Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think more outrage is needed over Tory threat to child benefit?

537 replies

flower68 · 08/04/2015 19:49

According to papers today Tory planned welfare cuts can't be achieved without further cuts to child benefit. George Osborne has refused to rule it out apparently. Such a cut would be massively controversial, hurt lower income families and is potentially politically toxic for the Tories. So why is no-one pushing them for a straight answer?

OP posts:
sailoratsea · 09/04/2015 00:05

What a thread! What an awful thread! We are talking about actual children. People are talking about abolishing cb and tc and leaving families with what in an a lot of these cases is a very low income. Their children may go hungry, not be properly clothed or housed or heated or their poverty may be more subtle. They may never get to have a trip out anywhere, never get to attend a party because they can't afford a present, never get to go on a school trip, never get any birthday or Christmas presents, never get to have any books of their own, just always being left out of everything. This used to happen. Children were miserable because they were poor their whole lives. Imagine that was your child.

HelenaDove · 09/04/2015 00:05

Theo is on another thread saying that contribution based JSA is fuck all. Confused

JamesBlonde1 · 09/04/2015 00:07

Agreed. There is likely to be great unfairness again in where the cut off figures stand.

rollonthesummer · 09/04/2015 00:07

Presumably that £39k is a joint income for universal credits for 3 children?

ihategeorgeosborne · 09/04/2015 00:11

I think so rollon

Here's the link:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11520080/George-Osborne-refuses-to-rule-out-child-benefit-cuts.html

MaryWithoutMungoAndMidge · 09/04/2015 00:15

I live in an expensive area

This is YOUR choice, not the Governments choice. You CHOOSE to live where you do with your children. It's simple, move house. Then perhaps you would not need to claim benefits.

JamesBlonde1 · 09/04/2015 00:15

Nobody wants that for any child but when you see - as I did today - a bank statement (in my line of work) showing someone in receipt of IS paying £70 per month to SKY you really do question some, not all, of peoples's choices. Madness.

MaryWithoutMungoAndMidge · 09/04/2015 00:19

Because there's absolutely no evidence that stopping paying would stop people having kids?

It should be tried then. Stop payments and watch people stop having kids that the government are left paying for.

Pinkandpurplehairedlady · 09/04/2015 00:23

The thing with Sky is that they might be locked into a contract for 12 months and have to pay an early termination fee that for some won't be manageable. It's not always as black and white as it might seem.

Pinkandpurplehairedlady · 09/04/2015 00:25

"This is YOUR choice, not the Governments choice. You CHOOSE to live where you do with your children. It's simple, move house. Then perhaps you would not need to claim benefits."

Should we set-up designated areas for all the poor people to live? Will the minimum wage increase to cover transport costs for them to get to work?

longtimelurker101 · 09/04/2015 00:31

I love threads, so much hubris.

Cutting child benefits will not mean that people will have less children, it will mean that more children live in poverty. It will also not cut the deficit by very much and there are more effective things that can be done to do so.

Everyone should get it, it shows that on a basic level everyone benefits some how even though many can't see the hidden benefits of the state.
Taking it from some simply means that they divide and rule. Again.

Hamiltoes · 09/04/2015 00:34

But my point still stands, that it wasn't being paid for by anyone less well off than themselves. After contributing the majority of tax collected in the country it was more likely they were paying their own child benefit
What a silly argument. Your trying to say someone on £50,000 who pays roughly £750 income tax and £400 NI a month is covering all of the countries emergency services, education, NHS, pensions, roads, social care etc PLUS covering their child benefit plus "plenty" of other peoples child benefit too? What an utterly ridiculous notion.
Thats assuming your not a moron who believes we should only pay taxes for the services we use.

longtimelurker101 · 09/04/2015 00:36

"Somone who is on IS pays £70 a month to sky"

So what, if that entertains her, her children, is the internet and TV and phone inlcuding line rental that sounds fine. There may be no other entertainment paid for in the house. ( by the way £ 16.52 a week for all that could be thought to be a bargain).

