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?

bring back universal payment... but start paying it later... from school age to end of school...

Back when hrt payers had their cb taken away, all the lower earners didn't give a shit, even though it was obviously the thin end of the wedge wrt cuts and even though it meant that hrt payers would feel less invested in the idea of a welfare state as their perception would be that they pay for everything and get little back in return. Well divide and rule appears to be working well and the people who've already had cb removed can't bring themselves to get worked up about anybody else!

As a nation we should have fought this from the beginning. A universal cb recognises that children are both expensive and essential to the future of the country and had the nice side effect of making us all feel included in a welfare state.

The tories are dismantling this and all the lower rate taxpayers who sat back and were gleeful when hrt payers had cb removed have aided the tories no end.

There go my hopes for it being brought back for us.

A phased introduction of capping it at 2 children seems reasonable however.

Faux I made EXACTLY that point (almost word for word) a few month back on another thread. That people didn't see it coming is beyond me.

I will do some googling to see what they do in other countries (I think in USA they can have their driving license taken away, or is Judge Judy wrong)

Late to the thread, but yes, this is true. A friend has been through this bit and is now at the stage of having her ex sent to prison. She's just waiting for the warrant to be served forcing him to court.

It is interesting that many are keen to have the cap on kids. I am too. If you have an accidental pregnancy regardless of whether you are on benefits it something you will just have to deal with. its not for the state to decide.

I also agree with a PP. All I hear from Labour is the mansion tax and taxing banker's bonus.

The mansion tax will have loads of exceptions made. Someone who brought their house 40 years ago, children long gone, little ready cash.

Are we going to say they will be forced to sell the house (maybe to a rich Russian!) to someone who just looks on it as an investment and never lives there. There will be large parts of London deserted for months on end.

If an elderly person is allowed to defer the payment until they die what if another government comes in 10 yrs later and repeals the mansion tax. Do you still have to pay it or something else.

When you are taxed to infinity then you will look to places that will have more generous tax allowances. So, all these people bringing in wealth, spending on cleaners, in expensive restaurants etcetc will move abroad. We wont get ANY of their taxable income let alone the increased amount.

Hannahouse the article below pretty much gives you the answer. It is the Tories who are doing things to help the rest of England. Yorkshire is next BTW.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/12/secret-negotiations-restore-manchester-greatness?CMP=share_btn_fb

Malice I was probably right there with you! I seem to say the same things on a loop on mn

Saw a pregnant woman today, with 3 kids alongside and a toddler plus baby in the pushchair. How much CB would this person get?

Probably best not to make assumptions Varya. People might think that about me when I go out with my 3 children. The fact is we get nothing. I've had a few comments in the past from virtual strangers who have insinuated something similar, about how we must get lots of money for our brood!! Simply not true. They look genuinely perplexed when I tell them we don't claim anything.

She might be a childminder varya or minding her nieces and nephews for the day. And even if they are all hers, she might have loadsamoney and claim nothing.

Parents, all of us, shouldn't have meekly accepted the cuts to CB when it was removed from HR tax earners. We should have made bloody great fuss.

The Tories played a blinder by setting up the divisive and patently unfair new system for who currently gets it and who doesn't. The result will be that soon pretty much nobody will get any and somehow we will think this is "fairer".

Ive got three kids, work part time and look fater my niece to save my DB, who cant claim anything £340 on nursery fee's, people often assume she is my 4th DC

Parents, all of us, shouldn't have meekly accepted the cuts to CB when it was removed from HR tax earners. We should have made bloody great fuss.

Yes. You should have. So you won't object when we extend the same courtesy to you?

Because i work night's and people are indoors when i leave for work but are home all through the day they probably think i am claiming with 4 kids,, doesn't look like i work and they think i have 4 dc when i don't ive got 3 and a niece

Sorry Emma don't understand what you are saying

What I meant but prob didn't articulate clearly is that CB should always have remained a universal benefit. But the strategically divisive new system eroded any solidarity between parents on the issue and instead had the squeezed middle sniping at each other and forgetting that actually there are some kids for whom CB is the difference between having shoes that fit them, and eating lunch, or not. Weshould have united and said No, this matters.

