to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

(1000 Posts)
avivabeaver Mon 08-Oct-12 11:04:43

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 12:58:48

And nobody can Celine, but the reality is a shocker sad

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 12:58:50

CelineMcBean

Nobody has been able to answer my question about what happens to those children who are born over the quota. Funny that...

Their parents don't receive child benefit for them.

I think your problem is that you see the taxpayer as the solution to social problems. As the last 13 years of government ought to have taught you, spending more money doesn't get rid of poverty.

fuzzywigsmum Mon 08-Oct-12 12:58:53

I'm stunned that those of you who back Osborne's policy actually think that it will be an effective mechanism for limiting the number of children that benefit claimants have! The reasons why some poorer women have larger families are so diverse and complex (poverty, poor life chances, low self-esteem, domentic abuse etc etc) that simply cutting the amount of money they recieve is highly unlikely to reduce their birth rate.

But what it will do FOR SURE is push a lot more children into the kinds of lving conditions that no kids should be brought up in, espeically not in wealthier countries like the UK. Sure, their parents might not be making the most repsponsible choices but that dioesn't mean the kids should be punished.

This will mean more children going to school hungry, not able to afford proper clothing, living in flats and houses unfit for habitation and overall growing up with lower life-chances than thier 'feckless' parents.

It makes my blood boil that someone with the privaliged upbringing Osborne's had is able make these kinds of policy decisions with absolutely no comprehension of what it's like to live in poverty in Britain today.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:59:21

When there WERE more jobs people didn't take them. Dawndonna could you PLEASE withdraw your comment or come up with an alternative suggestion then I can stop reading

Alurkatsoftplay Mon 08-Oct-12 13:01:17

How is it fair that DH and I do shitty jobs and limit our family to support those who don't work and have loads of children? I don't get it.

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 13:02:30

The children born over the bloody quota are just being written off, not real people are they? sad

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by despair with all this? So many godawful, damaging ideas from the Tories sad

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 13:04:54

How come people like Alurkat seem to manage the difficulties of contraception while it's apparently so very tough for those for whom a baby will not have the same financial implications?

autumnlights12 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:07:01

the Labour Party were clever at pumping billions into benefits, but it hasn't really helped the cause of the problem; a bit like putting a plaster on a gushing artery

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 13:10:33

RatherBeOnThePiste

The children born over the bloody quota are just being written off, not real people are they?

Since when did one family's inability to act like rational adults need to be paid for by everyone? You're not making these over-quota kids' life any better by shovelling money in to the dysfunctional families, are you?

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by despair with all this? So many godawful, damaging ideas from the Tories

Oh, and remember the good old days under Labour? Beer was a penny a pint, smiling urchins sang and danced in the street, the sun shone every day, there wasn't any want or poverty and John Lennon played at the Islington socialist bookshop.

Nosleeptillgodknowswhen Mon 08-Oct-12 13:10:33

What fuzzywigsmum said...(and said so much better than i could have done).

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 13:11:54

Of course spending money gets rid of poverty. That's obvious if you can understand what the word poverty means. Child benefit doesn't even cover my heating bill nevermind pay for food, mortgage/rent, clothes, toiletries, transport, childcare etc etc If you think this is about child benefit you are a moron.

Btw I had an unplanned pregnancy due to a contraceptive failure. I was married, earning good money (higher rate tax payer) and educated. It happens.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 13:15:41

CelineMcBean

Of course spending money gets rid of poverty. That's obvious if you can understand what the word poverty means.

Unfortunately it doesn't. Despite a doubling of welfare payments under Labour poverty (using the government's definition) stayed largely the same.

Child benefit doesn't even cover my heating bill nevermind pay for food, mortgage/rent, clothes, toiletries, transport, childcare etc etc If you think this is about child benefit you are a moron.

And why should child benefit pay for those things? It's your child. It doesn't belong to me or to the county council or to Westminster.

Btw I had an unplanned pregnancy due to a contraceptive failure. I was married, earning good money (higher rate tax payer) and educated. It happens.

It does. And in this modern world you have choices. You can keep the child and raise it and pay for it, or you can have it adopted or you can choose to terminate the pregnancy.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 13:18:35

How can anyone justify punishing children for the poor decisions their parents make?

If we agree there are people who are too feckless, ignorant, lazy <<insert slur of choice>> to be responsible for how many children they have, what do you think should happen to those children?

