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

[avivabeaver]

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?

Oh and for anyone not sure

DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT.

I claim it for my son(autistic) and get it whether I am in work or not.

No I don't get a "free car", he can walk.

charleybarley.

You don't sound like you would have a problem sleeping.
Personally I'm glad it doesn't work as Beverage intended. His welfare system saw that hundreds of thousands of young single mothers had to give their children up, if they hadn't got means to provide for the dc. Oh and these means also included a house.

Just for the record my dh has a small business and the new system will see him on jsa. Ok we have had benefits in terms of tax credits but now we will get heaps more money and dh will lose his business, costing the tax payer more. Please look at how this system will affect self employed/small businesses. Carers, single parents, disabled, pensioners, and I'm talking about these groups in employment.

As I worked for 20 years I think I am probably entitled to subsidised childcare but in fact I use my work nursery so don't get childcare vouchers.
I fail to see how using childcare is the same as people having child after child while claiming benefits and being unable to provide for them adequately.

Er and I wasn't having a go at you. I do however feel in general that it is irresponsible to have more children than you can provide for. My opinion is not directed at you in particular.

Morethan, how do you fund the system though? It's all well and nice to list everyone that depends on the welfare system, but how do you keep on spending the money you need to if you don't have the cash coming in any longer?
The government has three choices, borrow the money at a heavy cost (and our children's children will pay the debt in thenext 30 years), tax the private sector more (not really an option) or cut the welfare...

I see a plank has come up with the free cars crap, why does some idiot always do this?
as for free petrol ffs.
people make stuff up on here

Btw, my SIL has 4 kids and they all live on 1 salary of less than £40K. She moans about the Tory government and the cuts but it has never crossed her mind that she actually can't afford the number of kids she bread and constantly asks her parents for cash. If you can't afford 4 kids, then don't bread for kids. Simples...

Charleybarley.

Yes I am unfortunately.
His work doesn't guarantee 35 hours a week so initially we lose some benefit. His work is seasonal as well so can't guarantee the min wage everyweek.
This will be a new provisor along with a job centre worker/ government assessing his business (which they will know nothing about) and he will have to attend meetings, which will also be of detriment to his business in terms of availability to see clients.
Accounts/book keeping to be submitted monthly.
Honestly Charley its frought with problems.
We have always tried to manage and I have helped in the business rather than wahm, but now we don't have many options left.
Where I live is also the first area to see changes, we are truly up the river.

MouMouCow

Thats more than twice what we have as a family of 5, I think your sil must have expensive taste, lol. 40k and we wouldn't need benefit let alone be moaning about cuts.

is anyone else heartily sick of the now ubiquitous 'responsible/ irresponsible' obsession in these sort of threads?

It is the new language of virtue and self-righteousness, and it makes me a bit sick because virtue basically comes down to having money.

Always used to clobber people who have made 'the wrong choices'. Only it isn't the wrong choice to screw the government by evading tax as long as you're a CEO of a big corporation, so it seems. It isn't 'irresponsible' of us all to stick our heads in the sand and avoid the great big poverty time bomb that's going to blow up in our faces once we push more and more families over the cliff edge. And will we all be 'irresponsible' once we allow the children of the poor, guilty only of being born over the quota or in a 'too expensive' area, to pick over rubbish bags and run around starving in our neighbourhoods?

No, the police will be responsible then, for cleaning them off 'our' streets.

I'm sick of this nasty little country and the small minds it has bred. (That's 'bad breeding' as far as I'm concerned and it's a way bigger problem than a few families on benefits with more than 2 kids).

Morehtan, with 4 kids they are a family of 6...and they earn less than, not £40k. not sure about expensive taste, SIL claims she can't afford the cheese that DS1 likes...once you start compromising on cheese, what's next?

Point is, they could get by if she worked but she doesn't. Her only advise to me when I became a mum was that I must stop working! I thought that was a ridiculous idea. it just shows that in her opinion I'd better claim benefits than finance my own child. I tend to disagree.

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.

Presumably this person you knew was paying a considerable amount of income tax on her earnings. The childcare provider was employing people who were also paying income tax.

Subsidised childcare helps parents, and especially women, to stay in work, so obviously I'm in favour of it. Would you prefer one parent to be made to stay at home so that someone else can have their job (like in the olden days when women were expected to give up their jobs on marriage)? Are you in favour of forced career breaks for women? When would you fire them? Straight after the birth? Two months before?

Subsidised childcare helps parents for a relatively small part of their working life and provides employment for others. If it makes you feel any better, the subsidy only covers 70% of childcare costs and is capped at a particular level. £900/month would definitely be covering more than one child as the cap for one child is £122.50/week.

morethan I agree with you 40k is loads to live off. We would need no tops ups if earning that much!
I can't wait to get back to work and earn again, I feel like a scab and drain on society claiming tax credit and child benefit.

DomesticGodless is anyone else heartily sick of the now ubiquitous 'responsible/ irresponsible' obsession in these sort of threads?

Yes. I am.

But isn't that the point of why we are in this mess. Not being responsible for our actions in spending and borrowing?
I fully appreciate that circumstances change and we should help people in need but we shouldn't be instilling a feeling of entitlement if we don't work when able.

Usualsuspects could not agree more.
I am really shocked at peoples opinions and how rude people can be because I chose to have 3 kids!
Fwiw the reason I am having 3 is because some one close to me lost a child, he now has one. It really shook me up and made me realise how important a family is.

I would love to be with my DS more, but my choice is to work so we can provide for ourselves and hopefully have DC2. If I didn't work I wouldn't feel able to bleat on about lack of cash as it would be my choice.

good I'm glad I'm not alone. I think the next time I hear a not-very-virtuous person spouting about 'responsibility' I'm going to ask them if they actually know that the word means something more than 'not being poor'

I don't think responsibility is anything to do with being poor. I do feel though that if you are more wealthy, it is your responsibility to help more. So I don't think I (and many others) quite fit in with your theory.

Moumou - it's more complicated than that. If government cuts mean people have less money to spend, there's less money circulating in the economy, meaning businesses and people have less money to spend, creating a vicious circle. That's at least in part what caused the double dip recession.

The International Monetary Fund has just today announced they stuffed up and didn't calculate the effect that cuts in public spending have on the economy correctly. It's called the multiplier effect - they guessed that each pound cut from public spending would lead to 50p being lost from the economy. Turned out they guessed wrong and it's probably £ for £.

Morethan and Monkey, 6 on less than £40k in London is tough going... especially if you have aspirations to get your 4 kids through uni....