To wonder what the govt has planned to punish those NOT on benefits?

[Glitterknickaz]

News link

This is not the first time cutting benefits has been suggested as a punishment. How are the government proposing to punish parents who don't tackle truancy efficiently that aren't on benefits exactly? Just like the assertion that the rioters should lose benefits, yes because they were ALL on benefits weren't they?

Once again the government fuels the totally untrue daily mail esque belief that all of society's ills lie at the feet of benefits claimants. Apparently they are the root of all evil, eh?

Not one of the policies publicised has said what would happen to those who do not claim benefits.

Money designed for basic sustenance should not be removed imo. At the end of the day it is the children that will suffer from these measures.

Belle..... like it

Wish I'd thought of it! Can't remember who did now...

Belle - is that subject to copyright?

As slave said, why not just fine all parents who fail to tackle truancy, whether on benefits or not.

But I guess that wouldn't feed into Cameron's political agenda of making out that people on benefits are responsible for all of our society's problems. :(

I'd like to randomly add, we're lucky, as a society, to get "benefits" whether we claim them or not. Plenty of countries aren't so mothered. You're not "entitled" to money, it's a privilege...and while there's a free health care system and education system in place I suggest everyone stops moaning about the cuts.

.

BelleDameSansMerci Fri 09-Sep-11 17:30:50
Tories - putting the 'n' in cuts...

brilliant, can I use that

Permission to use 'puts the 'n' in cuts'

clearly not heard about the healthcare reform that was passed through parliament this week then

hope you've got money s;all i can say

This measure isn't about poor people - unless you count everyone who is not a higher-rate tax payer as poor.

Those not in receipt of Child Benefit will continue to be fined (current system for all).

This is just a continuation of the existing system of fines - which has been around for years - but changing collection to an attachment to CB (only).

They're trying to big up a minor administrative change.

LadyOfTheManor try living my life then make that comment, yeah?

I don't need to. Thankfully.

No one is entitled to free money, I'm not too sure where this sense of entitlement comes from, probably put in place by the previous government.

Apologies.
Perhaps you'd prefer those of us who can do eff all about our situation to just starve, yeah?

Don't think they like anyone, they've cut construction work so more unemployment and therefore people being paid less, dp wages have dropped so much in the last year we are now paying alot less tax (so less money for the government) and are entitled to tax credits for the first time in years. Flaming idiots

Oh and it's not 'free'. I paid in for bloody years.

@ Glitterknickaz - I wasn't suggesting the benefit cuts planned for higher rate taxpayers were a punishment - but the ones suggested for the families of rioters definitely are. Same benefit, same removal proposed. No logic - higher rate taxpayers where the kids have done nothing wrong are still losing the benefit.

Plenty of people "pay in" a fraction what they take out...the NHS alone, or giving birth under NHS supervision will cost more than you've ever paid in. Free dental care, free education (for you and your children). How much tax do you think you've paid into the pot? More than you've taken out?

Um, no.
But then I didn't choose to have disabled children did I?
I'm not on benefits as a lifestyle choice. Believe me I'd choose a better one than this.

"Cogito, so how do you propose people who aren't on benefits get punished for the same thing?" It already exists... fines and imprisonment...

Ok so why can't fines and imprisonment stay in place for those on benefits? Why should it be different?

because like someone said the government what to starve the poor.look at how they are hitting the disabled. they don't care, they don't understand. and they don't want to.

No you didn't choose to have SN children. However, the government don't have to support you. It isn't their responsibility.

And while everyone appears to be quick to spend the Govt's money you may want to consider how much it costs to imprison people.

Fines for parents of truants, BTW have been around since 1950s, but were "reintroduced" in 2004/05. Fines (and imprisonment) are in effect continuing. This change is simply the collection of a fine by suspension of Child Benefit.

I think it would be collected by abatement of Child Benefit for all families - had they not just decided to remove HRT from that. So they'll have to run a dual collection system (abatement or fine - all families will indeed be subject to this regime - all they're doing is adding an additional collection option). This will however be expensive and inefficient. That CB decision will be haunting them for a long time.

So therefore LOTM it's quite acceptable for those with money (ie the Bullingdon Club) to get off scott free, yes?

A civilised society supports its most vulnerable.
If the government wants to be small then they should be allowing the benefits claimants the personal autonomy to deal as others must do, surely? Being responsible for paying fines should they incur them. Not nannying them by removing money at source. That's nannying.

I'd much rather any tax money I earn went to people with disabilities or families who have children with sn than some of the shit the government spends it on

meditrina I really d1111111`1121