We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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.
📨 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!
Child-related benefits may be 'capped' at two children
Comments
-
Why should every parent be penalised because of the minority who do use the money for what it was not intended for?Pay them in food and book vouchers then. Saves. The child's benefit getting spent on cigarettes and booze.[SIZE=-1]To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
[/SIZE]0 -
Why should higher rate tax payers be disadvantaged by having to support the minority of scum?0
-
I still can't see that each extra kid costs £65 a week.0
-
No they are not. I have come across a fair few of the people the government are targeting and the financial implications are the last thing many of these people are thinking about.
Many of these parents have a number of children by a number of different dads etc. The vast majority of these kids will not be planned.
You need to try to educate if you want to solve the problem.
he majority of kids born in these household start school way behind their peers and never catch up.
If you are taking to the money away to spend it of educating the offspring of the poor then it may make sense but otherwise this nothing more than cost cutting.
If work was available in buckets at a reasonable level of pay they wouldn't have the time or inclination to bang out loads of sprogs.
They would hav ethe opportunity to enjoy life and participate in society rather than drag kids up in conditions that are pretty awful.
We are too far down the road of creating an underclass and the legacy isn't going to evaporate because some politician has drawn a line on spreadsheet."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
No they are not. I have come across a fair few of the people the government are targeting and the financial implications are the last thing many of these people are thinking about.
Many of these parents have a number of children by a number of different dads etc. The vast majority of these kids will not be planned.
My heart bleeds. Really. No, really.
Where is my blinking tax cut? The sooner these types have all support removed and are thrown to bleeding heart charities to look after the better.0 -
My heart bleeds. Really. No, really.
Where is my blinking tax cut? The sooner these types have all support removed and are thrown to bleeding heart charities to look after the better.
And who do you think will end up being the major contributor to these charities?
The Government by necessity will still pick up the tab one way or the other. As these heart bleeding charities grow they will become just as costly and inefficient as the system it replaces.
The days of philanthropic industrialists are long gone, banksters don't feel the same need to make good."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
My heart bleeds. Really. No, really.
Where is my blinking tax cut? The sooner these types have all support removed and are thrown to bleeding heart charities to look after the better.
These children will end up in care at a much greater expense than the few quid the government may save. Also more poverty will cause more crime.
If your happy with the above then good luck to you.0 -
These children will end up in care at a much greater expense than the few quid the government may save. Also more poverty will cause more crime.
Most likely, yes.
But things will have to get worse before they can get any better. I'd rather see some kids in care (even if it costs more in the short term) than keep giving money to the wasters they call parents.
Once the adults have realised having more kids no longer gets them more money and a better house, they will stop having them and we will be on the road to solving the problem.
No pain no gain.0 -
Im in favour of this. Payments are for 2 children. You want more you finance them yourself.
I know someone who got sterilised on the NHS had 3 kids and never worked. As the oldest left home they realised their money dropped.
So they had the OP reversed on the NHS and had another one. She was 44 by the time she conceived.
Then got sterilised again on the NHS. I thought that was wrong.
Should have had to pay for the last 2 operations.
I have to say thought they brought them up properly, Not like the ones around here that kick them out every morning and only let them in to sleep. As long as they are quiet and dont bother them.Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...0 -
But things will have to get worse before they can get any better. I'd rather see some kids in care (even if it costs more in the short term) than keep giving money to the wasters they call parents.
I don't know why this comes up. The care system is struggling to deal with abuse and neglect let alone set up to care for children who's parents are just skint.
Spending more in the short term means spending more helping the parents be better parents and more on education so the kids don't end up like their parents. I'll stick my neck out here - NO child will EVER be taken from their mother simply because they had a child they couldn't afford whilst on benefits.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards