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

ukcarper

BobQ wrote: »

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

I agree that it is not an easy problem to solve and I don’t trust the politicians to get it right but with a family of 5 getting over £320 a week after housing costs(almost what a person earning twice minimum wage takes home) while a person under 25 gets £56 a week there is some scope for savings.

　

the same family of 5 with one person earning £20k will get £505 a week including child tax credit and allowance out of that they would have to find council tax, mortgage payments and any cost associated with work.

GeorgeHowell

BobQ wrote: »

although I think that there is a quandary if refusal to do so has implications for children.

Then if they are that irresponsible and f e c kless take the children into care or fostering if necessary. And no I wouldn't mind paying for that if it came to it.

GeorgeHowell

mazza111 wrote: »

Would you be willing to pay for transport for people on benefits to get to the community work too?

Yes.
.....

Loughton_Monkey

Percy1983 wrote: »

Exactly the point is HPI is unearned wealth which has in many cases been turned into unearned income.

So on the same basis, any 'unearned profit' from one's primary residence should be set off against similar "unearned losses" like depreciation on : Cars, televisions, caravans, Camper Vans, Carpets, Furniture.......

I think many would be due for a tax rebate!

Percy1983

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So on the same basis, any 'unearned profit' from one's primary residence should be set off against similar "unearned losses" like depreciation on : Cars, televisions, caravans, Camper Vans, Carpets, Furniture.......

I think many would be due for a tax rebate!

I don't get it, my TV is worth less as technology moves on, my car is worth less because I have added mileage onto it and reduced its remaining life etc etc etc.

Yet I should earn a profit on my house because I lived in it?

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I don't get it, my TV is worth less as technology moves on, my car is worth less because I have added mileage onto it and reduced its remaining life etc etc etc.

Yet I should earn a profit on my house because I lived in it?

How do you feel about shares is hpi on its own bad or hpi above wage inflation.

LydiaJ

ash28 wrote: »

I'm in my mid 50s and I was brought up by parents who were on benefits for a substantial part of my life - my father had motor neuron disease and my mother was his carer. He got Invalidity Benefit and they got attendance allowance, rent and rates paid, they got child benefit for 3 of 4 children.

I have 3 siblings we all grew up and worked all of our lives - we all own our own homes - all of us mortgage free now.

There was no way we wanted to live in the type of poverty we grew up in - it was a great driver.

OH was brought up in similar circumstances - father had stroke at quite a young age.

We're early retired now and we are bringing up our grandson - who is just turned 11 - he has the nice things in life and we don't work for them, so are you saying because he is being brought up in a workless household there is a strong possibility that he will live his life on benefits?

I would suggest he won't.

Children grow up with an awareness not just of the current lifestyle of the adults caring for them, but the lifestyle those adults lived before the child was born, as well. Your grandson will be aware of where your money comes from - that it's not from benefits but from the results of your work earlier in life. When he grows up, he may be tempted to keep sponging off you after he's old enough to earn his own living, but he's unlikely to see benefit dependency as attractive.

N1AK wrote: »

But where does this odd notion that 2 children is the amount the government should consider supporting, and how many of the extra kids would come from families that used to be able to afford them but can't due to redundancies etc?

Personally I think child benefit needs rolling back considerably. I would prefer we look at a mechanism that says you will only receive it if you could reasonably expect to afford the children when you became pregnant or have been contributing to the economy (working) in the intervening period.

So for example: A mother with 3 children would still be entitled to benefits to support the children if she had them prior to a divorce/separation when the household income was sufficient. However someone who has never worked would not be entitled to child benefit for any children.

I would also seriously consider making some form of insurance (potentially government provided/supported) for loss of jobs etc mandatory for parents so they can look after their children if the wheels fall off.

OK, so you are proposing that children are classified at birth - these children were born to parents who could afford them, so they will qualify for benefits for the next 18 years, and those children were born to parents who don't qualify according to the criteria, so they won't be supported. Somehow I can't see any government wanting to push through something that segregates the haves from the have-nots in such an inflexible manner at such an early age.

Unless you're prepared to accept some system like that, though, then you need to recognise that "people shouldn't have more than two children unless they can afford them" actually means "people shouldn't have more than two children unless they can guarantee that they will continue to be able to afford them for the next 18 years". Which isn't so easy.

Percy1983 wrote: »

You will generally find that say if I had 3 children which I could afford and then lost my job and could no longer afford the monthly bills then the budget would be cut back and there would be some reliance on the safety net (be it for only 2 children). With that at that point I would be doing something everyday to get back into work and would get there (In my care probably try to grow my business more aggressively than I currently am too).

You will find those with the work ethic only fall on hard times for short time periods.

With that I would generally see jobloss risks coming and budgetting would be cut back instantly to try and get as far ahead as we could incase the worse happened.

You have a good point... but you are only considering the case where the breadwinner is made redundant. What about where the breadwinner dies? Or gets too ill to work - say with MND or life-altering injuries in an accident? Or suppose one of the children becomes disabled and needs a parent at home full time to care for them? Or even just if the breadwinner swans off over the horizon and wriggles out of paying maintenance - or only pays a derisory amount, leaving the resident parent struggling?

It's easy to be confident that you can look after yourself if you're fit and healthy and have no dependants. Remember that not everyone's so lucky.

The safety net is important, and we need it. I do see that we need to find ways of stopping people just staying forever in the safety net and using it as a hammock, but how exactly we do that is a lot more difficult than it might seem.

GeorgeHowell

LydiaJ wrote: »

, but how exactly we do that is a lot more difficult than it might seem.

It should not be that difficult. The decisions need to be made by reasonable, fair-minded people who are not following a political agenda. Too often decisions are made by people who think that the ability and willingness to hold down a job and take responsibility for one's own life represents some sort of unfair advantage that obligates those so blessed to subsidise those who choose to be layabouts. Behind that is the Labour Party's client state policy, which attempts to buy the votes of welfare recipients by convincing them that they will never receive so much as under Labour (which of course is true). The whole welfare culture needs changing from top to bottom.