Save the Children launches appeal for children in the UK

[Vagaceratops]

BBC link

And it will get worse :(

Potatoprints, because they are working! They are contributing to society, and the economy, and will eventually be in a position where they hopefully still have a job but won't need childcare. That's good for everyone.

Providing childcare for your friend, who isn't required to work until her child is school age anyway, helps no one except your friend. Who is contributing nothing but taking plenty.

That's why.

Oh, and not everyone who isn't a leftie liberal reads the Daily Mail. Most of us have more taste. MNers really need to think of something more original to use as a put down, because that one is inaccurate and it got boring months ago.

only read one post

bt we really can't leave children to live like this becuase the bankers fucked up the economy - and are still sailing on yachts in the med.

the country has money - the haves just dont want to pay for it

The 'haves' are already paying.

Why should they pay even more so that people can absolve themselves of financial responsibilty for their own children.

Outraged

That doesn't make it right. My friend was deserted and the father pays nothing. She is not rolling in benefit and has to jump through hoops to get what she does. There are many problems with the benefit system that won't be solved by pretending to force people into work.
There aren't the jobs to begin with. If its a fair system society wants then yes we should all live within our means then, working or not. I can't see why a worker should be more entitled to help. If you can't afford childcare then so be it, stay at home. I can't see a person's career being more important than providing for a child deserted by their father. My friend shouldn't be required to work, it should be a basic right to choose. Not everyone likes the idea of childcare nor does every job enable childcare. My friend worked in industries of split shifts and evening work.
I also know a single father of four, also deserted by their mother. When the youngest was 7 he was "required to find work". Fair enough some would say. He was expected to leave his four children in the care of his 14 year old daughter, this meant she couldn't study at school after hours. She did this because the house is small and nowhere for her to work. She is a bright child having won Maths and Science awards at National level. What of her future then?

i cant believe that you dont see the benefit of providing a free breakfast club to encourage school attendance and get them some breakfast

ok - lets say that all benefit claimants ( and i dont say this at all) but lets say - that parents absolve themselves of financial responsability for their children.

following that thought process, it is therefore ok to let those children live in poverty becuase the parents are tossers?

and to say all benefit claimants absolve themselves of financial responsability is a shit statement and just fucking wrong

Are you actually for real? What's not right is that people think they have a right to have a child and then not bother to do anything to provide for it.

My friend was deserted and the Father pays nothing

That's very sad for your friend, but the father and mother of this child have more responsibility for the person they created than other people who go to work to pay for their own children do. Because that's whose picking up the pieces. Other families.

My friend shouldn't have to work, it should be a basic right to choose

Yes, she had the right to choose not to have a child.

No one should have the right to force someone else, ie taxpayers, to fund their lifestyles choices. You are ridiculously misguided.

He was expected to leave his four children in the care of his 14 year old daughter

No, he wasn't. He was expected to find suitable childcare. But that wouldn't be a problem if everyone who worked was offered free or very heavily subsidised childcare, would it?

The parents get money! Why the fuck can't they encourage school attendance and give their own children some breakfast!?

If they can't, then pay for them to be provided with cereal. It would be cheaper than providing childcare for someone to do nothing all day.

Of course it's not ok to let children live in poverty because their parents are tossers, bit I've already explained how we could deal with that in a way that doesn't cost the taxpayer more than it already does, and has the desired outcome.

The parents get money! Why the fuck can't they encourage school attendance and give their own children some breakfast!?
they fucking should - but SOME fucking dont

If they can't, then pay for them to be provided with cereal.
who?

It would be cheaper than providing childcare for someone to do nothing all day.

Outraged

I truely hope that no misfortune should come your way.
My dh pays tax and I know he would prefer his money to go to somebody who deserved it who was looking after the future of their children by providing the best care possible A PARENT'S, than to support somebody to further their career and expecting tax payers to pay their childcare.
I think your attitude is shockingly lacking in compassion. I certainly wouldn't expect subsidised childcare in order to work, especially if this meant another family had to go without. The tax credits we get allow us a decent living, I can't complain and consider myself far better off than my friends I exampled.

Are you actually for real? What's not right is that people think they have a right to have a child and then not bother to do anything to provide for it.

My friend was deserted and the Father pays nothing

That's very sad for your friend, but the father and mother of this child have more responsibility for the person they created than other people who go to work to pay for their own children do. Because that's whose picking up the pieces. Other families.

apart from the moral highground - there is no solution given here and the underlying problem remains

My friend shouldn't have to work, it should be a basic right to choose

Yes, she had the right to choose not to have a child.

it should be recognised that despite best efforts accidents happen

No one should have the right to force someone else, ie taxpayers, to fund their lifestyles choices. You are ridiculously misguided.

