Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

FBaby

I believe that children we should provide financial support to the children of out of work/low income parents. This is because through no fault of there own they are unnable to participate in activities, provide for them selves and live to a reasonable standard. They are therefore seen as vulnerable.

And the children of parents who are not entitled to benefits, but somehow can just about make ends meet can go and get lost! The point is that you can't cut the line as to which child is vulnerable and which isn't on the basis of benefit claim. Children will always be dependent on their parents before anything/anyone else. You can throw money at their parents, provide them with access to the best education, if their parents are going to be crap, none of the above will ensure they are not vulnerable any longer.

This is because through no fault of there own they are unnable to participate in activities,

And yet the way the system is set up, it can turn the other way around. My children's school organises an activity week at the end of the year, anything from fun days out to amusement parks to not so much fun free local activities. Children whose parents on benefits get their activities all paid for (and no restriction as to which they can do or not), so guess who gets to pick the fun expensive ones? The unbalance became so obvious, the school had to reduce the week from 5 days to 3 after parents complained and the school couldn't afford spending up to £150 on all children on benefits.

borkid

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I am also unsure what you mean by they are unable to participate in activities and live to a reasonable standard. What is the definition of activities that children should be able to participate in? What is a reasonable standard?

/QUOTE]

Some, if not all, schools have funds available to subsidise or even fully pay for school trips for children from poor families unable to pay for themselves.

I remember hearing of schools lending out laptops to children who can't afford them.

So unless things have changed dramatically in the last couple of years children from poor backgrounds have access to educational trips and computers at home.

nannytone_2

i was talking more in terms of expectation.
it is expected that an adult would be able to provide for themselves.
someone that is unemployed, has a reasonable expectation that at some point, they will be able to provide for themselves, something a severely disabled person mat not have.
a child wouldn't be expected to provide for themselves but a child has parents to provide that expectation, and so unless they have other needs wouldn't be classed as vulnerable purely because they are a child

Bogof_Babe

FBaby wrote: »

And the children of parents who are not entitled to benefits, but somehow can just about make ends meet can go and get lost! The point is that you can't cut the line as to which child is vulnerable and which isn't on the basis of benefit claim. Children will always be dependent on their parents before anything/anyone else. You can throw money at their parents, provide them with access to the best education, if their parents are going to be crap, none of the above will ensure they are not vulnerable any longer.

And yet the way the system is set up, it can turn the other way around. My children's school organises an activity week at the end of the year, anything from fun days out to amusement parks to not so much fun free local activities. Children whose parents on benefits get their activities all paid for (and no restriction as to which they can do or not), so guess who gets to pick the fun expensive ones? The unbalance became so obvious, the school had to reduce the week from 5 days to 3 after parents complained and the school couldn't afford spending up to £150 on all children on benefits.

They'd have been better off limiting the total cost of activities that the children being paid for can go on. Something like £50 per child would be much more realistic, and probably in line with what a parent who has to pay for their child could manage.

Ridiculous system when working parents have to fork out £150 so that their children can enjoy things that kids with non-working parents get for free.

FBaby

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

They'd have been better off limiting the total cost of activities that the children being paid for can go on. Something like £50 per child would be much more realistic, and probably in line with what a parent who has to pay for their child could manage.

Ridiculous system when working parents have to fork out £150 so that their children can enjoy things that kids with non-working parents get for free.

But limiting it would have then be unfair to the kids who could afford it. They mean well, wanted to offer a choice, a kind of reward at the end of the year, but whereas working parents had to consider their budget and their children had to accept that they couldn't pick all the best activities, those on benefits just concentrated on organising the days so they could do it all, which ironically, was doing them a disfavour as yet missing out on another opportunity to learn about budget management!

In the end, what the school did was reduce the number of expensive activities and increase the cheaper -ie, more educational, ones. Of course, when this happened, it's parents on benefits who complained because their younger kids lost out compared to their older siblings. Honestly, one parent wrote a long letter of complaint and demanded that the Head explained to her youngest why he wouldn't be able to do all the activities he had been looking forward to doing like his older brother and sister did a couple of years earlier!

bloolagoon

It can also be subsidising others. I remember when my OH was made redundant we had my part time wages (so less than 20k tax free) and a mortgage. Tough going those few months as we had just bought a home so limited savings.

School wanted £5 a week for swimming lessons. I couldn't justify £5 a week especially as son was a good swimmer so it was pointless. When I said no quite a few other parents said no too.

The HT was not happy and said others couldn't swim and he needed our subsidies. The school managed to offer those children £2. So they went from free to £2. The parents refused to pay the £2 so no children in that year went swimming. The parents who refused to pay £5 were made to feel guilty. Like we were denying other children opportunities ours had becsuse they were on low incomes.

A few months later was a residential trip. Around £400 IIRC. It wasn't subsidised yet nearly all of the I can't pay £2 for swimming managed to fund their children.

Fatherof2mids

I accept the points regarding schemes to better aid inclusion for those children in poverty. I think they should be extended. I would like to think that all children should have the opportunity to partake in all activities that may further there education regardless of the financial situation at home.

I dint think we'll reach concensus on this, as I fail to see your issues with subsidies and financial aid.
Are you unhappy that the kids from workless households get to do these activities, or that you have to pay more because your financially (per person in the household) better off?

The original article pints to the benefit cap and working tax taper rather than any of the tangents I and others have taken it on. Back to those original points, they will hurt children from household of the working poor.

I would much prefer my tax rate increase than to have the limited resources taken from these children.

FBaby

Are you unhappy that the kids from workless households get to do these activities, or that you have to pay more because your financially (per person in the household) better off?

You're not getting it. It's not about having to pay to do the same, it's about working families NOT being able to afford what others get for free, so they are the ones who don't get the opportunity because their parents can pay or justify paying for it over something else. It is not so much an issue when the family only has one child, but when you have three a couple of years apart, it becomes a significant expense. It's easy not to have to worry about whether to save for the full amount to allow all your children to go when it makes no difference whether you have one child or 10 because all will go for free.

Fatherof2mids

FBaby wrote: »

You're not getting it. It's not about having to pay to do the same, it's about working families NOT being able to afford what others get for free, so they are the ones who don't get the opportunity because their parents can pay or justify paying for it over something else. It is not so much an issue when the family only has one child, but when you have three a couple of years apart, it becomes a significant expense. It's easy not to have to worry about whether to save for the full amount to allow all your children to go when it makes no difference whether you have one child or 10 because all will go for free.

I see, what I don't understand is how a family (working) cannot afford it when per person they will have more money. You cannot be upset that working families cannot afford something if they have spent the money on something else.
If the child of a workless family has the trip paid for via pupil premium or another mechanism, then, that child is from one of the poorest household in the UK. Meaning there income will be lower per person than that of the working family. With that being said, for the working family to afford the same trip they could save elsewhere. Simply saying workless family does not have to save is not a good comparison, as the workless family does not have the money to save in the first place.

I understand it is frustrating, when you see put of work people with luxuries that you have not, but in many cases they have foregone other items to get them.

Take the example above with swimming and residential trips. Maybe the reason they couldn't pay the 2 per session is because they had been saving all year for the residential trip.

Spendless

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

I see, what I don't understand is how a family (working) cannot afford it when per person they will have more money.

Let me see, perhaps when they have paid out of their wages for their mortgage, utility and insurance bills, costs of running a vehicle to get them to work as public transport doesn't run at the right times, paid for school lunches for their Secondary school age children and bus fayres and uniform, had the boiler breakdown and had to fund the repair/replacement because there's no landlord to hand the problem over to and so on and so forth there might not be much if anything left over?