surely it is better to limit child benefit to 2 kids per family

ash28

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It's strange how people these days don't believe that parents' use to work to finance their own children. Yes,we really did work to pay for our own children. Oh the shock and horror of it all. Fancy having children and having to work to pay for them yourselves.

It hasn't taken Brown and Blair long to create what someone on this board aptly named, "the entitled to" class.

When did you have your children? I had mine in the late 1970s and early 1980s - I always worked - part time at first moving to full time when the kids went to school.

However tax credits have been around in one form or another for about 40 years - Family Income Supplement was introduced in 1971, it w as to make sure people on benefits who returned to work were better off than if they stayed on benefits funnily enough. You had to work 24 hours a week.

My sister got this in the early 1980s when her husband left her - she worked and got her money topped up every week - she had a book like a family allowance book.

Family Credit was introduced in 1988 - over the next few years it was changed to include some child care help and reduced the hours you had to work to 16 with a bonus if you worked 30 or more.

The above systems were administered by the Benefits Agency.

The system introduced in 1999 was (is) administered by HMRC - it became a tax credit and not a benefit. It is similar to and based on the US system of tax credits for low earners.

I would also suggest that the "entitled to" class started when the last Conservative government started moving people from the dole to incapacity. That and the explosion in the divorce rates and growth in unmarried mothers meant an awful lot of one parent families were created.

I also knew quite a number of people where benefits became a lifestyle in the 1980s and 1990s - mainly single mothers - they had income support, rents paid, rates paid, grants towards stuff for the kids they were producing, grants for beds, bedding, school uniforms, cookers, pushchairs, kids shoes and coats, (anything that was classed as a necessity)- none of this money ever needed paying back - there were no such things as crisis loans - just grants and I knew plenty who took full advantage of it, you got a giro not goods or a voucher, so off to the post office to cash the giro.

You are either looking at the past through rose coloured glasses or have led a very sheltered life.

bendix

Shakethedisease wrote: »

In your 'day' only one wage earner was need to 'finance the children' and the house.. nowadays, it takes 2 just to cover the mortgage/rent AND the childcare.

Get real and don't be so bleeding smug ! Times change, we don't live in the 70's anymore...

Utter nonsense. The difference between now and then is that it nowtakes two incomes to give people a relatively luxurious lifestyle (tvs, Sky, computers, mobile phones, holidays) which are now considered essentials rather than 'nice-to-haves'.

Those are lifestyle choices, not essentials.

We've got fat, complacent and needy, but we can't afford that lifestyle. So we resort to either credit we can't afford, or benefits that someone else pays for.

markharding557

bendix wrote: »

Utter nonsense. The difference between now and then is that it nowtakes two incomes to give people a relatively luxurious lifestyle (tvs, Sky, computers, mobile phones, holidays) which are now considered essentials rather than 'nice-to-haves'.

Those are lifestyle choices, not essentials.

We've got fat, complacent and needy, but we can't afford that lifestyle. So we resort to either credit we can't afford, or benefits that someone else pays for.

The difference is housing is way more expensive in real terms today than it was then and that is a fact.
In the early 90's i was spending about 40% of one wage on housing today many pay 40% or more from two wages that is the difference.

Spartacus_Mills

chopperharris wrote: »

Beneficial to us all how , what about the childless how does it benefit them to pay for the education , health needs , tax credits and child allowance of others children.

Everyone has access to health, free at the point of entry. It is a shared risk and it is beneficial to all to pay for it as we may use it as some stage.

It is beneficial to pay for education because those who are educated will be the ones working to keep us in retirement and when they do work they will be paying the taxes to fund the education system.

Tax credits and child allowance I have no time for.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

£20 per child per week is not anything like the amount it costs to support a child. You can't seriously think that those who only receive child benefit in support are not financing their own children.

If you look back at what I was talking about, it was those who claim tax credits and child benefit.

About chilld Benefit - I think that has had it's day.

MissMoneypenny

Shakethedisease wrote: »

In your 'day' only one wage earner was need to 'finance the children' and the house.. nowadays, it takes 2 just to cover the mortgage/rent AND the childcare.

Get real and don't be so bleeding smug ! Times change, we don't live in the 70's anymore...

It was the 90s when I raised my children, so not that long ago since some people have chosen to become dependant on the welfare state to feed their family. If you read my post, I said that two parents worked then too....in the 90s (not the 70s), but we didn't expect a holiday every year.

I think you might be confusing smugness with pride, something of a rarity these days it seems.

bendix

markharding557 wrote: »

The difference is housing is way more expensive in real terms today than it was then and that is a fact.
In the early 90's i was spending about 40% of one wage on housing today many pay 40% or more from two wages that is the difference.

Oh yeah. Right. I forgot. It's always someone else's fault.

My mistake.

MissMoneypenny

ash28 wrote: »

I also knew quite a number of people where benefits became a lifestyle in the 1980s and 1990s - mainly single mothers - they had income support, rents paid, rates paid, grants towards stuff for the kids they were producing, grants for beds, bedding, school uniforms, cookers, pushchairs, kids shoes and coats, (anything that was classed as a necessity)- none of this money ever needed paying back - there were no such things as crisis loans - just grants and I knew plenty who took full advantage of it, you got a giro not goods or a voucher, so off to the post office to cash the giro.

You are either looking at the past through rose coloured glasses or have led a very sheltered life.

Tax credits don't have to be paid back either and amount to thousands per year for a family. Now, we have able bodied parents' choosing to claim welfare to feed and house their children: by just one parent working 30 hours, they get working tax credits (as well as their child tax credits). We really should be telling both parents to put some hours in before any welfare is added to their wage, as it is obvious that some have no desire to finance their own children.

Hardly rose coloured specs for me as I raised both of mine from 6 and 8, with no maintenance from their father for the first 7 years. I worked, didn't claim any welfare extras and didn't have family nearby to help either.
Some people will always provide for their families, while there are others that will always expect others to provide for them (usually while moaning about how much easier it is for everyone else).

michaels

So how many posters would we lose with a 2 kids only policy? I am no 2 of 5 so would still be around bt obviously would be looking forward to a much larger share of any inheritance...anyone here child number 3 or greater and wouldn't be around if there was a two kid limit?

mbga9pgf

Whats stopping people having kids if they can afford them?

If you cant, then dont have them. Its pretty simple isnt it?