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?

There are things that could be done to force some but not all absent fathers to meet the financial cost of bringing up a child but it would cost the state far more to actually enforce it than it costs to support those child with benefits in the first place. Supporting children though is about far more than just money and there are stumbling blocks in place that affect lone parents far more than a family with 2 parents. Take for example child care my brother and his wife had when the dc were younger a system whereby one went into work early but was responsible for pick up and the other could work later but was responsible for the drop off a lone parent has to deal with both themselves. Lone parents are also restricted to working during times of available childcare. Free child care doesn't take away those restrictions if anything it is likely to increase them as I can't see mass childcare on that scale being flexible enough and there is nothing you can do to make the absent parent if they are truly absent step up and take responsibility for the physical side of things.

Contrary to popular opinion people both in couples and lone parents are not allowed to just sit on their backsides and let the benefits roll in, they do have to do things to improve their position.

Yabu it shouldn't be given to unlimited children.

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

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.*

Attitudes like this absolutely astound me. You all do realise that not everyone in society can be lawyers and doctors and buisness owners and police officers don't you?? Someone still needs to clean the toilets in your childrens school. Someone still needs to clear away your tray in mcdonalds. Someone still needs to stack your supermarket shelves.

One of you is saying everyone should get benefits so kids don't think its possible for someone to get a "free ride". You think being a cleaner on NMW being topped up with WTC and CB is a free ride?? What do you suggest that they go to college, get skills, become a nurse? Someone still needs to clean those toilets in the college. And that person likely can't support their family on the wage they are paid. We could increase NMW yes but that still wouldn't be enough. We'd be increasing it to the point where it costs £3 for a loaf of bread and then who feels the benefit of that change? No one, because everything is more expensive.
The only thing that might make a difference is if the increase in wages isn't offset by putting up prices but offset by a fall in profits. And thats never going to happen.

Pay taxes. Have a benefits system where the poor are the takers and the middle and top are givers and you buy yourself a society, a civilisation. You buy yourself a world that enables those at the bottom so survive with a few luxuries and those at the top "the hard workers" "the strivers" to prosper on the backs of those at bottom. And people are complaining about this??? People at the middle and top want to rid those at the bottom of their measley £20 a week because they're not entitled to it?? How blinkered can you be.

And I should preview my posts before sending! The second para is also a quote from above not my own personal opinion

Baroness - If a family decide to have a sahp and the working parent is on a low income they sahp doesn't need to do anything to get top up tax creidts, the working parent could take a job of 24 hours in a low paid job and the family can get hundreds of pounds in tax credits and working tax credit top ups until the youngest child is 18. Compare that to a lone parent who is forced to find work when their youngest turns 5 and it doesn't seem a fair system.

hamiltoes if you're (general you) not going to work as hard as the lawyer or doctor (school, exams,100 hr weeks) then you shouldn't expect to have the same choices and lifestyle as a doctor. I agree with welfare for when people need it. I think it's something the UK should be proud of - when done correctly.

If min wage mmatched living wage (so doesn't matter if prices go up) then those cleaners would still be fine without benefits - just not living it up like the city lawyerS

When hrt taxpayers were losing theirs, many didn't care and now it's their turn , all hell breaks loose

On the contrary-I hadn't seen it on the news at all. It wasn't even one of the headlines on the bbc news app. It was almost like people were trying to hide it...

I'm glad this post was started.

Babyroobs I'm not saying things are equal and that there are not changes that could be made but that what some people are suggesting will hit lone parents the most but that's ok because they are lone parents. On another thread a bit back someone stated that all lone parents are entitled to subsidised childcare which is not true. Peoples perceptions and the reality of situations is far apart.

bereal7 some people could put in far more hours both in school exams and physically working and would never be able to earn the same as a lawyer or doctor due to natural ability or lack of no one is saying they should be entitled to the same lifestyle but that doesn't mean that they are not doing the best they can and shouldn't be treated as worth less as people.

Compare that to a lone parent who is forced to find work when their youngest turns 5 and it doesn't seem a fair system.

Why shouldnt the parent find work when the child is in full time education?

"Lone parent" assumes the other parent does not exist (which is entirely possible in certain circumstances) . The other parent needs to be made to support the lone parent in every way rather than the burden being on the tax payer

Baroness I would never say anyone is worthless but I also don't think those people should then get by on the hard work of those who did try harder or were naturally more gifted. It takes away the incentive of working and making do for yourself and family. This is why the only benefits I will wholeheartedly support are those for disability (there was no choice involved). But I do accept that things happen in life which is why I think a limited time on benefits would be best.

