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?

Sorry went a bit off thread.

Bloody nobody at this rate. What economical benefit are they to society?

No I feel i can't risk leaving the job market either and have had no more than 4 months off work since my children aged 9 and 5 were born- but I have been criticised heavily for this by other women who have given up work and see it as their moral duty to do so.

I would not criticise them for their choice. When I am at work someone else has to look after my children and usually I am paying them. I can entirely see why this is not an ideal situation at all. Btw I receive no tax credits.

Morality is relative, but the 'responsibility brigade' have cornered it and appropriated it for the 'rich enough'.

However as I am divorced and have mental health problems I would be terrified to give up the job that I have.

But that doesn't mean that I would think another woman in the same position who gave up work was 'irresponsible'.

My depression has frequently been so bad that I was suicidal and yet I still went to work out of fear of unemployment. I know damn well if I needed benefits for my long term illness I wouldn't get them. But why on earth would I resent those who do?

As for overpopulation.... do posters seriously think that an epidemic of unemployed women 'breeding' is responsible for UK population growth? Ffs. Check the stats, only 3% of women in the country as a whole have 3 children or more!

NewChoos you might be forced out of the jobs market like those who went before you.

Usualsuspect

Personally, (not sure about anyone else), I was pointing out that the benefit cuts will harm many people and the feckless are a minority, almost negligible to the thousands who will be affected.

Usual, it's a simple answer.

only have children if you are able to afford them AND WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO AFFORD THEM! FOREVER!

that should rule out 95% of the population immediately.

@Knotty yes, children! irresponsible little feckers. Don't go out an earn a wage, suck up taxpayer's money for education entitled little t*ssers.

Ban the lot of em.

All citizens should be born ready-formed totally self-sufficient entrepreneurs.

Bring on the Borg

Absolutely true. Fortunately I have a fairly stable job due to it's niche.
But why is personal responsibility seen as bad thing? Of course it's unreasonable to expect people to plan for any eventuality. I just feel it is right only to have as many children as I feel I will be able to provide for even if DH lost his job.
I admit I do feel resentful that I can't afford 3 children. I don resent helping people truly in need.

I mean I don't resent helping people truly in need.

Charley.

He is permanantely self employed/ small business. He does tick over on a weekly basis but frequentely earns less than the min wage in a particular week. Some months he could earn 6k depending what work was available.
However, the new proposals will mean that for the weeks dh is not earning min wage he will be penalised, i.e lose tax credits (the new uc). They will not be looking at overall income per annum but expect accounts to be submitted monthly.
So anybody who this applies to will be better off not working as the uc will replace all other benefits and people like my dh will be better off as will be entitled to more benefit by not working.
I did see a link about self employment it is really scary. I will try and find it as it goes into detail and explains better than I can.
I think its sad that people will be forced out of work they enjoy because of this. I knew dh didn't have the capacity to earn a huge potential when I met him. He does have a PG Diploma, so is well qualified.

Kids aren't just a short term accessory, you know. They grow up to become (we hope) members of society and the workforce and their taxes will contribute to everyone's needs (health, policing, defence, education etc etc). So why shouldn't we all be keen to invest in trying to make sure they all get a good start in life? Why should we object to policies that might reduce the number of criminals, drug users, long-term sick that we'll have to pay for later on?

Osborne is an ass but there is no money left so inevitably cuts will be made.

To all those people who are writing about the children and the support that the govt provides or should provide... well, I never believed that the govt were that interested in helping children: Tax credits are just a way to boost the economy as the money goes back into the system while housing benefits are a way to provide housing without the housing market crashing --- better if the housing market just readjusted downwards, but that would cause too much chaos for wealthy homeowners!

We do need a living wage and good housing but (a) we live in a global economy now so the idea of a living wage for Britons, while the chinese work for nothing to make our George at Asda clothes and iPads is a bit laughable and (b) the housing market will never adjust if the Tories have a say.

urgh. goodbye halcyon days!

Personal responsibility is not a bad thing.

It's the relentless, monotonous obsession with it in our country and culture that is suppressing any notion of a wider, social responsibility. Our joint responsibility to create a nation worth living in... not just to amass assets for ourselves and our own offspring.

Sadly this now means nothing any more. Demonisation of the poor (those 'truly in need' as you say.... but who decides who's deserving and undeserving? It used to be normal for ordinary families to have 4 children... now it's 'irresponsible' unless they are very well off....) and neoliberal divide and rule politics mean that we are all pitted against eachother to fight over the scraps. While the boys at the top just laugh and laugh at the silly plebs.

indeed Suzy, rent controls would sort out the absolutely bloody ludicrous housing benefit bill which goes straight into the property portfolios of Upper Middle England.

Who decides who's deserving? Well hopefully not the GO for much longer :)
Very difficult I agree to define, I do feel there needs to be stricter guidelines though, I'm not contributing to a plasma screen tv!

I'm not sure if this link will work, but apparentely this is how the new benefit system will affect self employed.

[http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/universal-credit-self-employment-and-the-minimum-wage/]

Don't worry. The poor buy plasma TVs via catalogues or Brighthouse......and over the repayment time (if they manage to finish it) pay well over the top.

You are not contributing to their plasma screen but the rip off companies vast profits all supported by....er...the Govt.

Okay it's simplistic but is what happens.

NewChoos are the poor to be allowed tvs at all then? What size exactly?

Are they allowed to keep the tv if they lost their job or should they immediately sell it and send the kids down the mine?

(only half joking, I think child labour will become legal or at least tolerated in a couple of decades once people realise there really is no more welfare, no healthcare and no jobs and it will take 5 non-living wages rather than 2 to maintain even basic housing cost. Etc.)

I was sort of joking - sorry if offended.

I suppose I mean, people who lose their jobs, can't work, have ill health, children - I absolutely don't resent sharing this responsibility. There are however people, and it probably is the minority, who abuse the system and this simply is not fair.