted a better financial lifestyle.

Some people really do not care for the luxeries that come with more expendable income. They'd rather have new life.

I work around 50-55 hrs a week(self employed).., earned last year £26k..(£9-80 an hour before tax)

If having 1 week away a year on holiday is Luxury, if renting our house rather than buying because we can't afford the house prices,if having the old style deep tv rather than a plasma/LDC ,if going out for a meal once every 6 weeks is your Idea of Luxury then yeah it may well be, but I can tell you one thing we work damn hard to pay for our "Luxuries.....

We stopped at 2 children for various reason, yes financial but also we have a 3 bedroom house.Why should we expect/be entitled to the tax payer to fund a larger house for us if we had a larger family?.

leveller2911

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I'm not concerned what some OP said.

I'm pointing out that maternity grants are financial ASSISTANCE, not INCENTIVES.[/QUOTE]

That is not necessarily true though is it, I know plenty of girls my age who got pregnant purely for the "Incentives" that pregnancy brought such as free council housing and all the benefits that came with it...At the end of the day it extra money ..
Im not benefit bashing at all, the system should be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice.We as a country expect far to much from the state IMO and people need to be more responible for themselves rather than expect the state to..


Oh and your comment on one post asking "Where did socialism begin?" try googling the topic and see how many of the last governments policies were Socialism there were plenty, look at any policy where the state provides more and more services ...Government owed industries , take the tax credit system alone, a system where tax relief could quite easily be given via income tax brackets with little or no extra beaurocracy, did the last goverment do this?, no they employed thousands of extra civil servants to run the scheme which costs millions each year...We need civil servants but its not value for money..Socialism was alive and kicking in the last few years, Im 41 and Ive never seen so much social engineering in my life as we have seen in the past 13 yrs..

Lifeisbutadream

Un-bel-iev-able

Deepmistrust

leveller2911 wrote: »

I work around 50-55 hrs a week(self employed).., earned last year £26k..(£9-80 an hour before tax)

If having 1 week away a year on holiday is Luxury, if renting our house rather than buying because we can't afford the house prices,if having the old style deep tv rather than a plasma/LDC ,if going out for a meal once every 6 weeks is your Idea of Luxury then yeah it may well be, but I can tell you one thing we work damn hard to pay for our "Luxuries.....

We stopped at 2 children for various reason, yes financial but also we have a 3 bedroom house.Why should we expect/be entitled to the tax payer to fund a larger house for us if we had a larger family?.

Regardless, you still opted to have fewer children, in order to maximise expendible income. In your situation, more children would have meant even less spare money to spend, even on "old style" tv's.

The point is, that was a decision you reached.

Some people are prepared to struggle on even less that you are in order to have more children. Perhaps they sacrifice the one holiday you manage. Who knows.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. That would be pointless, as it's a persons opinion as to what they would prefer.

However, most probable that you also received (to a lesser degree) assistance of anyform in consideration of the children you do have. If you had more children, then you would have qualified for further assistance, although assitance doesn't actually meet the full costs of raising children for ANYONE. So in simple terms, regardless of your financial situation, more children will always equate to more costs and less expendible income, even with some sort of qualifying assistance.

Deepmistrust

leveller2911 wrote: »

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I'm not concerned what some OP said.

I'm pointing out that maternity grants are financial ASSISTANCE, not INCENTIVES.[/QUOTE]

That is not necessarily true though is it, I know plenty of girls my age who got pregnant purely for the "Incentives" that pregnancy brought such as free council housing and all the benefits that came with it...At the end of the day it extra money ..
Im not benefit bashing at all, the system should be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice.We as a country expect far to much from the state IMO and people need to be more responible for themselves rather than expect the state to..


Oh and your comment on one post asking "Where did socialism begin?" try googling the topic and see how many of the last governments policies were Socialism there were plenty, look at any policy where the state provides more and more services ...Government owed industries , take the tax credit system alone, a system where tax relief could quite easily be given via income tax brackets with little or no extra beaurocracy, did the last goverment do this?, no they employed thousands of extra civil servants to run the scheme which costs millions each year...We need civil servants but its not value for money..Socialism was alive and kicking in the last few years, Im 41 and Ive never seen so much social engineering in my life as we have seen in the past 13 yrs..

