Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

GirlFromMars_2

SnooksNJ wrote: »

I'm not familiar with Stevenage but is it so remote that there were no neighbors to look after this guy?
The sad thing is the £3 he had left from Ian Duncan's Smith's policies was £3 more than what his sister gave him.
Would you allow that to happen to your siblings?

Everyone makes mistakes. I certainly hope I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. But equally I support & encourage government to provide the kind of safety net that means nobody is reliant on one person to notice & help them at the opportune moment.

GirlFromMars_2

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

So basically, you are now agreeing that it's not the government's fault because benefits were reduced, but it's the fault of everybody. Well, at least now we're getting somewhere.

I don't consider myself to be well off. I am a pensioner with a state pension only, nothing else.

I didn't suggest you were rich. But from the way you write I find it hard to believe you are hungry, have difficulty accessing supermarkets, calculating how much money you have to spend, and cooking for yourself. As a result you have a level of logic available to you that you cannot apply to a someone at the point when they died starving.

And while I agree that people could have stepped in to help this situation I do blame the government, as the safety net of last resort why shouldn't they take a fair portion of blame.

If the government cannot provide for the least among us, then are they really just there for the benefit cheats who know how to work the system?

The more difficult it is to access benefits the more the system plays to those who can work the system and excludes people who are in dire need.

Fatherof2mids

The soldier, from what I can gather committed a firm of suicide, he stopped taking his meds because he didn't want to live the life of poverty before him.

Girl, you may be right I may be falling into the trap of deserving a day not. You are also right it's the kids that will suffer.

The cap on 3 kids, I'm happy with.

I would prefer a conts based system, as I mentioned earlier.

Those who say everyone must fend for themselves, I hope you struggle on should you fall on hard times rather than become a hypocrite.

I hope you never require the state for support

BJV

GirlFromMars wrote: »

I can see that many families are going to have to go back to living in very over crowded circumstances. Landlords are going to love that!

Ultimately the people being hit hardest by these policies are children. They had no choice on the family they were born into, or whether their parents are working poor, lazy poor, sick poor or disabled poor. Whichever circumstances they were born into they don't deserve to go hungry or have to live in over crowding.

The number of long term JSA claimants has fallen drastically. This is absolutely something that should be encouraged, but I don't see that punishing children is the way to do it.

Lets hope that the parents have the love for their children and self respect to not let this happen. Yes children do not decide which family they are born into but the parents do.


This should be about discouraging people to solely use the government as there only form of income and using children as a form of pay increase.

GirlFromMars_2

BJV wrote: »

Lets hope that the parents have the love for their children and self respect to not let this happen. Yes children do not decide which family they are born into but the parents do.


This should be about discouraging people to solely use the government as there only form of income and using children as a form of pay increase.

Yup, love and respect for your children, is clearly what the NHS were looking for to cure Parkinson's & MS. Thanks for your invaluable help. I'm sure there'll be a Nobel Prize on its way to you shortly.

I hope fit healthy parents will be offered and will take jobs.

I am worried about what will happen to parents who through no fault of their own are unable to work.

I also hope that working families who choose to have children they can afford have checked their crystal ball to ensure that they won't fall on hard times within 25 years of procreating.

BoJangles_2

GirlFromMars wrote: »

Yup, love and respect for your children, is clearly what the NHS were looking for to cure Parkinson's & MS. Thanks for your invaluable help. I'm sure there'll be a Nobel Prize on its way to you shortly.

I hope fit healthy parents will be offered and will take jobs.

I am worried about what will happen to parents who through no fault of their own are unable to work.

I also hope that working families who choose to have children they can afford have checked their crystal ball to ensure that they won't fall on hard times within 25 years of procreating.

Nothing wrong with encouraging people to think twice before having lots of children. And hopefully the next step will to cap child benefit at 2 children.

FBaby

We keep going on about the children being affected. I assume because they will have less not because they will starve. It will be a case of going back to growing up being aware of differences, their friends having the nice phones whilst they have to do with second hand ones. Ok, not nice BUT, isn't that also teaching them what the reality of life is, that is that you have to make the right choices in life to get what you aspire too?

Won't it actually help children to grow up in a more financially realistic household? So that if a child grows up in a household that only works 24 hours, they will realise that it does limit what you can afford, that it doesn't give you the luxuries you can enjoy when you work 70 hours as a family so that hopefully, they will aspire to make the right choices, build a career before having children, limiting the number to what you can afford so that they can be financially in control of their lives rather than dependent on a system they have no control over?

tomtontom

GirlFromMars wrote: »

I can see that many families are going to have to go back to living in very over crowded circumstances. Landlords are going to love that!

Ultimately the people being hit hardest by these policies are children. They had no choice on the family they were born into, or whether their parents are working poor, lazy poor, sick poor or disabled poor. Whichever circumstances they were born into they don't deserve to go hungry or have to live in over crowding.

The number of long term JSA claimants has fallen drastically. This is absolutely something that should be encouraged, but I don't see that punishing children is the way to do it.

What do you class as overcrowded and what problems do you associate with it? My father was one of seven children and grew up in a three bed house. That was nothing out of the ordinary back then. He and his siblings have all grown up healthy and happy.

Fatherof2mids

Children we be affected , and goes far beyond second hand phones. The fact that kids from families on benefits already perform significantly worse at gcse level than those from working families shows the severity of the issue facing children in poverty.
These cuts will make it worse for these children, attainment gaps will widen, and the idea of meritocracy will disappear from our shores.

tomtontom

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

Children we be affected , and goes far beyond second hand phones. The fact that kids from families on benefits already perform significantly worse at gcse level than those from working families shows the severity of the issue facing children in poverty.
These cuts will make it worse for these children, attainment gaps will widen, and the idea of meritocracy will disappear from our shores.

I would link educational achievement far more to strong parental role models than income.