7 out of ten children in poverty

[Gilead]

Come from families where at least on parent is employed. 40% of UC claimants are working families BUT Sunak blames those on Welfare for inflation and he wants to cut benefits by at least £1000 per annum.
AIBU to think that the Tories are trying to create a two tier state?

Yeah that actually isn’t really true though is it because in the 70s and 80s you could pretty much get by still on one income. We didn’t have much but the basics were all covered.

by the time we got to the 90s tax credits were well and truly in place.
so you’d actually have to go back to the 60s children to be living as you describe.

I think it is a misunderstanding based on the removal of the uplift a year ago.

Also people are misreading the OP as it doesn’t say they have one employed parent, it says at least one employed parent. In other words a sizeable number of children in poverty have two working parents.

Actually, FIS (family income supplement) was bought in by the tories in 1970/71 so preceded Tax Credits. There were no payments for childcare but it was a 'top up' benefit. Children have always been expensive.

@UndertheCedartree I asked @Gilead if that's what they are talking about but they haven't responded. I think they are purposely trying to whip up anti tory/Sunak hatred

Good for you. But some people are too ill, too disabled, carers, low IQ, etc and aren't able to work full time, or even part time. Should we look after them? Or should we consign them to a lifetime of poverty and misery?

Disgusting attitude. Just absolutely appalling.

Things can get bad quickly for those in financial difficulties, they may be fat they may be thin but if the money dries up they all need to eat and will all feel hunger the same. I don’t understand how people can be so cruel and judgemental

At the food bank I volunteered at many were underweight, homeless and with addiction issues. Most of those without addiction issues had mental health issues. And we know most medication for serious mental health causes weight gain. It's nothing to do with eating less and exercising more for most.

Huge amounts of benefit money is going to Landlords. If the Government truly wanted to cut the benefit bill then they would build more social housing and stop selling it off.

stand outside for one hour

To judge them and be a dick or you know, you could volunteer for an hour and get to know them and understand why they are there perhaps

I think they are purposely trying to whip up anti tory/Sunak hatred.

There's loads of anger hatred for the Tories around.🤷‍♀️ You can't really blame people. Twelve years of Conservative government has wrecked the UK.

People who claim benefits (regardless of whether they work or not) should not expect to be better off than people who work and do not claim benefits. The solution is to make working people better off, so they don't get so annoyed at the benefit claimants.

Precisely. That this poster has a hobby of watching and judging the poor is as inhumane as it is creepy.

This is too complicated as there are so many variables at play. Eg a working couple with one NT child could be worse off than an unemployed couple with 2 SEN children because they get more in UC dla and carers and housing elements etc but they NEED more money to meet the needs of their family

You would seriously look at a disabled person and be annoyed if they got more than you from working, knowing they will never have the chance get a promotion or a pay rise?

Being disabled can be very expensive. ATM I know a woman who spends more than £100 per week on the electricity powering the medical equipment needed for her severely disabled adult son.

I'm not "berating" you but the tone of your post is unpleasant, as is your use of the term "handouts".

We shouldn't have a society where children live in poverty.

I think we have several problems.

'Work' is problematic - we have industry telling us they need workers, but what they are offering is not secure work or regular hours. They are offering 'fully flexible contracts' which means they want full flexibility from you whilst not having to guarantee any hours. Really they would like people under 25 (preferably whose living costs are paid by parents) who cost less and who they can expect to have no life or responsibilities outside their job so that they can immediately jump when the employer says so.

Employers say people don't have the 'right skills' but won't train them because then they say they will move on. They want to instead offer apprentice retail worker roles or apprentice teaching assistant roles so that they can pay even less than minimum wage.

In mainstream media today it was reporting we need to import loads of overseas workers for care work because 'no one will do it'.

Why not? Because it is usually low paid, irregular hours, not paid for break with expectation of you paying for your own vehicle's running costs and petrol, only partly paid back. It's also insultingly classed as unskilled or low skilled when it really requires a massive range of technical and soft skills as well as physical strength.

We need better employment regulation that forces employers to offer regular hours and invest in their staff.

More and more research tends to support the idea that obesity is genetic and not due to a personal failing.
To tackle it you need good quality food and fresh veges - the struggling local food bank is not likely to provide this.
Then there is gas/ electric/ cooking equipment.

@thelongconmom of course there are council houses. For every new build site; a percentage of it must be social housing. The demand may outweigh the supply, but they definitely exist.

Thats different and you know it and I discussed that in my 1st post. There is a difference between can't and won't and I'm talking about the 'won't' section. Or those that think they can't but actually just won't.

And here we have classic benefits bashing thread. Tattoos, check. Sky TV, check. Better off than hard working tax payers, check. I can't understand the mentality of earning so much you don't qualify for help but begrudging those who are worse off the few crumbs they get from the government. I'd say having good health, career opportunities, being financially independent, owning your home or having more options to rent, looking forward to a pension or savings etc is far better than a life on UC or disability benefits.

I'm a single mum and it worries me. I come from a FSM family and remember how it felt.

I don't have the money to help in any meaningful way, but all my ds's outgrown school uniform, shoes, trainers, coats, gloves etc, I carefully check, clean, have reheeled if necessary, repair stitching to hems, buttons etc and then send to a school in a deprived area.

I just think that every coat or pair of decent trainers I can send is £25 that a struggling parent isn't having to shell out.

Purely on money coming into the household. People choose to have children, it's their choice.