Capping benefits at 4 kids?

lostinrates

cavework wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up and for the record .. my respect to you and others involved in this type of employment .
NO WAY low status :A
xx

Its depressing to me we can view this work as low status but do not think ''no work'' and no contribution is worthy of trying to ammend. Care work is as vital as other infra structure employment and valuable. It ight not be well paid or require qualifications, but its honest and contributes to society.

clearingout

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this argument for the people who are lifestyle claimants. An acquaintnce of mine (NOT a friend) tells me the details of her claiming status almost every time we meet. I really don't want to know TBH. There is NO shame in it for her, none what so ever.

Another person who I am much closer to to the outside world look incredibly well off. Her HB is topped up by an ex to rent a gorgeous period cottage, her children go to some of the best schools in the country (educational grant provided by a rich god father) and wears designer clothes bought on credit card often baled out by relatives when this debt becomes unmanageable (yeah, I've contributed, so I'm as stupid as the rest of the family), has holidays twice a year pai for by friends to the same very chichi locations and this person snipes at ''slob mothers'' and poverty of standards and decline in the way we live but has lived of friends, family, debt and state with very occasional high profile low pay work since she graduated in the 80s. The shame would probably be a motivating factor for her and importantly, for her children, who have little concept of the reality and finances. (however with feer than four children the cap would not touch them)

I again see the point. Not sure I'm comfortable with the voucher thing - I had Healthy Start vouchers for a while and they were bad enough! Most cashiers wouldn't look twice but there would always be the one (when there is a huge queue behind you) that would make a point of demanding on looking in your bags again just to make sure that you have bought £3.10 worth of fruit and veg to justify using your voucher. I always used them - gift horses and their mouths and all that, but I hated it and it's not fair that someone can draw attention to you and your 'status' in that way, just because they want to. My children are too young to really be aware but I can see it being a massive issue the older they get - what 15 year old would want to be buying a pair of school shoes and have the class bully in there and see their mum pull out the vouchers? Surely 'keeping up appearances' is in most children's best interests?

lostinrates

clearingout wrote: »

Surely 'keeping up appearances' is in most children's best interests?

I think it might be more important in some cases to teach them reality and supporting the aspiration to do well for a more sustainable reason than ''being able to buy a blingy phone'' but also what things cost and what our choices and circumstances can do. This should of course be tempered with trying to support an environment of support, which, ue to the opinion of many generated by (I hope) relatively few claimants, is regrattbly negative now.

I feel there is a divorce between reality and actuality realting to finances (personal and state) for many, many of us and that there should be NO SHAME attached to claiming what is needed, and I wouldn't want to live somewhere where victims of circumstance were villified or children put in work houses.


In any case, I imgine the ''vouchers'' coul be digitalised on a ''card'' that appeared no different to a debit card were anything like that to to be financially viable.


I really do understnd why people who feel that we can't go on are viewed as heartless and uncaring. All I can say is its truley not my motivation. I feel the young, whatever theor background, should be enabled and motivate to be aspirational and safe.

nottslass_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

There are two different lots - "working tax credit", which you get if you work, and "child tax credit".

Of course they are benefits! What else do you think they are?

So working families claiming them are indeed claiming benefits.

Not all families get them by any means. We don't, for example.

Don't forget Child Benefit - all families (at present) are entitled to this.

peachyprice

Vouchers were only suggested as a possible way to control where the money is spent. I can see that they would not be pratical But surely there could be some sort of debit card type thing, working the same way as a gift card perhaps, that could only be used in certain shops, and not in the pub etc. I don't know, but something has to be done before the coffers run dry.

tom9980

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

That's where we differ. My personal view is that anyone who can deal with two babies and small children is more than fit to work!

I think your wrong, there are TWO parents i am disabled, my partner is a primary school teacher, she will take maternity and i will perform the rest of their care. We will use nursery, school and a bit of help from parents to ensure my illness doesn't become too severe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77iM2fqqNSU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDMk5CEqcak

I could give lots more examples, i know a few very good disabled parents personally who literally have no chance to work but are good parents. Genuine disabled people should not be disadvantaged by a change. A cap is fine, but preventing someone who has been ill from birth from having financial support for their children simply because they claim a disability benefit and need some help is wrong.

Trying to stop the breeding for benefits brigade is more than fine and is the aim of any changes.

lostinrates

nottslass wrote: »

Don't forget Child Benefit - all families (at present) are entitled to this.

when is that changing? It was announced ages ago it was.

For the record you don't HAVE to acept it even when entitled, and some people do genuinely make that choice. The main issue IME is there i a hold up in receiving a NI number that has to be chased for the child later.

meritaten

The gov are always coming out with 'schemes' to cut the benefit outlay. unfortunately most of those schemes hit the genuinely ill/out of work/ sick people the most! If you dont know your way around the system - then you can be devastated by the system! my DS was mentally ill and came to live with me having previously been on sickness benefit. His OH and the kids then had ALL benefits - including housing - stopped. of course every one rallied round and tried to help - but support another family of one adult and three kids was horrendous. The benefits people even tried to say they werent entitled to ANY benefits! they had SS involved and was given a food parcel for two weeks - ONE carrier bags worth of food! one £10 gas voucher and one £10 electricity voucher! (edited - cos I didnt make it clear that ALL benefits were stopped and my poor DIL didnt have any income for over two months! and yes, it was only one food parcel - as they called it - and £20 of gas and electricity vouchers, my son, myself and OH and various family members kept them alive! as far as the benefits people were concerned - they couldve starved!)
Was it thier fault that my son was ill? He HAD to leave the home as it wasnt safe there for him to stay - and the mental health team were rubbish!
It was only resolved when my MP, the Assembly Childrens Minister and a threat of going to the press were invoked!
I dont begrudge the money - but it cost me and OH hundreds to keep my sons family in their home and warm and fed! My son worked up until he had his breakdown - then all of a sudden it was like any excuse for them NOT to pay out!
So, I view with deep suspicion ANY scheme to avoid helping those on benefits. Yes, you will have fraudsters - but most claimants are in dire straits, to limit thier help based on how many kids they have - thats an abuse of their rights!

lostinrates

tom9980 wrote: »

literally have no chance to work but are good parents..

fwiw I found it wuld be ipoible for me to b reliably employed. Its been a very disheartening time. we have recently set up a very small microbusiness. I won;t get rich on it but it gives me some motivation and pride. I wouldn't be able to do it without dh.


We don't have children. Not by choice. It appears I am infertile. Help was offered to us and we took the PERSONAL choice that what didn't come naturally to us was for a reason, and I was determined I want to live as independantly as possible. I respect others feel differently in the same circs though and think that many people who find GETTING work (not necesarily doing work) impossible. e.g. I would be able to work but not regularly,and I don't know in advance wich will be bad days, which will be days I'm physically strong.

I adore babysitting for friends and have my friend's little boy very regularly. It absolutely exhausts me, and I do sometimes think while he's here that while I think I could cope I wonder if I really could cope FT. Any way, a bit personal and veering off topic, but I very keenly feel both sides here.

neverdespairgirl

Person_one wrote: »

There could be sooo many situations where this isn't true, you need to try and be a bit more open minded and tolerant.

Also, when people have disabilities finding work becomes a lot harder, even if they are capable and willing. You can be blind, deaf, be a wheelchair user, have cerebral palsy, have MS, have tourette's, a facial deformity or any number of other things and be a great parent while finding it very hard to get and keep a job.

You can be a great parent, yes. But you can't look after a baby all the time on your own. People who can do that can work.

In addition, you aren't being terribly open-minded about disability, either. Being blind, deaf, or having MS doesn't make someone incapable of gainful employment.

My mother in law died of aggressive-progressive MS. She worked until about 6 months before she died. She certainly, though, couldn't have looked after a baby or small child in that last 6 months, she needed constant care herself.