Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

bloolagoon

GirlFromMars wrote: »

By "tax payers" I assume you mean adults who have chosen to live that way.

I'm saying that I consider a house to be overcrowded if someone is doing that, and that children should not be forced to live in a house where that is the norm.

Chosen? No not a choice. Try paying £1600 a month in childcare and see what you have left for rent and travel/commute to work. Doesn't leave much at all - so not really a choice.

Fatherof2mids

1600 a month In childcare!! How many children? For how many hours, I've never lived in London, but by that seems a lot, and tough going. I presume you were printing in a considerable amount more?

bloolagoon

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

In my post above I agree theat there is a poverty of aspiration amongst some parents. However you are vastly understating the role money in education. Even in the UK where education is free at source, the finances of the family have a massive affect on attainment outcome.

Only because of indirect things. Eg 2 degree/master level parents are likeky to work not be on the dole. So when you compare them it's genes not money.

Also your figures aren't poor v super rich. It's pupil premium v none pupil premium. So a cleaner or road sweeper is in your rich class as achieving good grades.

The reason children in workless families don't achieve isn't money. They often have more money (especially if in a council home) than those on low incomes.

GirlFromMars_2

bloolagoon wrote: »

Chosen? No not a choice. Try paying £1600 a month in childcare and see what you have left for rent and travel/commute to work. Doesn't leave much at all - so not really a choice.

Wait, I know the answers to this problem, I've seen them offered many many times on this forum.

1. Find a better job with more hours or better pay.
2. Choose only to have the number of children you can afford.
3. Move somewhere that is cheaper to live.
4. You and your partner should work different hours so that you don't need so much childcare.

Just because you choose/had to live in an overcrowded situation, doesn't mean that I don't think it was overcrowded, and doesn't mean I think other families children should be forced to live that way.

As I said, I lived in many different forms of overcrowding as a child. I don't think other children should be forced by law to do so.

bloolagoon

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

1600 a month In childcare!! How many children? For how many hours, I've never lived in London, but by that seems a lot, and tough going. I presume you were printing in a considerable amount more?

2 children in London. Discount for 2nd child too. No we literally had £421 a month to feed clothe etc way lower than "poverty" levels but above any help. hence why we moved north.

bloolagoon

GirlFromMars wrote: »

Wait, I know the answers to this problem, I've seen them offered many many times on this forum.

1. Find a better job with more hours or better pay.
2. Choose only to have the number of children you can afford.
3. Move somewhere that is cheaper to live.
4. You and your partner should work different hours so that you don't need so much childcare.

Just because you choose/had to live in an overcrowded situation, doesn't mean that I don't think it was overcrowded, and doesn't mean I think other families children should be forced to live that way.

As I said, I lived in many different forms of overcrowding as a child. I don't think other children should be forced by law to do so.

We did the above so why don't orhers?

So it's OK for those paying their way to be overcrowded but not those having it paid for. Strange logic but one you see regularly. Still tax us more seems the obvious answer.

Fatherof2mids

bloolagoon wrote: »

Only because of indirect things. Eg 2 degree/master level parents are likeky to work not be on the dole. So when you compare them it's genes not money.

Also your figures aren't poor v super rich. It's pupil premium v none pupil premium. So a cleaner or road sweeper is in your rich class as achieving good grades.

The reason children in workless families don't achieve isn't money. They often have more money (especially if in a council home) than those on low incomes.

I never said rich, I was comparing the poorest to the rest. In the cases above the poorest are those who attain the least. Whilst correlation and causation don't necessarily go hand in hand I think once the evidence around the subject is added in we can safely say that family finances have a considerable affect on academic outcomes.

The finances affect all sorts from nutrition to extra curricular activities to equipment available.
You simply cannot say that poor families have poor parents r poor genetics as you seem to be

cavework

GirlFromMars..
hope you don't mind me asking, do you live in a social housing flat?
not warden controlled etc ..just a normal tenancy?

leveller2911

Weary_soul wrote: »

You do realise that is not a long term solution. Foodbanks only supply 3 days worth of food at a time and after that you have to wait avery long time till you're allowed to claim again.

Imo a civilized society wouldn't need such a thing.

In a civilised Society should a sizeable minority who choose not to work have their life choices subsidised by those who work and pay tax?.

Should those who choose to work least hours as possible to maximise their tax credits be subsidised by the taxpayers? , many of those tax payers will be earning NMW but working 50-60hrs a week to make ends meet.

Why should hardworking people who are not high earners work their socks off and pay into the system for 50yrs end up worse off than someone who has done zip all their lives but are entitled to the Pension Credit when they "retire" from a lifetime of not working..

Is that civilised?.................

bloolagoon

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

I never said rich, I was comparing the poorest to the rest. In the cases above the poorest are those who attain the least. Whilst correlation and causation don't necessarily go hand in hand I think once the evidence around the subject is added in we can safely say that family finances have a considerable affect on academic outcomes.

The finances affect all sorts from nutrition to extra curricular activities to equipment available.
You simply cannot say that poor families have poor parents r poor genetics as you seem to be

You can put a great percentage on them. There's not really much income difference between a council tenant unemployed and a low income worker in private rental. To say the ones not on pupil premium obtain better grades purely on finances is false as there's no difference.

The pupil premium gives free extra curricular activities and equipment. Remember their education receives greater funding.

Working parents offer a lot to children not just money.