Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

George Osborne....Limit amount of children for benefits

Options
189101113

Comments

  • N1AK wrote: »
    There is none. The difference in Jobseekers and housing allowance for under 25s is nothing but blatant ageism. It says everything about the conservatives current priorities that they won't consider taking bus passes off multi-millionaire pensioners (not that I think they should) but will happily screw over under 25s.

    That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

    The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.
    No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.

    The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • Percy1983
    Percy1983 Posts: 5,244 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

    The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

    I will say I have never been unemployed, but if I did end up unemployed and this was the case it really wouldn't bother me, as things currently stand I would go for charity work anyway.
    Have my first business premises (+4th business) 01/11/2017
    Quit day job to run 3 businesses 08/02/2017
    Started third business 25/06/2016
    Son born 13/09/2015
    Started a second business 03/08/2013
    Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/2012
  • Forever
    Forever Posts: 295 Forumite
    That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

    The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

    There are mandatory work placements but unfortunately, many of these are in supermarkets and the like which then displaces jobs so that more people then need to claim benefits.

    I don't have any problem with community placements though. Just not when it takes paying jobs away from the community.
  • mazza111
    mazza111 Posts: 6,327 Forumite
    That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

    The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

    But there aren't a lot of jobs out there at the moment. If they create more jobs in the community I'm sure there will be people apply for them. Would you be willing to pay for transport for people on benefits to get to the community work too? There's plenty of work that could be done in communities, there just isn't the money to pay for it. Would you like to see job seekers working a full week for their dole money, or would it be acceptable for them to work one day, and spend the other 6 job seeking? I see a lot of that with kids that may not be academic, struggling to find work after education. I think any scheme like this has to be properly thought out and the costs weighed up against what it costs in benefits now. Maybe more could be done to help people find employment? Maybe they should target the long term unemployed rather than the under 25s? I don't know, I don't have all the answers.


    But yet again, it's the under 25s who'll suffer the most.

    I have been really lucky with any jobs I've done in the past, think I had about a week unemployment all in. I do feel for kids now who are really struggling to find work.
    4 Stones and 0 pounds or 25.4kg lighter :j
  • Percy1983
    Percy1983 Posts: 5,244 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Personally I would say working 2-3 days while unemployed is about right, as you say they can spend the rest job searching.

    There is always the idea of creating your own job, I started my own business easily enough, just found a gap in the market which I could exploit with my skills, by all means its not a fully time job just yet but with more aggressive marketing I could grow it a lot quicker, I am just happy to let it grow naturally right now.
    Have my first business premises (+4th business) 01/11/2017
    Quit day job to run 3 businesses 08/02/2017
    Started third business 25/06/2016
    Son born 13/09/2015
    Started a second business 03/08/2013
    Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/2012
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ukcarper wrote: »
    Do you think that every additional child after the first needs £66 to feed etc.

    I agree its not easy and I had not thought of the actual amount.

    All I am saying is that whatever amount it is decided to pay a familiy with children, it should not make the life of the children more impoverished because of some kind of vengeful policy to punish the parents.
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

    The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

    I am not opposed to policies that require anyone out of work for a significant period to undertake meaningful work in return for continued benefits, although I think that there is a quandary if refusal to do so has implications for children.

    I would like to see more incentives for those expected to work once they have been out of work for a year or so. For example, provide them with work and pay them the minimum wage. Require them to work for as many hours as it takes to pay for their benefits. But after this allow them to choose whether to work for up to 40 hours also paid at the minimum wage.
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    BobQ wrote: »
    I agree its not easy and I had not thought of the actual amount.

    All I am saying is that whatever amount it is decided to pay a familiy with children, it should not make the life of the children more impoverished because of some kind of vengeful policy to punish the parents.

    Did you mean to say not easy £66 a week is over £3400 a year. I agree that the children should not be impoverished but the definition of impoverished should not be a percentage of the average and what is there to ensure that money is spent on the children. Remember that £66 does is on top of additional housing costs.

     
  • Percy1983
    Percy1983 Posts: 5,244 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ukcarper wrote: »
    Did you mean to say not easy £66 a week is over £3400 a year. I agree that the children should not be impoverished but the definition of impoverished should not be a percentage of the average and what is there to ensure that money is spent on the children. Remember that £66 does is on top of additional housing costs.

     

    This is the biggest problem, I child coming home to no xbox is not poverty.

    An interesting point but if said none working parent(s) smoke and they run up more than £3400 a year surely it should be a simple case of tell them to stop smoking and and remove the child benefit.
    Have my first business premises (+4th business) 01/11/2017
    Quit day job to run 3 businesses 08/02/2017
    Started third business 25/06/2016
    Son born 13/09/2015
    Started a second business 03/08/2013
    Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/2012
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ukcarper wrote: »
    Did you mean to say not easy £66 a week is over £3400 a year. I agree that the children should not be impoverished but the definition of impoverished should not be a percentage of the average and what is there to ensure that money is spent on the children. Remember that £66 does is on top of additional housing costs.

    I said its not easy because removing benefits intended for children will reduce the chilld's standard of living yet the parents know that and do not think that the Government will go that far.

    I have no idea what Boy George is up to so its difficult to say what its impact amounts to. He may mean that defying him will result in loss of all child benefits to the family.

    All I am saying is that children are not weapons to beat their parents with for making bad or ill thought out decisions
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.