People on here would like work houses really." Blame the poor, its their fault they were born poor, I worked hard to be where I am."

Mrsfrumble · 09/04/2015 00:44

No, of course I don't believe people should only pay for the services they use.

But it's just factually incorrect to claim that net contributors are being subsidized by net beneficiaries.

BlueCanaryOverByTheLightSwitch · 09/04/2015 00:44
Grin
keepitsimple0 · 09/04/2015 00:54

Should we set-up designated areas for all the poor people to live? Will the minimum wage increase to cover transport costs for them to get to work?

poor people should live where they can afford to, like everyone else. I can't afford to live in South Kensington, so I don't.

I would much rather subsidise transport than housing. If you live in an expensive area and can't afford it, move. People seem to want everything.

Fifis25StottieCakes · 09/04/2015 00:56

I had Sky in when i was on IS, i needed the Internet on for DD1s Sats and universal job match, the deal i got made the package cheaper than just taking internet which was really all i needed but ended up with the basic TV package for 12 mnths.

Fifis25StottieCakes · 09/04/2015 01:02

Plus it is hard to pass a credit check on IS, i couldn't pass one for BT or Plusnet (same company i think) but could pass one for Sky. If your on IS you have to use universal job match so you need an internet connection, the job center advise you to have one, if you don't use it and fufil the hrs they set out for you to spend seeking work on universal job match you get your money stopped

DixieNormas · 09/04/2015 01:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

longtimelurker101 · 09/04/2015 01:13

"poor people should live where they can afford to"

They do, but who is going to clean the streets, work in the shops/cafes/bars, work in the nursery in areas where there are only rich people?

"I would rather subsidise transport rather than housing". You do already dear, but why should the poor have to commute from far and wide to do those poorly paid jobs? What about their quality of life, their children? Or because they are poor are they not deserving of those things?

Seriously, people the entitlement and lack of empathy here stinks.

DixieNormas · 09/04/2015 01:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Kampeki · 09/04/2015 01:18

Should we return to the days of workhouses so you can be sure I'm earning every penny of your hard earned tax money?

Pink, I'm afraid that's exactly what some people would like to see.

I have no issue in taking CB from higher earners - we have lost ours already, and given that money is tight, I think it would be wrong for those on higher incomes to keep receiving it when they don't really need it.

However, I have real concerns about stopping it after 2/3 children. I don't think this will stop people from having larger families, but it will potentially push the children from larger families into poverty. Obviously, in an ideal world, people wouldn't have kids that they can't afford, but life isn't quite so simple, is it? Should innocent children have to pay the price for this?

Fifis25StottieCakes · 09/04/2015 01:20

"poor people should live where they can afford to"

Some can't as the Tory right to buy scheme sold off all the social housing stock for peanuts, most of it now owned by private landlords and being rented back to people claiming benefits at double the rent for the same council owned house in the same street!

keepitsimple0 · 09/04/2015 01:22

They do, but who is going to clean the streets, work in the shops/cafes/bars, work in the nursery in areas where there are only rich people?

lots of people willing to do those jobs. they can transport in. like everyone else.

but why should the poor have to commute from far and wide to do those poorly paid jobs? What about their quality of life, their children? Or because they are poor are they not deserving of those things?

I am happy to live in a place where people have a roof over their heads, but I am not happy to live in a place where people are subsidised to live where they can't afford. Yes, part of being wealthy is being able to choose where you live. That's a wealth perk. Life is rougher for poorer people. I also can't live right near my work because I can't afford it.

Yeah its really easy to move if you suddenly find yourself single or out of work, what with deposits, moving costs and the fact that most private ll don't take on people who claim hb, at least not without a guarantor

Supporting people temporarily makes sense, but if after a while they still can't afford it they should move. that's what most of us have to face. we can't choose to live in places we can't afford.

keepitsimple0 · 09/04/2015 01:23

Some can't as the Tory right to buy scheme sold off all the social housing stock for peanuts, most of it now owned by private landlords and being rented back to people claiming benefits at double the rent for the same council owned house in the same street!

that was a terrible idea. I am not a Tory fan.