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.
📨 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!
Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children
Comments
-
bloolagoon wrote: »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.
This is not a loaded question, simple curiosity. How did you manage to get to a situation whereby you were paying out 4 X your essential, income on childcare? Was it the loss of an income, living beyond means elsewhere?
Again jot a loaded question at all,0 -
bloolagoon wrote: »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.
The lower Benefit Cap & other Budget changes are going to make very large areas of the country unaffordable.
I don't think overcrowding is ok for any children. I don't believe it's good for them. Presumably with overcrowding requiring you to turn the living room into a bedroom you would have been able to put yourself on the Social Housing Lists in your local borough.
Either way you obviously realised you were living in an overcrowded situation & found a way to resolve it.0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »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?.................
Oh dear another one swallowing the government spin hook line an sinker.
Oh well...0 -
-
bloolagoon wrote: »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.
I think it's extremely naive of you to say that financial difference has little effect. The pupil premium per child is negligee in big school budgets and rarely does the individual child see benefit.
I agree a family with I work parents does offer children something extra, a less chaotic household perhaps, less stress, more cultural activities. However by cutting the funding to the poor and the working poor all we do is increase this burden and give less chance to social mobility0 -
Fatherof2mids wrote: »This is not a loaded question, simple curiosity. How did you manage to get to a situation whereby you were paying out 4 X your essential, income on childcare? Was it the loss of an income, living beyond means elsewhere?
Again jot a loaded question at all,
Not great planning. I conceived quicker than planned as my first was a long time coming due to issues. My plans that one would be in school didnt work out. Life throws things at you. £200 a week is average childcare. One had 15 hours free or it would have been higher. Then rent in London. It all mounts up.
We just worked harder - did overtime etc.
It's no different to many working parents.
Most wait until their eldest is in school before having another and most stop at 1/2 children.
It's also partly due to my job. I don't know my shifts so you have to pay for 5 days even if working weekends and not using them.
Life is easier now. Minimum childcare and promotions means we are very well off but we sacrificed to get here.Tomorrow is the most important thing in life0 -
Weary_soul wrote: »Oh dear another one swallowing the government spin hook line an sinker.
Oh well...
Care to actually address the points I raised or is it because its too close to the truth and they don't fit in with your agenda?..0 -
GirlFromMars wrote: »Very glad to hear you were able to move your way out of overcrowding. Sadly not everyone is able to do even one of the things on the list.
The lower Benefit Cap & other Budget changes are going to make very large areas of the country unaffordable.
I don't think overcrowding is ok for any children. I don't believe it's good for them. Presumably with overcrowding requiring you to turn the living room into a bedroom you would have been able to put yourself on the Social Housing Lists in your local borough.
Either way you obviously realised you were living in an overcrowded situation & found a way to resolve it.
Social housing in London with a £55k income. Yeah I was top of the list :rotfl:
You don't seem to grasp that many workers who are not "low income" have a take home off not much different to "low incomes" or until the cap benefits. It's not right that you work all hours and have not much to show for it. Working should pay, full time over part time should pay, professional v NMW should pay.
With benefits and tax credits they've pretty much merged to not a lot between them.Tomorrow is the most important thing in life0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »Sorry to blow your bubble sweetcheeks but having been born and raised on a Council Estate I don't need any politician telling me how it is.
Care to actually address the points I raised or is it because its too close to the truth and they don't fit in with your agenda?..
Oh god no. I've read more then enough of this thread to realise whatever is said is ignored, so what the bloody point?
I'll just leave you to your poor bashing and spouting right wing propaganda.0 -
bloolagoon wrote: »Social housing in London with a £55k income. Yeah I was top of the list :rotfl:
You don't seem to grasp that many workers who are not "low income" have a take home off not much different to "low incomes" or until the cap benefits. It's not right that you work all hours and have not much to show for it. Working should pay, full time over part time should pay, professional v NMW should pay.
With benefits and tax credits they've pretty much merged to not a lot between them.
The problem is that work stopped paying, and benefits started to top up low wage employers.
A family used to be able to survive comfortably on a single salary and buy their own home. That is no longer the case. Without two parents earning a significant amount of money home ownership is impossible without government assistance, and renting is shockingly expensive.
When women entered the work place in large numbers, a two wage household became the norm and house prices increased accordingly. We've started living in smaller households but prices haven't dropped as the increased number of households means more demand and no new supply.
The problem is not that benefits are too high, but that wages are much lower than before in comparison to household costs.
Work should pay, and an increase in the national minimum wage is welcomed and will reduce Tax Credits accordingly as employers pay more. Sadly the government didn't stick with just increasing the minimum wage.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