Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

sxcizme3010

At 21 - Im in retail management and had a job as an assistant manager earning 19800 per annum. My expenditure is already very low - I pay my bills (no luxuries) and I shop at aldi, dont spend much on petrol except travel costs to work etc.. My expenditure cant come down any more. I am not moaning as I said Im hoping by April my circumstances will change again as claiming tax credits is a short term thing until we get sorted again however I am just pointing out that not every person who claims them are lazy people who get pregnant and have kids for fun to various dads and are like benefits street! Demonising people for having kids.... I mean really guys! Life isnt black and white and Im happy for my taxes to pay for social security as anyone of us could need it at any time and most of us get it without realising - free prescriptions etc... Its all social security so lets try to help each other instead of criticising

roje

I'm bored of reading about how 'the taxpayer' should not pay for 'other people's children.' It's a bizarre attitude. SOCIETY pays for its young, its old, its sick. That is what a decent and civilised community does. Investing in children now more than pays off down the line when they contribute to the system themselves.

I disagree with many of the questionable incentives my taxes are used for. Protecting the vulnerable is not one of them. The new budget has not hit families who do not work anywhere near as much as those who do. Every low income working family will lose a significant chunk of their monthly income next year thanks to the changes in tax credit rules. Many of these families are already attending food banks weekly, I volunteer for one and we frequently see families with working parents in full time jobs who are struggling to make ends meet. These are the people we are supposed to be helping. The shelf stackers and care assistants who work long hours to feed their families. Society would fall apart without its low income workers. Why are we so dishonest about it? Why do the government keep spouting this ridiculous rhetoric about aspiration? They know as much as any of us that we cannot operate without someone on the checkout, cleaning the bathrooms, driving the bus, crossing children over the road, packing the boxes, labelling the groceries, caring in the care homes. Why are people in these professions being penalised for not earning more? It isn't their fault that we do not value their professions as highly as others.

sxcizme3010

roje wrote: »

I'm bored of reading about how 'the taxpayer' should not pay for 'other people's children.' It's a bizarre attitude. SOCIETY pays for its young, its old, its sick. That is what a decent and civilised community does. Investing in children now more than pays off down the line when they contribute to the system themselves.

I disagree with many of the questionable incentives my taxes are used for. Protecting the vulnerable is not one of them. The new budget has not hit families who do not work anywhere near as much as those who do. Every low income working family will lose a significant chunk of their monthly income next year thanks to the changes in tax credit rules. Many of these families are already attending food banks weekly, I volunteer for one and we frequently see families with working parents in full time jobs who are struggling to make ends meet. These are the people we are supposed to be helping. The shelf stackers and care assistants who work long hours to feed their families. Society would fall apart without its low income workers. Why are we so dishonest about it? Why do the government keep spouting this ridiculous rhetoric about aspiration? They know as much as any of us that we cannot operate without someone on the checkout, cleaning the bathrooms, driving the bus, crossing children over the road, packing the boxes, labelling the groceries, caring in the care homes. Why are people in these professions being penalised for not earning more? It isn't their fault that we do not value their professions as highly as others.

Finally somebody speaks sense!!! :T

mejaa

Fatherof2 - it certainly is not a case of people who work more have more.
My cousin and her husband and 3 kids get £4000 less than us a year not working. They are exempt from benefits cap, have no rent, council tax,insurances or school dinners to pay out. :mad:
After all of the above we are are left with a lot less than them and also have 3 children.
A lot would say more fool us for working, but what kind of example is that to set my kids.

FBaby

I see, but you were still 50 per month better off. Meaning that you could've put yourself in a position to afford the trip, if as you say all things were taken into it. I understand that it may seem unfair working hard for little difference, but that is not a claiments fault. Also if you find it a struggle to make ends meet, imagine the difficulty those who are 50 per month worse off face.

I might have been £50 a month better off, but I was a stressed and exhausted mum who so envied my friend's energy and freedom. To be frank, that was worth much more than £50 a month. Life is not just about money. Why should the parent on benefits gets all the privileges of time and freedom which the working parent does get but almost the same money? And yet you think that the family on benefit is the 'vulnerable' one!

sxcizme3010, your situation is difficult now without a doubt, BUT, you are young and clearly as a couple, do have the ability to earn a higher income since you did before. So it sounds like your difficult situation is a temporary one. The issue is with those who were happy to have 4 children + and remaining on a low income for over 30 years + being dependent on tax credits.

FBaby

I'm bored of reading about how 'the taxpayer' should not pay for 'other people's children.' It's a bizarre attitude. SOCIETY pays for its young, its old, its sick. That is what a decent and civilised community does. Investing in children now more than pays off down the line when they contribute to the system themselves.

You are so right! I think it is time tax payers pay for my children and because I love being a mum I will add a few (adopted!) because it is so much more a rewarding job to be a mum than to work for a boss who couldn't care less about my, only my productivity. Others can go and slave and pay for me, after all, we are a society of caring. That means that you have the givers and the takers and frankly, being a taker is much easier and more rewarding.

Oh wait, what will happen when everyone decides that being a taker is much better? The one giver left better make a lot of money to pay plenty of tax to pay for all of us takers to end up no better off. That's ok though because he will get the 'Giver to the society' award!

