Save the Children launches appeal for children in the UK

[Vagaceratops]

BBC link

And it will get worse :(

Smellslike, they wouldn't be worse off either, and the state wouldnt have to pay for all the admin that goes along with tax credits.

If you're talking about abolishing tax credits too than minimum wage families would probably be a huge amount worse off if there was only one breadwinner, e.g a single parent family. The amount they get to keep from their earnings would no way make up for the amount lost in CTC and WTC.

Getting rid of tax credits is just not feasible in a country as unequal as ours.

Don't you think free child care combined with a higher tax limit would help though? I do. And I also think it would encourage less reliance on the state, and less division between those who do get benefits like tax credits and those who don't.

Getting rid of tax credits is just not feasible in a country as unequal as ours.

Believe it or not the UK was doing perfectly fine before tax credits came in and completely distorted our society.

Now we have millions who are hooked like drug addicts on their monthly tax credits. But this system has to change. It was basically an unfunded bribe from Labour to try and ensure people voted for them. After all, why the hell would you otherwise give families earning £40k+ tax credits?

It wouldn't have been so bad, if the country had a healthy surplus of tax revenues. But we didn't. At best the budget was balanced before GB ripped open the nations chequebooks and bribed everyone with tax credits paid for by your kids and grandkids.

Totally agree SunWukong though one small nitpick, wages are moving but only amongst the highest earners. They're the ones who have seen pay rises of 50% compared to 2.7% for the average worker.

Somebody posted this over in politics, it's very good reading.

classonline.org.uk/docs/Why_Inequality_Matters.pdf

Believe it or not the UK was doing perfectly fine before tax credits came in and completely distorted our society.

post proof or retract

Though first you should define what you mean by 'perfectly fine'. An income supplement to working parents was first introduced in the early 70's. Were things 'perfectly fine' then?

Ain't it all ways the way, the rich get richer and move all there cash off sure, the more you have the less you have to payout.

Do we really want to be like Brazil for example i don't know about anyone else but i find the images of shanty towns around the feet massive rich towers of glass and steel, disgusting.

It's all around us for all to see, where all the money goes.

I gave up work when i had my son, i got paid 50 quid a day, childcare is 55, it's not rocket science that the poor are forced out of work, I'm still under contract twas zero hour work anyway, but as my son is under 7 i can't sign on so no point quiting, .bf gets 24k a year so we are earning too much to claim benefits other then tax credits which is only 10 quid a week, still get the 20 in cb, we don't have sky, don't go on holidays, don't have a car etc, live in London and are doing all right getting by with enough money left over for treats.

But imagine if both of us where low earners we'd be fucked i think the cut off point for most benefits is 13 to 15 before tax and that's really far to low.

Most people i know are still living with parents or in shared accomodation I'm 33, these are not kids I'm talking about but adults earning above minimum wage.

Wages need to rise, childcare costs need to drop, rent prices need capping along with utility bills

some of the examples that people have stated boil down to the people who left their families as downright selfish. I think that is the problem today.

I know it went on before as my poor grandmother and her mum were left by her dad in the 20's. it is so easy to walk out and not take responsibility or pay up for your children.

i know the CSA was pretty rubbish but at least it did get some money for people. i think the dads who keep on having babies with different mothers should have to cough up.

I think the free childcare is a good one but only for people who are working not for people who cannot be bothered to look after their kids.

I agree with mam about the fish analogy.

Outraged Don't you think free child care combined with a higher tax limit would help though? I do. And I also think it would encourage less reliance on the state, and less division between those who do get benefits like tax credits and those who don't.

What people seem to forget is that around the age of 12 most parents stop using childcare, but the children still need to be supported, so tax credits are still needed to supplement low wages. They shouldn't be, but they are, because employers don't pay a living wage. My experience is that teenage children are significantly more expensive in terms of food, clothing and other items.

An income supplement to working parents was first introduced in the early 70's. Were things 'perfectly fine' then?

Yes and it was targetted at a very small group of people. Certainly it was not the norm for working families to claim anything other than child benefit.

As for proof, are you saying we had legions of poor & starving families before tax credits and after their introduction this was all solved? What has tax credits actually solved? Nothing other than give people the illusion that they have a higher income. Except everything else then adapts in price.

Otherwise the answer to poverty is surely to just man the money presses and give everyone £1m.

"So you think its "brilliant" that this country has got to the stage where it needs to have food banks. Jesus wept "

No I don't think it's a brilliant idea that it's got to this stage, but surely it's better than having no food banks at all? No need to nit pick and take the comment completely the wrong way.

