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

[flower68]

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?

yabu
why should there be an outcry?
is there one about what will happen to carers and the disabled?
having a child is a choice.
you make it

I'd rather see childcare be entirely free for families that have two working parents, or in single parent families where the parent works.

And if it is a two parent family where one has been forced to give up work to care for a disabled child?

Universal free childcare would far outweigh the current cost of child benefit.

I don't think free childcare if done properly would be more expensive.

Get rid of the tax credits and CB and pay for childcare for two children as long as all adults in the household work at least 24 hours each. It's the best and fairest way if we do have to give some form of support to parents. The parents will then be paying tax, the childcare workers paying tax and so on. The next generation will then see working as the norm which benefits all of society.

For those that don't want to work they can still choose not to but on the basis that their household and not the state pay for the choice. If more than two children are wanted, fine but childcare wouldn't be free after the second so the cost would be paid by the parent.

How much does decent quality childcare cost for two children? What if people live in areas where most jobs are NMW and they can't earn enough to cover rent, council tax, utilities, food and clothes? Are you going to deny them a top up because they work 24 hours and get free childcare? Are you going to give this free childcare to people on salaries of £200k, whilst people on £10k can no longer get the top ups required to feed their children?
How much would this policy cost, not only in childcare but also in social care when many families fall apart due to poverty?
But hey, at least the poor kiddies will get a free meal whilst at their free nursery place, no need to worry that they live in a cold house and have no clothes to fit.

Well super, that's upto the parent. Nobody is forced to have children so if salary of 24 hours at NMW won't cover the costs then they get more hours, train up etc and then have children. They blame the state as its easier than admit they went ahead and did something they could afford or had no back up savings for should things change.

It should be universal, what's the point of teaching children they can aspire to what they want if when they get there by sheet hard work others are getting freebies for doing less and making poor choices.

When child no 2 or 3 is disabled or one of the parents gets a chronic disease, they can be supported via disability benefits.

Great - now show me where this increase in disability benefits appears in the Tory spending plan, because talking in terms of what they should or could do isn't very reassuring taking into account their rhetoric and track record.

Yes, having a child is usually a choice. The point is that whether or not my neighbour chooses to have a child, the existence of that child will impact on me whether I like it or not and whether the parent's choice is sensible or not.

You can refuse to pay taxes, but that child will sit next to my child in school, and the teacher will have to deal with the effect of poverty on the class, in terms of increased need for resources and time.

There are plenty of countries with street children because apparently people don't stop having children just because there is no welfare support. Often they are forced into crime. They don't just vanish in a puff of smoke because you stop paying taxes. What do you do with the third child? Pay for it to go into care? Increase food banks? Rely on religious organisations to feed and house the poor? What?

Oldsu: But why should they? You didn't want to invest in them when they were young so why should they invest in you when you are old. That's the whole point of the argument. You paid in so you should get out? They will pay in so they should get out. Society works both ways.

Does that mean my dc's should be exempt from paying tax then because they don't get CB?

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

where would the cost of moving come from? house in negative equity? stamp duty? solicitor's fees? search fees?

I have family support where I live now. Family support means I go to work everyday, regardless of whether or not my children are sick. This means I keep my job. If I move away from family, what will happen to my job on days when my children are sick? are you happy for your child to be taught by a teacher who is off a day here, a day there on a regular basis? or is it tough, I'm a single parent, I shouldn't be allowed to work in a responsible job?

And then there's the ex. Aside from the legal action he would be allowed to take to try and stop me moving (which could delay a move for months - which would mean the loss of any job I had lined up), why should the children be removed from living near one of their parents? what would the impact of that be on them?

What guarentee is there that I will get a job in this new, cheaper area? Work is harder to come by in areas that are less expensive to live in.

Ah yes, single parents claim benefits. Everyone else claims tax credits.

Well super, that's upto the parent. Nobody is forced to have children so if salary of 24 hours at NMW won't cover the costs then they get more hours, train up etc and then have children.

People's circumstances can change after they have had children. People can lose their jobs and struggle to get similar paid work or work that provides enough hours. People can become ill or disabled and have to reduce their hours or give up work, not everybody can afford to retrain - that costs money and time. you make it sound like everybody had masses of choice over their employment.

So this is what I am looking for.

"Mr Osborne, do you think that if we drastically reduce the benefits available to families an increasing number of teenagers in deprived areas will turn to crime as the easiest way to earn a living?"

"Yes, and we have considered this and our proposal is increased funding for young offender's institutes/increased funding for schools and after school activities/increased funding for the police ".

or even

"Yes, but we feel it is the churches responsibility to deal with this problem and they are fully on board and will be opening a large number of youth centres and putting more volunteer workers in the community and they have the funds to do this"

or even

"Yes, but we don't care, as we think increased crime is tolerable if people pay lower taxes"

at least then I would know what they were driving at.