He was expected to leave his four children in the care of his 14 year old daughter

No, he wasn't. He was expected to find suitable childcare. But that wouldn't be a problem if everyone who worked was offered free or very heavily subsidised childcare, would it?

another pithy retort without an actual solution. suitable childdcare costs a lot of money - for 4 children

Who?

The same people who already pay, obviously.

Potato, you and your dh are entitled to your opinions, as am I. But personally, I think it is foolish to provide childcare for someone who isn't going to work.

I have no problems with SAHPs. I was one for a few years, and then I may as well have been for quite a few more because I work part time term time. The point is that you aren't expecting other people to fund your childcare if you are working, because you are contributing yourself.

It's people like you, on behalf of your friend, that are expecting other people to provide childcare for no reason.

I'm rapidly losing patience with this thread! That most people can manage on benefit tells me that, although the levels may be low, it is enough to live on. Some people on here seem to find it satisfactory that parents can prioritise fags, booze or a night out at the cinema over feeding and clothing their children and see that the answer to their financial woes is to demand more money from the rest of us. This is so far removed from the original intention of the welfare state as to be absurd.

Similarly, there are posters on here who are living with a partner yet choose to be SAHM who bleat about the levels of benefit they get paid. Well, I'm glad the money that is taken from my earnings (under threat of violence from the state) - and means that my child, consequently, has less than she would otherwise have - is being so enjoyed. That's what I go to work for - to allow those that don't want to work the chance to enjoy life?s luxuries!

There was a moving post up thread about a single mum who is struggling in a low paid job to keep her child fed and a roof over their heads. She's being taxed to penury and I'm sure that she'd be glad to hear that her tax money is being enjoyed by someone who clearly doesn't share her values.

If taxes were slashed across the board the working poor would get to keep more of their own money and need less assistance from the state. For families like mine, lowering my tax would mean my wife wouldn't have to go to work if she chose not to (and not need to claim benefits to be a SAHM either) and her job could go to someone who currently sits on their arse all day for a living.

Moving in the opposite direction and raising taxation puts people, like the single mum I mentioned earlier, closer and closer to the breadline and she will require state intervention creating a vicious circle.

The other option is to stick our heads in the ground and hope it all pans out in the end - sixty odd years of welfarism suggests that this is not likely to happen.

there is no solution here and the underlying problem remains

As it does if we just give out money. There are other solutions, a CSA that actually does the job it's supposed to do would be a start. Giving single parents the means to work would be another one.

it should be recognised that despite best efforts accidents happen

I'm aware accidents happen. Although I prefer to refer to my two as 'surprises'. But if free childcare was available, then 'best efforts' would include working, wouldn't it?

Suitable childcare costs a lot of money - for 4 children

Well, as one in the example was 14, it woudont have been for four children. And even if it were, it wouldn't cost any more than would have to be given out by the state to support four children, the difference is that the state woudo be paying for the childcare and the parent would be contributing to the upkeep of those children.

I agree MrJudgey. We would all be in a better position if the personal tax allowance was higher, both the working poor and the squeezed middle.

Outraged is a very sensible, organised, intelligent person with a happy and successful marriage, a good job, few personal issues, she doesn't smoke or drink to excess, she does everything with a modicum of restraint. She has a strong family background and is well educated.

All you fuck-ups out there, please listen to what she is saying. She is the voice of ignorance reasonableness.

You have no idea what I am like as a person. My opinions don't define everything that I am. Clearly, or you wouldnt be wrong about at least four of those things. Arguably more.

so you would provide those who wouldnt pay with cereal - where?

Outraged is a very bitter person with two failed marriages behind her and a couple vof step-children. She resents the amount of money her husband is paying to his feckless ex-wife who does not work and yet claims benefits.

Outraged, on the contrary, your posts have given me a very good idea of what you are like as a person.

there is no solution here and the underlying problem remains

As it does if we just give out money. There are other solutions, a CSA that actually does the job it's supposed to do would be a start. Giving single parents the means to work would be another one.
agreed, what means?

it should be recognised that despite best efforts accidents happen

I'm aware accidents happen. Although I prefer to refer to my two as 'surprises'. But if free childcare was available, then 'best efforts' would include working, wouldn't it?

you are stating that all people on benefits dont want to work, i dont really understand why

Suitable childcare costs a lot of money - for 4 children

Well, as one in the example was 14, it woudont have been for four children.
ok 3, point still valid

And even if it were, it wouldn't cost any more than would have to be given out by the state to support four children, the difference is that the state woudo be paying for the childcare and the parent would be contributing to the upkeep of those children.
but it would, thee is no economic sense to end up financially worse off and handing over your wages to the local creche

If soeone asked me to work all week for fuck all - i'd tell them to kiss my arse

unlikleyamazonian, if you have posted somthing personal about outraged, i think it is in very bad taste

unless it was dark humour i didn't get

How about this as a thought for the day.