Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

999 replies

avivabeaver · 08/10/2012 11:04

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?

OP posts:
NeverLetYourMotherCutYourHair · 09/10/2012 13:27

No I didn't and I wouldn't.
Re free stuff he is amazing at claiming and rather proud of it.
I love working, I'm all for benefits but think they would save a fortune if the system was tightened up and money went to the right people, especially those with hidden disabilities and children.

NewChoos · 09/10/2012 13:31

Not read all thread but..
we would love 3 children but planning on 2 (have DS already) as we simply can't afford childcare and to provide well for 3. It's just not fair that people who don't work can afford more children as the state pays and imo is irresponsible parenting. We both work to provide for our family and our future and wouldn't dream of expecting others paying to maintain our choices.

Dawndonna · 09/10/2012 13:31

You cannot claim free petrol or free cars. You just can't.
Motability cars are not free. If you do have a mobility car, you do not, under any circumstances, get free petrol.

KnottyLocks · 09/10/2012 13:32

I can see the bigger picture alright.

I can see that poverty is on the increase and children and people being pitched into it are not those responsible for the current economic crisis.

I can see how these cuts will actually cost more in the long run: to physical and mental health. A unhealthier, ailing society is a more expensive one.
All this while the NHS is being disbanded.

I can see how a childhood spent in poverty leads to less life chances, less opportunities.

I can see how a 3 year old today living in poverty has a statistically poorer chance of doing well at school and gaining meaningful qualifications.

As for 'all that matters is the appearance of going a good thing'?
I'll rise above responding to that one.

MouMouCow · 09/10/2012 13:33

Having a cap on children would be a reasonable thing to do for the environment.... We have reached saturation point, there will come a point where the UK will be so overpopulated that the island won't hold sufficient water resources or farming land to feed everyone. This is not in a distant future, this is now!
The state cannot continue to keep up with the welfare state as it is, if there is no money how exactly do you want to fund it, tax the private sector more? And the land has reached a point of saturation too. Being oblivious to it and preferring to ignore these realities is not going to make them disappear by magic!

Chunkamatic · 09/10/2012 13:50

This government hates poor people, that's the bottom line.

Do people genuinely believe that we are in economic crisis because of a very small minority of people who have children intending the state to support them? I mean, how many actual real families are we talking about? It's nonsense.

edam · 09/10/2012 13:55

Government is barmy. Their own backer, Lord Ashcroft, has just done some market research showing that people who could be Tory voters are put off by insecurity - they fear they are just one pay cheque away from disaster and feel like no-one in power cares. So what does Cameron do? Merrily announce that he is going to sweep away protection against unfair dismissal.

As I'm not a fan, I guess I should be pleased that he's fucking up quite so badly...

perceptionreality · 09/10/2012 13:58

I agree Chunk - the government is trying to brainwash people and, sadly, it's working.

perceptionreality · 09/10/2012 14:07

NeverLetYourMotherCutYourHair - the government loves people like you - you fall hook line and sinker for their lies and propaganda.

morethanpotatoprints · 09/10/2012 14:10

Newchoos.

Who do you think pays for subsidised childcare. Yes its the tax payer. I think its irresponsible to put children in childcare at the cost to the tax payer. Believe me we are paying for your choices.

MiniTheMinx · 09/10/2012 14:12

Edam, that is a very valid point. If people do not have job security that will impact upon everyone job because people will not spend.

While people sit at their desks worrying about their own job security and bemoaning their money being spent on the children of "feckless breeders" they might like to reflect on the fact that the feckless went before them and they are next in line.

edam · 09/10/2012 14:14

morethan - we have the most expensive childcare in Europe. So expensive that it often isn't worth working if you are on minimum wage and have more than one child. That problem needs to be tackled. Two governments have tried to address it by subsidising childcare - maybe that's not the right approach, maybe it is, but we need to look at the problem rather than attack the people who are affected by it.