"Reduce benefits for large families and it will all be fine because people will just have little families and nobody will need them" just sounds really stupid.

Its the entitlement that gets me about this thread. Tell you what, lets be really controversial.

Lets remove all state spending and leave it to individuals to choose what to spend on. Oh, but you won't want that because you like bits of society. You just get all holier than thou on benefits, because someone, somewhere might actually get something they haven't directly paid for. The horror.

Ok, I've solved the issue. Lets bring in land value tax. See land owners benefit from all sorts of things, street lighting, high speed telephone connections, public transport links, road infrastructure. The value of their land increases cause of this. Why should they benefit from all this for free? Scroungers! Tax them on their land value, yearly, like other countries do.

Oh what? You don't want that cause it will effect you? Boo Hoo, check your bleeding privilege.

fedup You're bang on with this Ah yes, single parents claim benefits. Everyone else claims tax credits. I think lots of posters on this thread would be very happy to work towards a two-tier society.

Oldsu your logic is completely flawed. Yes you've paid into the system that others benefit from but others have also paid in for you to benefit. Why do you begrudge the young?

I totally agree with a land value tax longtime. I think it would be much fairer than income tax.

Having children is a lifestyle choice so the amount tax payers should contribute to this needs to be limited. Child benefit, tax credits, housing should be restricted. There is no justification for people to have large numbers of kids without being able to support them independently. It is irresponsible. The world is overpopulated anyway.

Also, referring to single parents seems to assume that the "absent parent" is completely absent and not contributing emotionally, financially and practically and has just disappeared off the scene. If the "absent parent" has just disappeared off the scene, he (or she) should be traced and should contribute financially rather than the tax payer having to.

Having children may be a lifestyle choice but we all have to live with the consequences of living in a country where a large number of children are brought up in poverty, even if we are childless ourselves. Children do not just vanish into thin air because the money disappears.

Yes everybody should have two parents who love them and contribute towards them financially (or at least one well off single parent with plenty of support), and nothing should ever go wrong in anybody's life, but that is not reality.

People have children when they have no business doing so and bad things happen to good people.

Take away the benefits, fine, but please explain what happens next.

Wow. The sheer selfishness, the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude of many on this thread is both shocking and depressing.

Having lots of children, or just one or two children, is a lifestyle choice. Having children is essential to ongoing health of the nation's economy.

I detest the argument that kids are a lifestyle choice.

I agree with capping it to 2 children (with multipe births and children with disabilities special cases).

However, it's not benefits claiming that is the problem in this country. Claiming benefits is demeaning (try signing on for a few weeks and see how you are treated in the job centre) and very few people would choose it over earning their own money. it is a fallacy that most benefits-claimants are scroungers, they are not.

What is the problem? It is the ridiculous low wages that means that you can work full-time and still not have enough to live on and support a (small) family. Why does the state subsidise stingy employers? It's about time the living wage became the minimum wage and was enforced.

The disabled are being hammered by cuts

Did Emmaswan come back with any evidence for this?

U2 - any proposal to cap CB is NOT retrospective. It would only apply to thos eas yet unborn.

what is selfish?

Of course people who are down on their luck should be helped and supported. However, able people also have a responsibility to help themselves and achieve independence and reduce the dependency on tax payers money.

What is selfish about wanting "absent parents" to come forward and support their own children financially and step up to the mark rather than the tax payer having to pay?

I do think the minimum wage should match the living wage - all parties should be focusing on this.

But I think Cb should be scraped. Makes no sense to pay for people to have children. And the hypocrisy of many amazes me. When hrt taxpayers were losing theirs, many didn't care and now it's their turn , all hell breaks loose.

Tbh I think the welfare system is crazy. People should be on benefits for a year or maybe two max (except where disability is involved ofcourse!) because they are meant to be help when you go through a tough time, not a permanent source of income.

Of course absent parents should be paying for their children. The selfishness comes in the 'if they're not paying nor should I' attitude. A friend of mine was left by her dp with two babies and almost no money. They had both earned 6 figure salaries. Trouble is he effectively stole her money after she stopped work to look after the kids and left the country. I thank god that our average salaries were there to fund the benefits she gets.

I'd prefer to see more money being ploughed into childcare rather than being given out as free money for families who decide they want a few kids then need a sahp and then need topping up to the tune of hundreds of pounds a month in tax credits. I say this as someone who has four kids and has always worked ( since the kids were babies) along with my husband to support them. If it means we lost our child benefit then so be it, we would just have to cut back or work some more hours to make up what we have lost but I think it would be a fairer system.