to think the CB abolition has had an effect a bit like kicking an ants' nest

[OrmRenewed]

on MN

And the calls for 'someone else' ie the elderly, to have their benefits cut have started already.

I have very little nice to say about the Tories but if they have to make cuts, I'd rather CB went than see cuts in other areas. It seems a reasonable place to start.

The way I see it is Lib-Cons are wanting to punish anyone who isnt what they class to be "normal" and by that I mean 2 working FT parents, 2 children at school with out of school clubs etc. What they are trying to do is scare SAHP and unemployed back into work. Well thats great, but where are the jobs? My husband is disabled and receives a pension from the Army and a War Pension. He also receives Incapacity Benefit that we are expecting to lose at some point in the near future thanks to the Lib-Cons. I claim tax credits and child benefit. I need to go to work once my youngest starts nursery in the new year, I have wanted to do this since he was born, but upon looking at all the jobs websites/paper etc today, there is a grand total of 4 jobs within a 15mile radius, 3 of which have been filled and the last one wouldnt cover what we would lose in benefits - HB,CTB,CTC,Free School Meals etc.

So, in my mind, until the government can CREATE jobs, and jobs offering more than the current minimum wage (as the min wage doesnt cover what is given in benefits at present) there will be little improvement.

I cant see the current proposals getting through on the basis of household income vs individual income.... hell will freeze over first, but I do believe they will set a cap on HOUSEHOLD income for eligibility.

and whos heard what they will be doing with the minimum wage? is it going up? is it being scrapped?

seeing as most toies were against it ever being set up in the first place, where does that leave people on benfits who "will be better off in work" [that is lots and lots more worse off than earning a minimum wage].

How does this help the recovery ? CB is our only disposable income, when I say disposable of course I mean clothes, maybe a meal out, Birthday and Christmas presents for the children, take this away and business' will suffer, maybe Tesco's & JL won't notice but the local restaurants will.

Quite agree with you Babybarriser and I shall enjoy handing the car keys to the children in a few years time. I have received nothing from the state for my entire life except child benefit despite putting an enormous amount back in. Reason, forged career, became financially independent, bought home as single girl, got engaged, got married and then had children. Pay enormous of amounts of tax between us and would be hapy to pay more but only if standards in the public sector improve. In spite of the last government pumping enormous resources into educatiion and the NHS, standards have improved in neither. 1 in 5 children still leave primary unable to read and the NHS has become an MRSA ridden hell hole with GPs no longer providing holistic care and often not an appointment without a two day struggle of repeated calls. They should bring back the married man's tax allowance to encourage stable two parent families who are prepared to take joint responsibility for their children.

oh, so one parent families are not quite good enough then? Are they to blame for the spread of MRSA or have I missed something in your post?

So despite the fact that DP works ful time, we shouldn't have the amount of dc that we do, simply because he is unable to earn what I call a 'decent' wage? Are the hardworking poor not meant to procreate then? At what income level is it acceptable to have more than 1/2 dc? Is there a limit? I hadn't heard of that rule! We are not on JSA/ IS, DP works full time. For a paltry £16K pa. If they paid a decent wage for his job, we wouldn't claim tax credits or child benefit. In fact, if DP earnt £42K a year (or even £29K), we wouldn't feel the need to claim anything. Even if I worked PT as well, our total income would only be £22,500pa. Pffft. DP works just as hard (if not harder, as it's quite a physical job) as someone earning £42K. And if you don't believe that, then quite frankly, you are deluded.

"And the calls for 'someone else' ie the elderly, to have their benefits cut have started already. "

it's certainly a divisive measure. More people will now be pissed off at so called benefit scroungers. Have lost count of how many 'maybe it'll stop people who can't afford it from having children' comments I have read today.

From a financial point of view, I'm quite happy to loose my CB, but I worry about the can of worms that opens from this.

What next, people that pay for private pension not getting a state one?

People that can afford private health care not getting access to the NHS?

People that earn over a certain threshold not being eligble to put their children through state education?

"I have received nothing from the state for my entire life except child benefit"

is all your education and health treatment paid for privately then?

