Help ! housing association suddenly appeared

cats!

In response to comments in section 2.

I am not slating those in HA - if you read previous posts you will see my own family live in it and some have claimed HB.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that they must take full financial responsibility for their children?? Having children is not a "right" and if you can't afford to raise them use contraception - which is normally free from most family planning clinics!

I am involved with local projects which seek to help young people, part of my desire to do this was borne out of doing my degree. It is hard to help people who do not aspire!

Debt_Free_Chick

cats! wrote: »

Hi lynzpower, thanks for the reply.

The point of making a father take a DNA test upon a childs birth was to ensure that the mother would actually know WHO he was!

But you need to have a possible father's DNA to match it to. A DNA test matches two sets of DNA ..... if you have only one, then a test will be of no use.

Debt_Free_Chick

cats! wrote: »

The biological father must pay for the childs education (46% of my council tax goes towards education in the borough - why??) right through to university.
The biological father must pay for the childs healthcare until they are 18.

But no-one pays directly for State education or healthcare. Are you suggesting that certain fathers pay directly? What if they already pay Council Tax? Or any other tax?

floss2

cats! wrote: »

My parents made the decision to only have one child - because that's all they could afford. The state did not provide my education and I paid for my degree myself. My parents did not claim child benefit on principal.

If you are of my generation, then it is likely that your parents were not entitled to claim child benefit as it was not payable for the first child whilst the Children's Tax Allowance was in operation.

Your parents were lucky to be able to afford to give you a full private education from 5-18, perhaps the costs of that had an affect on their decision?

And having children is not always a choice - yes I wanted children a little later in my life, but I am one of those people whose contraception failed, and the result is now 21 & at Leeds Uni. The choice was not mine to have a baby at that time, and the choice to have his brother within 2 years was a conscious one to save on costs & reduce my employment - downtime.

cats!

I'm so glad people are responding to this.

The point of DNA testing is of course to have the FATHER tested to match with the newborn. That way responsibility can be taken for the child's welfare at birth.

My parents were entitled to claim child benefit, but chose not to as they felt it was not the states responsibility to feed and clothe me. They were not born into money but made sacrifices and my father worked hard and had good career progression.

My actual feelings in this come mainly from seeing how my cousin has struggled when her daughters !!!!less father simply walked away. He takes no responsibility and pays a pittance in maintenance as and when he feels like it. Nothing extra for birthdays or Christmas. The CSA are/were useless. Why should the taxpayer fund my cousions rent?? Why can't he pay?? (By the way my cousin works part-time to support her child even though she would be better off financially claiming benefits!).

By paying directly for education, kids would be better educated as more money would go into the system. This means a reduction in council tax as money could directly fund schools. With more money, better teaching would follow, smaller classrooms and children with learning difficulities could receive the one to one teaching they so desperately need. By having state funding in schools it always means the cheapest options. Parents would have greater freedom of choice if they funded and chose the school for their childs education.

It requires a radical rethink of our taxation system, but it would lead to greater accountability of public money too!

floss2

cats! wrote: »

I'm so glad people are responding to this.

The point of DNA testing is of course to have the FATHER tested to match with the newborn. That way responsibility can be taken for the child's welfare at birth. This may be cost-prohibitive and some fathers may object to this if they were not part of the decision to have the baby.

My parents were entitled to claim child benefit, but chose not to as they felt it was not the states responsibility to feed and clothe me. They were not born into money but made sacrifices and my father worked hard and had good career progression.

My actual feelings in this come mainly from seeing how my cousin has struggled when her daughters !!!!less father simply walked away. He takes no responsibility and pays a pittance in maintenance as and when he feels like it. Nothing extra for birthdays or Christmas. The CSA are/were useless. Why should the taxpayer fund my cousions rent?? Why can't he pay?? (By the way my cousin works part-time to support her child even though she would be better off financially claiming benefits!). Why doesn't she work full-time like I still do and pay into the system to cover her future needs & her child's education?

By paying directly for education, kids would be better educated as more money would go into the system.
Do you realistically think that people can afford to pay for this? What about the genuine poverty due to an illness or disability, meaning people are unable to work?
This means a reduction in council tax as money could directly fund schools.
It will go on paying Council employees & providing services to provide for those children whose parents are not paying for their education
With more money, better teaching would follow
not necessarily - dependant upon the quality of teachers. Poor teaching is possible in private schools just as good teaching is common in state schools, smaller classrooms and children with learning difficulities could receive the one to one teaching they so desperately need. By having state funding in schools it always means the cheapest options. Parents would have greater freedom of choice if they funded and chose the school for their childs education.
I agree with you, but what about those who cannot / will not pay? Do we go back to a pre-Victorian society with young children running the streets from age4 upwards? At least with a state system there is a process for educating children (albeit not the best in some parts of the country - but that is a different debate).

It requires a radical rethink of our taxation system, but it would lead to greater accountability of public money too!

The rethink / reform would take years, it would be opposed by a lot of people for differing reasons, and would cost more to implement than it would have cost to increase investment into the present education system.

tweetyshells

cats! wrote: »

Why is it so hard for people to understand that they must take full financial responsibility for their children?? Having children is not a "right" and if you can't afford to raise them use contraception - which is normally free from most family planning clinics!

So now you are assuming that all people in HA houses are on housing benefit?
We are housing association tennants and have never been on HB as we both work and pay our way!

floss2

tweetyshells wrote: »

So now you are assuming that all people in HA houses are on housing benefit?
We are housing association tennants and have never been on HB as we both work and pay our way!

Me neither...oh, tell a lie, was on HB for 5 weeks after my mum died & had no wages coming in. Thats 1 week per year of my tenancy. My parents NEVER claimed HB in 30yrs tenancy, despite retirement & 2 terminal illnesses.

plane_boy2000

Op - the way I read this is that the developer has decided to off load ajob lot to a HA to get his cash out quick in a static / faling market. Not sure if you can, but if so get out. No offence to HA tennants, the majority of which are normal everyday people, but it will devalue your house. I used to live near a road which was a mix of private and HA tennants, and although its a nice road with no trouble any local EA will value a house in that road at less, and they are more difficult to sell. The price you agreed to did not reflect this so there is a strong probability that you are paying over the odds on this one. I would seek advice from my solictor on this ASAP.

floss2

plane_boy2000 wrote: »

No offence to HA tennants, the majority of which are normal everyday people,

Thank you for stating this!!