Believe it or not the UK was doing perfectly fine before tax credits came in and completely distorted our society.

Before tax credits, tax codes were adjusted to take account of spouses (or more specifically wives, as this was called 'married man's allowance) and children. A married man with dependents would have had a different tax code from a single man with no dependents, so the extra expense of having children has been acknowledged in our tax system for a long time.

What has distorted our society over the last 10-20 years - or one of the things that has - is the high cost of housing and utilities etc. and lack of decently-paid jobs.

In the 1950s and 60s it was completely possible for a man in a manual job to support a wife and children on a single wage because the cost of housing was a relatively small percentage (compared to today) of his pay. Over-inflated house prices and privately owned utility companies making enormous profits for their shareholders and paying their CEOs millions of pounds mean that the average family has to earn a small fortune before they can even think about eating or clothing themselves. Oh yes, and there was less unemployment, too, in those days and none of this zero-hours contract shit that turns some employers into exploiters.

Just thought it might be worth posting this link again.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm
Those bastard rich taking all their own money out of the country, eh! Incidentally, drawing your attention to the 0.6% of the pot raised by the lowest paid workers, I can't see how raising the tax threshold would bring the welfare state crashing down around our ears.

Very much agree with outraged ( on pretty much everything, actually). We would dearly loved to have had more children, but didn't. No-one has ever suggested that people who run into problems unexpectedly shouldn't be supported until they can get back to their feet. ( I am constantly amazed by the amount of deliberate misunderstanding that goes on on these threads!) But deliberately having more children when you know full well you are entirely dependent on taking money from others who take their responsibilites to their family and society seriously is just taking the piss.

Likewise, of course no-one blames the children for their feckless parents who don't feed or clothe them properly. But do you really think these same feckless parents are going to spend any more money we throw at them on their children? Of course not. Providing the kids with uniforms and vouchers may be demeaning to these feckless parents, but quite frankly, I don't give a stuff, they're happy to demean their own children for the sake of smokes or booze.

Sorry, trying to post link again because its important
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm

And the first comment on that webpage says:
The observation that the top 10% of earners pay 50% of all income tax begs the question, what proportion of the nation's wealth do they own? And how much of that is above the basic standard of living costs we all face and the normal standard of living costs for the population?

Manicinsomniac, it is not appropriate to compare poverty in Brazil and the UK. What would you rather, that people in the UK lived on 10p a day too? Applying the principal of equal unfairness is just an insult to all those doing it tough out there.
The fact is that if you live in a society where it is expected that children go on school trips, your child will be missing out by being too poor to go. Similarly, with not having toys at Christmas or new shoes. I would have thought those things should be a given in a 21st century civilised society.
And anyone having to go without food because they cannot afford to eat is surely poor!
Disappointed with all the posters who talk about the feckless poor - what a joke. Grow some compassion!

I'm not saying anything niceguy, you're the one who claims things were 'perfectly fine' before tax credits, so you go find evidence.

To me, your argument is like saying things were 'perfectly fine' before the NHS because the NHS has caused long waiting times for treatment, and rationing of certain drugs and these problems didn't exist before the NHS. But that is to ignore the problems that existed prior to the creation of the NHS and the way these problems were solved by the NHS. KWIM?

Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that more than half of what they earn is taken off them to support the poorest in our society. I posted this to counter the claim that the rich just fuck off with all their money to their yachts in the med. (smells comment I think)

sorry, that response was to twofingers. (I'll get the hang of this soon, honest)

Those bastard rich taking all their own money out of the country, eh!

Have you been asleep for the past few years and have missed the countless news stories on tax evasion and how companies will place their HQs off shore so they don't have to pay UK taxes?

TeenStrop No, we have been paddling like fuck trying to keep our small business afloat and pay the wages of the three people we employ (sometimes meaning we have taken no wages at all.)

Very obviously, a vast amount of money is being paid into the system by the highest paid people in the country. The fact that some set up offshore and evade tax should no more reflect on them than the feckless wasters at the other end of the social seesaw should reflect on the decent folk who receive benefits.

just read the link about inequality that i posted earlier, then we'll talk.

Didn't realize there was required reading before you were allowed to express opinions on MN.

The top 10% pay the largest chunk of income tax because they receive the largest chunk of earned income. They are rewarding themselves with large salaries at the expense of ordinary workers whose wages are stagnating.