I am in a cynical mood, but frankly, it is posts like yours that I find desparing. I don't have an issue with investing in the future but investing in children who are learning that you can get the same than those who work hard by doing little is unlikely to yield the sharing community you seem to believe in. This mindset is already getting so ingrained in the new generation, it would certainly take the direction of an epidemic if the governement didn't finally realised it needed to stop.
Back to my post about school trip: you have those children whose parents work hard, have not been there to pick up the kids from school because they worked, not there to do fun things during the holidays because their parents had to work, and yet are told they can't enjoy all the expensive activities. Then you have the children whose mum and dads got to take them and pick them up everyday, no long days in wrap around clubs for them, no boring holiday clubs, and the bonus, they get to pick all the most fun activities. What do you think those children learn? That unlike their parents, they are going to aspire for a high paid job?

Fatherof2mids

FBaby wrote: »

You are so right! I think it is time tax payers pay for my children and because I love being a mum I will add a few (adopted!) because it is so much more a rewarding job to be a mum than to work for a boss who couldn't care less about my, only my productivity. Others can go and slave and pay for me, after all, we are a society of caring. That means that you have the givers and the takers and frankly, being a taker is much easier and more rewarding.

Oh wait, what will happen when everyone decides that being a taker is much better? The one giver left better make a lot of money to pay plenty of tax to pay for all of us takers to end up no better off. That's ok though because he will get the 'Giver to the society' award!

I am in a cynical mood, but frankly, it is posts like yours that I find desparing. I don't have an issue with investing in the future but investing in children who are learning that you can get the same than those who work hard by doing little is unlikely to yield the sharing community you seem to believe in. This mindset is already getting so ingrained in the new generation, it would certainly take the direction of an epidemic if the governement didn't finally realised it needed to stop.
Back to my post about school trip: you have those children whose parents work hard, have not been there to pick up the kids from school because they worked, not there to do fun things during the holidays because their parents had to work, and yet are told they can't enjoy all the expensive activities. Then you have the children whose mum and dads got to take them and pick them up everyday, no long days in wrap around clubs for them, no boring holiday clubs, and the bonus, they get to pick all the most fun activities. What do you think those children learn? That unlike their parents, they are going to aspire for a high paid job?

It is at this point I will stop my involvement I the thread, as there will be no change in your view. The fact that you despair at a caring society provided through governance is testament to that. It appears that you are unhappy that not everybody struggles. If I were struggling my thought would not be that those below me should struggle more, but that I wish nobody had to struggle like me.

Again back to the facts from the welfare cuts. Those that will be hit the hardest are the working poor, the majority will see a real hit in there income well before the nlw is introduced. It is these people I feel sorry for. I also feel very sorry for those who have become recently unemployed and will be hit by the benefits cap and have to move from the area they call they home.

To the poster regarding there cousins income. I can't make your sum work, as without a disability in the family the cash income would be around 15k eating if you get 4k more with 3 kids you too would receive help. If the is disability in the family then shame on you for begrudging them the support.

mejaa

Fatherof2 yes there son has a disability and is in full time school, this does not stop them from getting a job.
My son has a disability and we both work, me having 2 jobs .
I do not begrudge them but I am very annoyed of the fact that they can spend £60 a week on cigarettes and over £50 a week on takeaways/eating out and still have enough money for other things.

Spendless

bloolagoon wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that the poster above is doing all expected at 1.5 x employment with young children. These are the ones that shouldnt have been hit IMO.

Once upon a time a family working 1.5 jobs with young children wouldn't have received a benefit top up for their wages in the manner it's been for the last 12 years. Though a supplement for parents on low wages has been in force since the 1970s the threshold was a lot lower, the only people I knew who ever got it were single parents working in part-time low paid jobs.


Everyone else had to cut their cloth accordingly, whether this meant working alternative shifts to the other parent, living somewhere cheaper, continuing living with your own parents for a few years after marriage wasn't uncommon or just living very frugally, it's what happened. This isn't that long ago either, it's how it was when I had my eldest 15 years ago. Married mans tax allowance had gone, no income top up, no financial help with childcare, just child benefit which was £15 per week. Unable to return to my job as they only had full-time workers and the childcare bill was equivalent to my wages, we had to continue living in a deprived area in a very small terraced house that I'd bought as a single person, so small that with the addition of a baby we had to send away several items of furniture to be stored by relatives and I worked evenings and weekends so husband could have baby.

FBaby

The fact that you despair at a caring society provided through governance is testament to that

Just to comment on this point. I don't despair at a caring society at all, I despair at a society that is all in one direction, one where a large chunk believe they are entitled to everything they get and show absolutely no sense of appreciation that what they get, they receive from others.

I don't wish for anyone to struggle, I wish for people to take responsibility for their own choices and seek ways to help themselves to be in a better position, not expect others to get them out of it. I would always be happy to share my income with a family who limited the number of children they had, who both worked full-time to give themselves a better chance for the future, even if they are no better off doing so for the time being. I do have an issue with a family deciding to have as many babies as they wished and then limit themselves to working 24 hours because they can, and then expect the ones above to make up the difference so they end up in the same position.

There has to be an incentive in this society to make the right unselfish decisions. That makes a caring society.