Tax credits down £280 per month

property.advert

This is the duopoly of tax credits and the minimum wage causing problems at the margin, where costs associated with work, such as travel, are not counted. It is then compounded by benefits being tax free and salaries being taxable.

Before minimum wages, some jobs would today, only pay £4 or £5 an hour but others would pay £7 or £8 per hour. However, because someone who is doing a job which only merits £4 an hour has to be paid minimum wages, those who would otherwise be on £7 or £8 and hour find their wages dragged down to the minimum wage level. The effect has been some form of Loony Labour communism by default.

The only way out is the hold back benefit increases and let inflation erode them away. Couple this with the change to Universal Credit and a marked reduction will force people into jobs as the differential between a life on the couch and a life in work widens.

However, the social masses working at the minimum wage level will expand to create a virtual underclass, stuck on minimum wages, never getting ahead and with benefits erosion over time, left with no alternative than to work for paltry wages.

BurnleyBob

princess*daisy wrote: »

So you're pro-choice. Well at least we agree on something. But the key word there is "choice" - just as much as a woman should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, she should not be forced or expected to terminate a pregnancy that she wants to keep, just because she's a single mother. I know lots of absolutely fantastic single mothers, and their children are no different to any from a "traditional" family.

I am pro choice. I'd also be in favour of reducing year on year Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits to nil eventually in respect of children born, let's say, beyond 12 months hence but not for those already in receipt of them. I'm not coming from a vested interest perspective; I just feel that moving the goalposts for parents/kids already with us would be harsh on them.

Doing so would concentrate the minds of those planning on having one or more to whether they will be able to afford them themselves when born and in the future without state aid should their circumstances change which is really a subsidy from everyone else who are at present compelled to contribute towards their choices.

FBaby

sniggings wrote: »

you have to compare like with like, will two good parents bring more to a kids life than one good parent, surely the answer is yes every time.

This kind of statement really winds me up (and wait for Clearingout to see it!!!).

No, having two parents doesn't win everytime. It has nothing to do with one vs two parents, it has to do with having responsible loving parents, who will teach their children good morals and values and provide unconditional love. One such parents vs two parents who don't, the first wins every time...

My parents were divorced when I was two. I saw my dad regularly, but was raised in one parents household. I hold a master's degree, have travelled around the world, and have been told to be a good role model. My partner was raised by his mum after his dad died when he was two. She never had another relationship. My partner has done very well too and now holds a very good job. I separated from my kids' father when they were under 3 and I was a single mum for over 5 years. My DD won the achievement award for her school when she finished year 6, and already won the same award starting secondary school. My son who's just finished year 4 got a 4b levels in English and 4a levels in Maths. I have been told that both are very mature, and very pleasant children to have in class.

I know I come across as gloating, but it is so frustrating to be faced with this all standing prejudiced that children raised by one parent can only be 'ok' and never has well brought up then with two parents. The commonality between myself, partner and children is that all had a very well educated mother, who worked hard to provide for the family.

Thankfully I never felt under-valued because of my family situation and never felt judged as a single mum either. As a matter of fact, speaking with a few teachers about this subject, I have been told that the children who tend to adjust best to school life and do well are those who have working mothers, single or not.

Sixer

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

What payment book? My son was born in 2005, and I've never seen a payment book for child benefit.

I looked it up, and it seems family allowance was introduced in 1946, and abolished in 1977. So it was introduced the year before my mother was born, and abolished the year before I was born - and I'm 34, now!

My kids were born in 1995 and 1996 and I originally had a payment book for child benefit.

neverdespairgirl

sniggings wrote: »

I'm a man so can only go by what my Mam got and it was a payment book back then, yes it is paid straight into the bank now I see but I did say it was either family allowance or child benefit, so not sure what point you are making, as it is still a payment that is paid mainly to the woman over the man, which was my main point.

My point is that a lot of what you say is decades out of date. So there's not much point getting all bothered about women only ever getting child benefit (because they don't) or it being a criminal offence for a man to lay a finger on a payment book, because it's not only women who get it, and there's no payment book to get into trouble over anyway.

There is no rule whatsoever that only a mother can claim it.

You said:

sniggings wrote: »

this would also help get rid of the sexist way that family allowance is paid, why should the allowance only be paid to the woman, I don't know of any other benefit that is only paid to the man, if that was the case there would be an uproar.

banner188

Having 2 great role models will always be better than having one. It is simple logic, just like having many great teachers is better than a few.
I am from a single parent family and my mum did a great job and I am taking nothing away from her by saying that a great father figure would have greatly added to my character growth. As he wasn't a great role model, she was better off doing it alone.

It is nothing personal or sexist, a single decent bloke bringing up children will not be as affective as having a great mother present also.

Kiboko

I think though it is only a womans pension rights that are protected by being paid CB? Or has that changed?

Morlock

carebear13 wrote: »

exactly- wages are taxed , benefits arent...

Yes they are.

FBaby

banner188 wrote: »

Having 2 great role models will always be better than having one. It is simple logic, just like having many great teachers is better than a few.
I am from a single parent family and my mum did a great job and I am taking nothing away from her by saying that a great father figure would have greatly added to my character growth. As he wasn't a great role model, she was better off doing it alone.

It is nothing personal or sexist, a single decent bloke bringing up children will not be as affective as having a great mother present also.

You can have two great role models, they might happen not to live together. Another great role model can be a grand parent, or an older sibling. Many children live with two parents with one, if not two of them not being great role models. And why oh why can't a single dad not be as affective as a mother????

Lovelyjoolz

somethingcorporate wrote: »

£26k net income is equivalent to a much higher gross salary and is ridiculously generous.

£26k net is the rough equivalent of £36k gross pay. When the national average wage is what? £25k? I don't know how they can justify paying anyone not working £26k in benefits. It's disgraceful.

The bottom line is, no one on benefits should take home more than someone who works. Full stop. It's just so wrong.

Benefits should provide the bare essentials only. If your benefits enable you to afford Sky/Cable, a mobile phone, a laptop, internet, PS3 or whatever, then you are being given to much!