It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that people earn according to how hard they work. Some people earn millions because they work in a lucrative area.

Are you going to tell a nurse who's run off her feet working for the NHS that she doesn't work as hard as a tycoon and therefore doesn't deserve the same lifestyle?

This is where Tory policy is a load of bolleaux. They only see what they want to see. They say that working hard is the key to success. If you didn't succeed you didn't work hard enough. Deep down they probably know it's lies but they only see what they choose to see.

It isnt about how hard someone works. it is more to do with market forces creating a value for a particular job. the market value of that job often doesnt reflect the importance society places on that job. thats why footballers get paid millions for kicking a ball around while nurses get paid a modest salary for helping to save lives

Exactly Suggestme

I would never say anyone is worthless but I also don't think those people should then get by on the hard work of those who did try harder or were naturally more gifted. It takes away the incentive of working and making do for yourself and family.

I still don't understand your logic though. There has to be a lower class for their to be an upper and a middle. The doctor can't function without the middle class pharmacy technician and the middle class manufacturer of his tools, and those people can't function without the lower class stocking their supermarkets and cleaning their work loos.

Living in a society should mean that all people benefit from contributing towards it. Yes, if you want to think about it in simple terms then those who are "naturally more gifted" i.e the lawyers and doctors amongst us will end up contributing more so that the lowest can benefit in monetery terms, but they benefit from that contribution in that they live in a country where children aren't on the streets starving, people aren't breaking into their houses to steal their jewellery because they are hungry, the streets are kept clean, their bins are emptied, there aren't shanty ghetto towns on their way to work, i could go on and on about the benefits of living in a society where everyone is entitled to a basic standard of living but i'm not sure you can see past your own "hard work".

I wasn't suggesting that lone parents shouldn't work once their kids are in ft education, but the same should be applied to sahp's who choose to stay home once their kids are in ft education and claim lots of tax credits to do so.

I currently work as a shop assistant whilst I study. When I come home knackered from standing all day while the manager are stood watching, I always think I work harder because I'm physically tired. BUT they will get paid more than me because the work they do (though not phycial) is harder and they have more responsibility. Yes jobs pay more because society the market deems them to be worth more BUT we all have a choice to enter those fields (hence me studying). I accept that some don't have 'gift' to enter certain fields and that we need lower earners. I don't dispute that. That's why I'm arguing for a living wage as the minimum paid.

But I do resent the assumption that people do well for themselves through sheer luck. Ofcourse luck is involved but so is hard work (Nor just the physical). Oh and working hard doesn't start once you have a family and need to pay bills. It should have started back in school.

Wow didn't mean for it to be that long. Sorry for spelling errors.

sovery but surely you sont begrudge your fil just because some people wernt able to do as well as him ? That's life isn't it ?

Bereal - your point of view makes no sense. Working hard at school does not necessarily allow a good job and a decent lifestyle. Conversely, I know people who are not academic in the least but they are just very good at making money.

What's more you are ignoring the fact that socio-economic factors affect what kind of chance you are going to have at life and that isn't your fault.

It all boils down to this 'some people are worth more than others' BS.

bereal7 what I was saying was that no matter how hard some people work and that includes while they were at school they will never be able to earn enough to pay the bills and house a family and that is down to luck, not being lucky enough to have the right intelligence, not being lucky enough to be born into a family that could help and support, not being lucky enough to attend a school that cares about it's pupils. I know that I am where I am down to hard work and luck so no I don't begrudge the help someone else gets because they were not as lucky as me.

What do you think the outcome would be if the NMW was increased to the living wage?

The other parent needs to be made to support the lone parent in every way rather than the burden being on the tax payer

Lone parents are also tax payers?

How can you force someone to support another adult? After many years hoping my ex would be reasonable regarding the children and my need to work, the fact remains that he considers his household and his financial needs more important than mine. Is he wrong? Should he have to risk his job or contracts to look after the children any more than I should? How do you make a choice as to who's work is more important in any given moment? Separated parents have two households to manage and run, often with competing demands on a finite availability of time and resources. It is very difficult to get both 'sides' to see the other's point of view.

My ex did nothing but let me down in terms of his consistency in caring for the children. So I pay full time childcare and know that I can always work, no matter what he does. It's not fair - because he sees the children regularly and I should be able to rely on that - but what is the alternative? He's not going to help me so I deal with it.