Welfare Reform

[Deleted User]

cazzap06 wrote: »

By the way is it true that Maggie Thatchers funeral cost 8 million???

Actually, it was around £10 million, but approx 2/3rds wasn't paid by the taxpayer.

[Deleted User]

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Personally speaking he is a very honourable man

An honourable man would call someone a bigot to their face, rather than inside a limousine, where he thinks he can't be heard.

[Deleted User]

Cocobay71 wrote: »

When the story brought up her financial outgoings it showed she spent £130 a week on food shopping.

How much? :eek:

It's no wonder she can't get by on £500pw.

I don't spend £130 on food in a month.

[Deleted User]

Growurown wrote: »

However children don't ask to be born and it seems harsh that the children should suffer for their parents lack of responsibility.

I wouldn't call living on £500pw, "suffering".

Depth_Charge

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

An honourable man would call someone a bigot to their face, rather than inside a limousine, where he thinks he can't be heard.

Hi

Not quite on the subject of Welfare Reform and finance but it did happen.

I dont think there would be many of us that have never dropped an inappropriate comment or two, especially under pressure and stress.

I do it regular, especially when Ive a had a few with the lads (and Im perfect:)

I will leave it with you now Bob

My take

Growurown

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

People don't have all this expense, with their own child :huh:

At age 16, if your child started a full time job, on NMW, they would earn less than £150pw gross.

Yet, for taking care of a 16 year-old foster child, the household budget benefits to the tune of almost double that.

Of course people have this expense with their own child but that is the point - it is their own child, a child they choose to have and support.

Fostering a child is a job, a very difficult job and carries a lot of responsibility. A foster parent is responsible for that child 24 hours a day, they can't go home at five thirty and put their feet up in front of the telly and forget about the job until the next morning. Yes they get paid for that job but bearing in mind that it is not their child they still have to pay for that child out of the money they earn. Effectively the foster parent's pay isn't as much as it first appears.

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I wouldn't call living on £500pw, "suffering".

£500 per week is a cap, the maximum amount any family can receive regardless of the number of people in the family. Many families will get a lot less than this.

The_mangler

Growurown wrote: »

Of course people have this expense with their own child but that is the point - it is their own child, a child they choose to have and support.

Fostering a child is a job, a very difficult job and carries a lot of responsibility. A foster parent is responsible for that child 24 hours a day, they can't go home at five thirty and put their feet up in front of the telly and forget about the job until the next morning. Yes they get paid for that job but bearing in mind that it is not their child they still have to pay for that child out of the money they earn. Effectively the foster parent's pay isn't as much as it first appears.



.

Carers save the this government £118billion per year, we dont get holidays or weekends off and we didnt choose this life. Yet they think we are only worth £59 a week which is affected by means tested benefits. This government stinks, they wont be happy until the poorer and weaker elements of society are totally excluded.
By all means pay foster parents a reasonable amount but they have to take care of the carers too.

[Deleted User]

Growurown wrote: »

Of course people have this expense with their own child but that is the point - it is their own child, a child they choose to have and support.

They also choose to have and support the foster child.

The point I'm making is, £980pm is a lot of money, to feed and clothe a child.

I don't disagree with them being recompensed, for the cost of caring for a foster child, but fostering is supposed to be a voluntary, altruistic/philanthropic act, rather than a way to boost the household budget.

Fostering a child is a job, a very difficult job and carries a lot of responsibility.

As does raising your own child.

A foster parent is responsible for that child 24 hours a day

Just as they are for their own child.

they can't go home at five thirty and put their feet up in front of the telly and forget about the job until the next morning.

Nor can they, with their own child.

Yes they get paid for that job but bearing in mind that it is not their child they still have to pay for that child out of the money they earn.

No they don't pay for the child out of the money they earn.

They get an allowance of £980pm, to pay for the child's needs.

Effectively the foster parent's pay isn't as much as it first appears.

It's approx 3/4 of what I have to live on.

Bear in mind, they have to pay their Mortgage/Rent, whether they have a foster child living with them or not.

The allowance is meant to cover the additional costs, incurred by having an extra person living there, and nearly £1,000pm seems a lot to cover that.

£500 per week is a cap, the maximum amount any family can receive regardless of the number of people in the family. Many families will get a lot less than this.

True, but we are talking about people who will have their benefits reduced, due to the cap.

Someone previously eligible for more than £500, isn't going to be receiving less than £500, once the cap is introduced.

[Deleted User]

The_mangler wrote: »

Carers save the this government £118billion per year, we don't get holidays or weekends off and we didn't choose this life. Yet they think we are only worth £59 a week which is affected by means tested benefits.

Very much my point.

A disabled relative doesn't spend weekdays at school, like a child does, so the commitment really is 24/7.

For that 24/7 commitment, you get £256pm, whereas someone caring for a 16 year-old foster child (who isn't a 24/7 commitment) gets almost 4 times as much.

Growurown

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I don't disagree with them being recompensed, for the cost of caring for a foster child, but fostering is supposed to be a voluntary, altruistic/philanthropic act, rather than a way to boost the household budget.

No it's not - it is a job, the same as any other. It just needs a very special kind of person to do it. You wouldn't expect someone working in a children's home or a social worker to do the job for not much pay because it is 'altruistic/philanthropic' type of work. Plus fostering rates vary enormously depending on which agency you go through and the area you live in. Not everyone will get the sum of money you quote.