Families hit by benefits changes

StevieJ

Who are these people? I really can't believe that someone would go to the trouble of forming a a charity for parenting and family, or is this one of those quango's that The Mail and Telegraph whinge about?

The IFS study was commissioned by the Family and Parenting Institute, a charity, which said that Coalition policies unfairly affect parents.
Katherine Rake, chief executive of the Family and Parenting Institute said the figures showed that families with children are “shouldering the burden of austerity”.
She (SNP: ^SHEY - news) said: “Having children has always been expensive. NOT IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR THEM, IT ISN'T But now many families with children face an extra penalty of more than £1000.” :eek:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/families-hit-benefits-changes-061806343.html

The_White_Horse

i don't mind losing my child benefit (obviously i would rather keep it as I see it as a small tax break) but what REALLY annoys me is that couples earning a lot more than I do individually will keep theirs. It needs to be done on household income, not an individuals income. scum bags.

Percy1983

Maybe we have enough people so stop paying people to breed.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Who are these people? I really can't believe that someone would go to the trouble of forming a a charity for parenting and family, or is this one of those quango's that The Mail and Telegraph whinge about?



http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/families-hit-benefits-changes-061806343.html

They are a charity that is almost entirely funded by the taxpayer. If you look at their accounts (link) you can see that their total income for financial year 2009-10 (2010-11 accounts aren't complete AFAICS) their total income was £8,306,943.

Of this, £372,116 came from 'contract income', that is providing services that someone pays to use. £354,703 of that came from Government or Government owned bodies and the rest came from a single charity (the Daycare Trust) who may or may not receive most of their funding from the Government.

£6,526,545 was a direct grant from the DfE (as the Department for Education and Skills has been rebranded).

They received 'Other Grants' totaling £1,176,933, £1,115,000 from the DfE and £61,933 from C4EO which is at least partly funded by the DfE.

They managed to raise £161,215 in 'Publications, Subscriptions and Conferences' and £30,517 in 'Consultancy'.

So they are an 'independent charity' that receive 97.5% of their funding at least from taxpayers. I hope you enjoyed the report you paid for.

They spent about £200k of this on fundraising and another £1,500,000 on staff (who get a defined benefit pension scheme).

If you're interested to see where the rest of your money went, page 25 onwards lists the organizations that were the grateful recipients, most or all of whom doubtless do excellent work.

The_White_Horse

Percy1983 wrote: »

Maybe we have enough people so stop paying people to breed.

it should have just been restricted to 2 kids per family. the end. that would have saved loads of money and been fairer. it would have stopped incentivising the chav filth to breed like bacteria.

MrRee_2

Should be paid for ONE child only.

silvercar

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it should have just been restricted to 2 kids per family. the end. that would have saved loads of money and been fairer. it would have stopped incentivising the chav filth to breed like bacteria.

Counting 2 people per family would be a nightmare. There are his kids, her kids, their kids, his step kid, her kids half-brother....

The_White_Horse

MrRee wrote: »

Should be paid for ONE child only.

one or two. makes no difference to me. nuclear family is 2.4 children.

The_White_Horse

silvercar wrote: »

Counting 2 people per family would be a nightmare. There are his kids, her kids, their kids, his step kid, her kids half-brother....

no, it is easy - you get money for 2. if you have more than 2 kids in your family, it doesn't matter who their parents are. 2 is the max.

maybe "household" would be better than family?

Darthvader

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i don't mind losing my child benefit (obviously i would rather keep it as I see it as a small tax break) but what REALLY annoys me is that couples earning a lot more than I do individually will keep theirs. It needs to be done on household income, not an individuals income. scum bags.

Child benefit is nothing, what about those in London getting £1000's per week housing benefit?

SingleSue

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i don't mind losing my child benefit (obviously i would rather keep it as I see it as a small tax break) but what REALLY annoys me is that couples earning a lot more than I do individually will keep theirs. It needs to be done on household income, not an individuals income. scum bags.

My word, I agree with you! It seems completely unfair that you can get a dual income family who each individually earn just under the cap and retain CB when you can have a family with one earner who earns just over the cap but almost half of the dual income family, who will lose CB.


Not the scum bags bit though.....