Nobody tells you how many children you can have
you make the decision for yourself
I earn 16k a year
I wanted to send my kids to swimming lessons etc, not have a big car and so on
so I only had two
I was brought up to think about finances and what I could afford
I'd have loved to be the sort of person who just decided to have as many kids as I wanted and bugger the cost but sadly I'm boring and practical

bigchris you do get I take it that lots of famillies- like mine- could afford bigger famillies and got hit by recession redundancies etc?

Yes, finance should come into it when you amke decisions- it did with us- but at the same time life is cock full of uncertainties!

Yes of course I do
im being made redundant in the new year
I take your point though
and I know loudlass had a contraception failure too
sorry loudlass nothing personal meant

TBH considering it's an upside down pyramid and the pensioners of this country are the largest cost to the welfare bill, then you can't help wonder if the WFA, bus passes, free prescriptions for all at a certain age will be targetted next.

It's divisive and I can see why people are pissed off, they are paying more tax etc than ever, yet them seem to be starting at the wrong end of the spectrum.

The Tories have penalised the middle earners with children, yet the well off, so those with a huge income of 80k between them, not only pay less tax, will keep the perks, as will all the well off pensioners. It's the middle earners who pay stupid levels of tax already that will be hit. 44k when you pay 40% of it in tax, is not all that much really.

onceamai: 1 in 5 children do NOT leave primary school unable to read. They are simply not at the level prescribed by the government. This level, Level 4 was once the average level of attainment. The government then made this average the expected level for all children. Quite a different thing. All children cannot be average.

I understand it wasn't a personal attack, but I do take coments like that fairly personally. When I had dc3, 7 yrs ago, I was also working FT, earning £29K pa. I was then diagnosed with epilepsy which meant I was not LEGALLY alowed to work in that profession anymore. I was the higher earner. For a few years, I got DLA, but now, the tories have deemed that I am not 'disabled enough for DLA. So I THEN lost £600 a month. Yet no-one is willing to employ me, I've been trying since I lost my last job 3 yrs ago, when the shop shut down. I got no redundancy pay. DC4 (will be born in January) was a huge bit of a surprise, granted, but there you go. DP has now been told today that there will be redundancies at HIS work by April next year...they are cutting his team in half.

"so I only had two" guess you would have been buggered if the second one turned out to be twins, or if you lost your job!

If you have a low income then you should live within your means- if you have more children than you can afford then you are living beyond your means.

If your income is reduced because of unforseen circumstances such as redundancy or disability then this is unfortunate.

OK, so we were unfortunate then. Not sure what that emans- bd luck, thats what NI is there for.... or bad luck but not the state's problem

BigChris good luck wrt to the redundancy. It can be a hard time but if we survive this then in two eyars we will be so much betetr off than before (both working in a way trhat works around the boy's needs). Hope you have the same end result X

Yes- I meant that that is what benefits are there for- those who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances, not those who plan their life with the benefits in mind. If you have planned your five children on the basis that you will pay for their food with your CB then that is wrong.

I'm offended too bigchris. I have one dd. when she was conceived and indeed when she was born I was employed earning a reasonable wage as was my husband. I changed jobs to (a slightly higher paid job) be nearer to home so I could be there for dd more.

My husband left me then I then was laid off. So with hindsight I shouldn't have changed jobs. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? I took what job I could get which is part time and nowhere near my previous level and not enough to pay my bills. I thought it was better than relying on benefits. I struggle A LOT and I want to be able to give my dd more. I find it really offensive that people could suggest that my dd shouldn't even exist :(. I really don't think I have been that irresponsible. Only trying my best, admittedly that is not good enough :(.

Scruff in that case I agree.

"TBH considering it's an upside down pyramid and the pensioners of this country are the largest cost to the welfare bill, then you can't help wonder if the WFA, bus passes, free prescriptions for all at a certain age will be targetted next."

No they won't because pensioners vote unlike young people. Baby boomers the next pensioner also did ok out of the Conservatives last time, they think the Conservatives are the answer. My Aunt and Uncle are as working class as they come but because Maggie let them buy their council house they consider themselves Tories, he's a retired mechanic and she's a care worker ffs.

If you have planned your five children on the basis that you will pay for their food with your CB then that is wrong.

Actually I disagree with that statement CB has been around for what 60 years, who the hell could have predicted 2 years ago they would remove it.
If they announced that in 9 months time all babies born will not be eligible over a certain threshold then fair enough but i suspect they have wanted to do this for a long time.