MiniTheMinx · 09/10/2012 14:16

Subsidised child care only subsidises private profiteers, in two ways, through making available workers who CAN be paid less than a living wage and because most childcare is privatised. We simply pour money into the back pockets of businesses.

SadPanda · 09/10/2012 14:19

In Sweden childcare is capped at decreasing amounts for the first 3 children and is free for additional ones. Capped by amount but also as a percentage of household income (whichever is lower). I think it's 3% for the first, 2% for the second and 1% for the third (but don't quote me on that, it's been a while).

morethanpotatoprints · 09/10/2012 14:21

edam.

I responded to a poster who insulted me and gave my opinion as to what I see as irresponsible parenting.
My children were conceived out of love and if it was for financial gain or solely for the support we receive, we wouldn't be doing very well. However, I chose not to take subsidised childcare for 3 dcs and only 2 have received money via school funding. So should I moan about those who work send their kids to school and do differently than I do. Of course not.
We are all different and choose to live our lives as we see fit.

morethanpotatoprints · 09/10/2012 14:35

If childcare was cheaper surely more people would want to work. That would be fantastic if we lived in a country where there were plenty job opportunities. If childcare wasn't subsidised at all, fewer people could work then there would be jobs for all. Simple.

charleybarley · 09/10/2012 14:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bealos · 09/10/2012 14:47

Question: So do you get more JSA the more kids you have? /confused/

I thought kid related 'benefits' were solely child benefit, child tax credit?

edam · 09/10/2012 14:50

morethan, so why were you having a pop at people who use subsidised childcare, then?

morethanpotatoprints · 09/10/2012 14:58

charleybarley.

Its not a question of disagreeing with anybody. The government have always spun propaganda to suit their own means.
Some people believe this as totally honest and factual, whilst others are more realistic in their belief and don't fall for the spin.
They are presently trying to make us all believe that the new system of benefit, will be better for all, especially those who work. They are not saying how many needy families this will in deed harm. The feckless few, are last time I looked 0.5% of jsa claimants.
This benefit system will adversely affect thousands of families.
So to all those who think this is fair I suggest you really look at who will really suffer. Then I hope if you do not regret your assumptions, you can sleep at night as you surely lack compassion, empathy and sympathy.

Viviennemary · 09/10/2012 14:59

I was in favour of subsidised childcare but now I'm not sure. When there is a job shortage is it right to have subsidised childcare. I knew sombody who had a job working for a government department. She got £900 a month in childcare tax credits. I don't think this was right at all.

morethanpotatoprints · 09/10/2012 15:08

edam,
Not really a pop apart from the comment about irresponsible parents having more dc.
People are welcome to live life as they see fit, we live (just about) in a democracy. For us childcare was not an option so we didn't use it, we have saved the tax payer money here. But it seems we are irresponsible if we receive benefit.

alemci · 09/10/2012 15:14

I think I have to agree with Nice Guy too. we do have to make cut backs and women and men do need to be sensible about producing kids they cannot afford.

I think Labour did encourage this and it was always hard to get by if you weren't entitle to anything but still had high outgoings etc.

as i think NG said, you don't get a payrise or a bigger house from your employer so why should it be any different for people who don't work and receive benefits.

charleybarley · 09/10/2012 15:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JakeBullet · 09/10/2012 15:34

Neverletyourmothercutyourhair

D you have access to their medical records then? You seem very knowledgable about their life.

It's a fallacy that "free" cars are just given out. You have to be unable to walk or virtually unable to walk in order to qualify. Just about e only other reason you would qualify is if walking was a huge difficulty for non physical reasons (severe autism making the disabled person at risk in public).

Obviously if these folk in your village are defrauding the system and you have good proof then go ahead and repot them. If on the other hand you are just repeating what "everyone else in the village is tittle tattling about" then belt up and thank heaven you don't need the benefits they might HAVE t claim.

Am fed up with people assuming because they see someone walk up the road that all is well and they can work. You don't know their life, you don't know what goes on...keep your nasty thoughts to yourselves.