Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

sky111

Interesting article in The Guardian


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/20/benefit-cuts-to-hit-huge-number-of-children-government-figures-show


Social cleansing from the south extending to the midlands


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/20/lower-benefit-caps-exclude-poor-families-make-cities-unaffordable


All conservative MPs voted in favour of the welfare reform bill.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

Interesting article. However, I am of the opinion that it is the parents of the children that are to blame for any hardship that the cuts will bring. It is irresponsible in the extreme to have children that you cannot afford. Relying wholly on the Government for food & shelter is fe ckless. Something had to be done to curb the benefits bill; it is rising exponentially. Time for these parents to actually care for the children they chose to bring into the world.

As for social cleansing, well there are areas that I can't afford to live in and I work full time. It has always been the case that there are places that are affordable and places that are not - for everyone. This is where aspirations come into play - if I want to live in the countryside, in a detached house I'll have to work to find a way to pay for it.

What we cannot do is allow the welfare situation continue as it is because the children might suffer or we will end up in a situation where a good percentage of people are better off on benefits with multiple children.....

missbiggles1

So called "child poverty" has dominated and warped benefits policy for too long. I'm no Tory but anything that changes that is going to be an improvement.

bloolagoon

The problem is we are all raising our children in poverty with such ridiculous thresholds. Not many have £400 a week left after housing and work

tea-bag

The only people complaining are the ones who choose this lifestyle. They tend to have a loud voice because the rest of us are too busy working to respond.

poppasmurf_bewdley

I think the headline for this thread should not read

'Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children'

but

'Benefits cuts to bring reality to parents of 330,000 children'.

rogerblack

Note that in many areas, even people with modest families - single parents with two children - are affected.
So are people whos children came through multiple births, or taking in another family members children after a death, or even rape.

The policy is also rather arbitrary. If you have been in employment 51/52 weeks of the previous year, you're protected for 9 months.
But if for example you switched jobs to get a better job as the government encouraged - if that caused a two week gap - you are no longer protected.

Is the policy in principle sane with respect to life choices - yes. But only if people are given the chance to make those choices in the knowledge of the upcoming policy.
The benefit cap was not known about before ~2010 - how could anyone possibly have known about this before?

In addition, it's rather misleading to talk about '23/20K' benefit income.

If you take two families living in next-door houses, one in a minimum wage job, the other who has been out of work for 3 months following a two week gap in employment - the only cash in hand from being out of work is JSA.
The in-work family who are getting 12K will be entitled to housing benefit too - which is the vast slice of the benefit in these cases.

missbiggles1

rogerblack wrote: »

Note that in many areas, even people with modest families - single parents with two children - are affected.
So are people whos children came through multiple births, or taking in another family members children after a death, or even rape.

The policy is also rather arbitrary. If you have been in employment 51/52 weeks of the previous year, you're protected for 9 months.
But if for example you switched jobs to get a better job as the government encouraged - if that caused a two week gap - you are no longer protected.

Is the policy in principle sane with respect to life choices - yes. But only if people are given the chance to make those choices in the knowledge of the upcoming policy.
The benefit cap was not known about before ~2010 - how could anyone possibly have known about this before?

In addition, it's rather misleading to talk about '23/20K' benefit income.

If you take two families living in next-door houses, one in a minimum wage job, the other who has been out of work for 3 months following a two week gap in employment - the only cash in hand from being out of work is JSA.
The in-work family who are getting 12K will be entitled to housing benefit too - which is the vast slice of the benefit in these cases.

What about child related benefits and housing costs?

bloolagoon

rogerblack wrote: »

Note that in many areas, even people with modest families - single parents with two children - are affected.
So are people whos children came through multiple births, or taking in another family members children after a death, or even rape.

The policy is also rather arbitrary. If you have been in employment 51/52 weeks of the previous year, you're protected for 9 months.
But if for example you switched jobs to get a better job as the government encouraged - if that caused a two week gap - you are no longer protected.

Is the policy in principle sane with respect to life choices - yes. But only if people are given the chance to make those choices in the knowledge of the upcoming policy.
The benefit cap was not known about before ~2010 - how could anyone possibly have known about this before?

In addition, it's rather misleading to talk about '23/20K' benefit income.

If you take two families living in next-door houses, one in a minimum wage job, the other who has been out of work for 3 months following a two week gap in employment - the only cash in hand from being out of work is JSA.
The in-work family who are getting 12K will be entitled to housing benefit too - which is the vast slice of the benefit in these cases.

Single parents should be getting CSA - I know there are some useless ex partners but despite media reports many SP do get some financial support. The number by multiple births/rape will be tiny.

If someone is only temporarily out of work as you suggest then it's managable part time. It's what they expect people do to when they lose their income mid tax year and both work.

It's also a lot more than many 2 working households with childcare have left.

Suarez

bloolagoon wrote: »

The problem is we are all raising our children in poverty with such ridiculous thresholds. Not many have £400 a week left after housing and work

I don't have £400 left each month, let alone week! :eek:

rogerblack

bloolagoon wrote: »

Single parents should be getting CSA - I know there are some useless ex partners but despite media reports many SP do get some financial support.

Because nobody ever dies.