I guess we have a chance at this election to do that.

What a nasty thread. What some people seem to be saying is that no one should have children unless they are absolutely certain that they can look after them without any help for the next 18 years. They should be 100% certain that if they get divorced, or widowed, or made redundant, or someone in the family becomes disabled, then they could still afford the children. The only way that I can see that you can guarantee that is to have 18 years worth of expenses saved up before you conceive. Ludicrous.

It's a completely ridiculous idea, and will not stop people having more than 2 children. All that will happen is that more and more children will be growing up in poverty, with all the resulting issues that that brings for the whole of society. Then, in 30 years time, those same children who went to school hungry, then went home to sleep in cold, damp houses, will be being held up against their privately educated, well nourished, wealthy counterparts and will be chastised for "not working hard enough" when they find that, no matter how hard they try, they cannot earn more than NMW.

It's a completely ridiculous idea, and will not stop people having more than 2 children. All that will happen is that more and more children will be growing up in poverty, with all the resulting issues that that brings for the whole of society. Then, in 30 years time, those same children who went to school hungry, then went home to sleep in cold, damp houses, will be being held up against their privately educated, well nourished, wealthy counterparts and will be chastised for "not working hard enough" when they find that, no matter how hard they try, they cannot earn more than NMW.

Well said. We should be investing in the next generation. I think the attitude that everyones circumstances will remain the same is very shortsighted. I have known two people who have split up with partners recently and their life has been literally turned upside down. Their circumstances have completely changed and without their partners income are now struggling as single parents. A really disgusting thread.

this is a really challenging dilemma. no one wants to see poor children suffer, but there is no guarantee the money given to the parents would trickle down to the children. some people have the skill set and time to be very frugal and it is easy to criticize those that don't have that skill set.
but poor prenatal nutrition and the genetics suggest that all the money and good intentions may not help the child in the first place. what is the science behind this plan, how likely is a child who grows up in poverty likely to escape poverty...I suspect it take at least 3 generations.

but poor prenatal nutrition and the genetics suggest that all the money and good intentions may not help the child in the first place. what is the science behind this plan, how likely is a child who grows up in poverty likely to escape poverty

Do you even realise what an empty soul you sound? You are basically saying fuck the dirty poor children they won't change so leave them to rot.

Not to mention but there is no guarantee the money given to the parents would trickle down to the children

^^Just where do you get these sweeping generalisations?

It's not just your post some of the posts on here are vile. They are disgusting to read, with attitudes I would have more likely of found in a dickens novel, rather than 2015

i'm aware I sound cold and callus; but I can assure you politicians and administrators will think with their head and not their hearts when making policy changes.
what has been going on (all sorts of social policies) have not really helped solve the continuing divide.
i'm not sure what the solution is, somehow I think it needs to go back to a more family centered approach with family increasingly responsible for family.

Yes, there are some nasty opinions on this thread (e.g. people are poor because they are undeserving, feckless and make poor choices), but out2pasture really does take the

Yes, poverty can be a cycle, but the reasons for this are far more complicated than people being poor because their genes are bad. My first thought on reading this was that Hitler had the same sort of idea...

Most of my neighbours are poor, and I am too. I live on income support and carers allowance. Most of my neighbours are working long hours in crap jobs. We do not have bad genes, we just have bad circumstances and very little help at the moment to climb out of them.

If you are a child born into poverty, and your family has hardly got enough to feed you, let alone give you access to a computer so you can do your homework, how is making your family more responsible for you going to help?

In a fair society, shouldn't we be investing in children so that they can climb out of poverty? Cutting public services so that children can't even use a computer at the library, then taking away the money their parents used to feed them and buy school equipment with... Well, no wonder so many poor children don't succeed in life!

I would laugh at Out2pasture if the sentiments weren't so disgustingly sickening - genetics makes people poor now? I've never heard anything so revoltingly snobby. But then to be honest that is what Tory policy boils down to.