Anecdotal stories have minimal scientific contribution to make. They are also extremely unreliable. So-called "eye witness" tescomy (i.e. something you think you know) has been debunked by greater minds than our combined efforts on numerous occasions, in favour of evidence and proof. I.e. that you *think* you know girls that got pregnant for "incentives", is unreliable, and even if you could prove beyond reasonable doubt that you know a person that is better off for having a child, than she would otherwise be not having a child, it means nothing other than you can site an individual case of someone. (i.e. anecdotal).

Benefits ARE a safety net. But in the advanced day and age, we are also lucky enough to be able to try and bridge the gap between rich and poor, so that the poorer members of society can see their relative wealth increase in line with others. It's called progress.

It's also extremely patronising to suggest to low income familes that poverty is an 'incentive' in order to achieve benefits.
Council housing is not easy to come by, and a life on benefits is not favourable to MOST people.

And to suggest that low income earners are "not responsible for themselves" simply because they are at the lower end of the income spectrum for numerous reasons many of which are beyond their realistric control, shows a distinct lack of knowledge of how it is to live life at the poorest end of society.

leveller2911

Deepmistrust wrote: »

However, most probable that you also received (to a lesser degree) assistance of anyform in consideration of the children you do have. If you had more children, then you would have qualified for further assistance, although assitance doesn't actually meet the full costs of raising children for ANYONE. So in simple terms, regardless of your financial situation, more children will always equate to more costs and less expendible income, even with some sort of qualifying assistance.

Prove it.......Where are your facts to back up your arguement ...

The more children someone has the more Tax credits etc they are entitled to, but you only need one baby bath,bottles,sterilizers etc to bath them all in...More costs but disproportionate to the amount of benefits received...

Deepmistrust

leveller2911 wrote: »

Prove it.......Where are your facts to back up your arguement ...

The more children someone has the more Tax credits etc they are entitled to, but you only need one baby bath,bottles,sterilizers etc to bath them all in...More costs but disproportionate to the amount of benefits received...

You want statistics to prove the exact costs of raising children, there are numerous out there. Just use your google toolbar. Recent studies will show a cost of nearly 200k per child. (hardly going to reduce this by much if they use a hand-me-down baby bath:rotfl:)

It's quite funny that your idea of the difference between having children or not, equates to some baby equipment.

There are many more aspects you have to consider, such as any detriment to career, increased housing needs, increased food bills, utility bills, childcare, any extra cirricular education or sports, clothing, pocket money, increased expenditure on routine family outings or trips, increased travel expenses...the list is never ending. I thought you had kids?

leveller2911

Deepmistrust wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

Benefits ARE a safety net. But in the advanced day and age, we are also lucky enough to be able to try and bridge the gap between rich and poor, so that the poorer members of society can see their relative wealth increase in line with others. It's called progress.

I agree that it benefits society to bridge the gap between rich and poor , but who do you regard as poor? ..This thread is about a benefit and a choice the OP is making about having a baby or not linked to recieving a benefit for having one.Giving someone money doens't necessarily bridge the gap between rich and poor, it all depends on what the recipient spends the money on...

It's also extremely patronising to suggest to low income familes that poverty is an 'incentive' in order to achieve benefits.
Council housing is not easy to come by, and a life on benefits is not favourable to MOST people.

For many it is , im afraid..Ive lived on Council Eastates ALL of my life so I think I am qualified to have an opinion on the subject.Many people on low paid jobs work all the hours God sends to make ends meet, even working 2,3 or 4 jobs and also taking further education courses to help to get better qualified in the jobs market....They are doing this to help themselves it doesnt need the nanny state to pay endless amounts of benefits...... but many don't many just want the extra money with no thought of the future or their long term goals.

And to suggest that low income earners are "not responsible for themselves" simply because they are at the lower end of the income spectrum for numerous reasons many of which are beyond their realistric control, shows a distinct lack of knowledge of how it is to live life at the poorest end of society.

Ok so quote me where I said all low income earners.....


No it doesn't it shows a distint differing opinion to yours thats all ......Its just opinions ..Do you live on a Council estate? What do you do for a living?.......