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.

Were you around in the 30s kidz? you seem to know a lot about it?

Btw your description of adoption procedure and SS assessments IS wrong. I know for a fact because in my "real world" I'm a family solicitor, which includes care work, with which comes a fair bit of knowledge about how SS work.

My point is my point you are a fool nothing more. Making silly comments to keep us entertained like the court jester you know it is all nonsense but still we listen and laugh

I'm still feeling jolly entertained by being told not to argue on a site called AIBU.

OP I thought any parent whose child truanted from school was jailed. In the link to your post I suppose they couldn't cut the pay of people who work. Isn't there a fine system in place for those who are/not on benefits?

LOTM...can i have your CB please?

"I wonder when posters on NM will ever be able to come up with a feasible excuse as to why they cant work." Have you got the wrong site,this is MUMSNET (MN),NM is another site somewhere on the internet,they might appreciate your crass opinions there.

Well spotted, bubbles.

Thank you,fargate

Reeling, that would be exploiting the system.

Isn't it like £18-22 a week?

That'll do nicely thankyou LOTM.

Probably too late to say this after the massive thread hijack

But here goes - my understanding is, that fines and particularly, threats of imprisonment when fines go unpaid or truancy is persistent aren't very effective, because no-one is prepared to actually send parents (usually mothers) to prison. Stopping CB for working or non-working parents is believed to be more effective for persistent, severe non-attendance.

Not sure of the evidence for this? Another strategy from the US, maybe?

Would this be an opportune time to remind people that we pay one of the highest rates of tax on income and then again when we spend (20% VAT), another tax when we invest, another when we draw our pension.

I think there is an argument for making individuals much more accountable for how they spend their money, but we have been here before - we've got a huge rich history of how we reached this point there must be something we can learn from.

Poor houses didn't work, neither did asylums, unregulated "charitable" institutions were found to be rife with child abuse.

Did American forced labour in the depression work?

There are smart people on here

Well, Reeling, I'm due another one soon so if you hang on you can double your money?

In answer to the OP, I reckon the first 20 mins of Starship Troopers where you need to serve in the armed services for "citizenship" and the permission to have children, unless your rich in which case nobody bothers and its left to the proles to be slaughtered in whatever hole the government picks a fight with.

But seriously - those on benefits not allowed to vote until their balance is paid off, Daily Mail would love it

I thought you'd only just had one LOTM.

Timeforabiscuit no but the threat of not having anything to eat works

Immigrants who are not entitled to anything find work pretty quickly

Meet a waitress over from oz with in a week she had found work and is living above the pub

Looking forward to the welfare reform time to remove the leeches

LOTM, I rarely get personal on this site but I would just like to say that you sound like a deeply unhappy, bitter and unemphatic person.

I really have to wonder what is going on in your head to feel so hell bent on depriving a disabled child and his or hers family who suffer such struggles everyday a little happiness. You know, these huge luxuries such as internet or a laptop. I am a SAHM but my husband works his backside off everyday and I would never feel taken advantage of for his hard earned taxes to go towards the happiness of a child who never chose to be disabled, Or a little comfort for their parents and other siblings.

Why do you suppose these children should live with the bare minimum? They are hardly living the high life, Are they?

I really hope you count your blessings and hope you never have to suffer half of what these people go through.

Disgusting.

Yes- Immigrants do work, but they also sleep five to a room, their employers are a shirty when it comes to their NI contributions and working conditions can be dire (a la cockle pickers)

I think it's when your trying to balance the books as a family, legitimately and for the long term - the waitress from oz is presumably only staying there until her work permit or looks wear out.

I think that's where the problems kick in, we want the regulation, the regulation costs money and administration which is funded through high taxes, which makes living unaffordable without substantial state assistance.

So what tape do you want to cut?

And can I also add that sometimes these 'luxuries' are essential to parents. You merely have to scan MN to find some of the desperate posts from mothers and fathers that are really struggling yet get the help and support they need, form real relationships with people who know what they are going through, Or they simply get some "me time" and a laugh.

You could look at it as saving some of your precious tax money as it could prevent these people going to counselling or sending their child into respite care just so they can recharge themselves. You may understand this way of thinking.