A) leave them to rot. They are not my or society's problem
B) take them away from their parents and put them in care
C) pay for them any way because it is not their fault they have been born into this situation
D) steralise anyone who has more than X children and has been on benefits for X months or longer.
E) give them to wealthy childless couples at birth

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 13:18:42

Btw my curtains are closed in order to save on the heating. Even people who do this can have a different view. It happens.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 13:19:47

Celine: as I say - many people will magically discover what a condom is for when they have to pay for the baby which they may conceive.

ledkr Mon 08-Oct-12 13:22:25

The children born outside the quota will just be brought up on the existing income as are many many children born into low income families all the time. Dont see the difference myself.
Right or wrong it wont stop people having children.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:22:26

Agreed seems the only people these days who can have as many children as they like are those who are avoid paying there tax and those you are being paid by the tax payer in benefits

My self i would love to have 7 kids but oh boss wont up his pay everytime i get pregant UNLIKE THE STATE

And the bank wont give us a bigger home just because we decied to have more children UNLIKE THE COUNCIL

CelineMcBean but not 4,5 or 6 times there are some who have had more than one child whilest on benafits THAT IS NOT ON ND MUST be stopped those who are happy with the sataus quo can send there cheques in to the DWP after the changes in order for these familes to have yet more children

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 13:28:05

The only bit of your post that makes any sense Flatpack is that I had choices. Yes, yes I did. I wasn't in an abusive rationship so I could choose. I could access and pay for a termination or have it on the NHS. I had earned income from my job so I could choose to support myself if my husband fucked off. Lots and lots of choices. Not everybody does though and I'm not daft enough to think otherwise.

You have missed the point with child benefit. It is not child benefit that gives an acceptable standard of living to those on benefits. It is the extra housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support etc etc. It is NOT about child benefit. Which btw, I am not eligible to claim from January so the assumption that I expect someone else to pay for my child is wrong.

I do however expect to pay towards people who are unable to support themselves through no fault of their own: children, sick, disabled, job seekers who are actively job seeking. It is a mark of respect for fellow human beings and a moral duty.

vj32 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:30:04

What will happen to these children?
More children born to people who already only have just enough money to survive equals all children in family not being fed or clothed properly, and eventually taken into care because their parents cannot care for them.

More children will end up in LA care, which in the long term will make it much more expensive if the government do this. But like everything they are only interested in short term gain - to look like they are doing something, rather than solving difficult problems.

twoGoldfingerstoGideon Mon 08-Oct-12 13:32:27

With reference to what Brycie calls 'incomers' snapping up jobs while long-term unemployed remain workless, perhaps s/he might like to consider this:
I have an 'incomer' (what a fucking horrible description, incidentally) living in my house. He found a job within nine days of arriving in the UK. Isn't that brilliant compared to all the so-called workshy scroungers who languish on the dole for years while my taxes support them? Well, no, actually. It isn't. The job has no contract - the employer will just text him when they need him - so he has no idea what he will earn from one end of the week to the next. This would make it virtually impossible for him to ever rent his own place/pay his own bills. He is being paid LESS than National Minimum Wage (around £2.75/hour). If his employer said 'You have to go and work two hundred miles from here next week' he'd be free to go, as he has no children at school/other local links. Oh yes, and my 'incomer' isn't contributing anything by way of income tax either, due to the low pay, very casual nature of his work and his employer's reluctance to offer him any sort of contract.
In short, some employers prefer this sort of employee. It's cheap and places no obligation on them (no contract = no maternity/paternity leave, no paid holidays, no sick pay...)
'Incomers' therefore have something different to offer (a willingness to be exploited in some cases) than your bog-standard unemployed person, but people like Brycie never seem to take this into account.

ArthurShappey Mon 08-Oct-12 13:34:38

I think niceguy2 has made a very sensible suggestion.

WellyShark Mon 08-Oct-12 13:35:00

avivabeaver I agree with you. It's all very well limiting benefits to 2 children, but anyone can lose their job, have a serious accident or become ill. We should be proud that our country is civilised enough to support vulnerable people.

I do understand the annoyance at working, but not being able to afford another child. I've been there. It doesn't seem fair but I just had to pull up my big girl's panties and deal with it.

I think far too much is made of these "feckless few", it's the price pay for providing a safety to those in need and I think it's worth it.

zen1 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:36:32

It makes my blood boil that someone with the privilaged upbringing Osborne's had is able make these kinds of policy decisions with absolutely no comprehension of what it's like to live in poverty in Britain today.

Completely agree.

The only people who are going to suffer if this kind of crap gets passed are the children themselves. Why are people too shortsighted to see that?

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 13:36:38

thousands of jobs were being taken by (harder-working?) incomers every year.
No apology.
My arguments are solid and perfectly coherent.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:38:33

twoGoldfingerstoGideon i agree incomer is awful but not being funny but there is a reason why working is mc donalds is called a mc job by young people because they think they are too good for it

Took my cousin 6 months to find a english black,white,asian cleaner every ine that applied was foreign she even went to the local 6th form to advertise to see of anyone would like the job she was told that no 17 would clean and she would be luckly if she hot one reply

This thread is not accepting new messages.