Save the Children launches appeal for children in the UK

[Vagaceratops]

BBC link

And it will get worse :(

Darkeyes, I just feel the need to say that I think ou are being horrible and quite pathetic banging on about whether or not someone claims child benefit.

Xenia is quite capabable of replying if she wants to or she has every right to choose not to answer, and either way, I can't see that it makes any difference whatsoever. Especially to a debate about poverty, a situation that she is clearly not in.

If she does claim, if she is still even entitled to it that is, what does it matter? She claims something she is allowed to claim? So what? There is nothing wrong with that. And as plenty of people have pointed out on MN in the past, it's for children. The same as child tax credits. If she does claim it, then it's for her children, she would be denying them something that they are entitled to if she didn't. Parents shouldn't make their children stand by principles that are a matter of opinion and choice. She might do as I do and save it all up for her dc for when they are older. A perfectly legitimate thing to do. Their money, they can have it.

But like I said, it makes no difference anyway. Her opinions are as valid either way.

It's you that is coming across as the hypocrite by banging on about it as if its a bad thing when you have nothing but excuses for anyone else who claims what they are entitled to.

You really should get over it.

I thought entitlement was bad.

TwoGold I agree, theres no point wasting my time reading Xenia anymore, I'm 100% sure Xenia is a troll who is finding this all very amusing.

If she does claim, if she is still even entitled to it that is, what does it matter? She claims something she is allowed to claim? So what? There is nothing wrong with that.

Oh, the irony!

Not really. The difference would be that she and her children wouldnt be homeless and starve if she didn't claim because she has got off her butt and made a living for herself.

There's no irony when you are compriang her claiming and someone who doesn't work claiming.

I find Xenias views too extreme, but she does talk sense some of the time. I can find a lot more to agree with on her comment than on thise that just make excuses as to why people can't make the effort to support themselves.

It makes no difference to anything whether she claims or not, and it is close to bullying to keep banging on about it. And very hypocritical from someone who seems to want more handed out on benefits.

yes that is the point i am trying to explain. it was unusual but then the next generation born during ww2 progressed and did have more money than their parents generation on the whole.

I think the benefits culture has encouraged people to not be socially mobile and to almost be inverted snobs.

I think it is good to have a safety net and it could happen to anyone losing their job etc but my beef is with the ones who have never had a job, produce children and then the child follows their example.

does the benefit system create this way of life and create problems

I think so alemci.

When you know you will be well supported, what's the point in trying for more?

Ok, I understand now. If you have a decent income and you won't starve by not receiving any benefits, it's ok to claim the ones you're entitled to. If you don't have a decent income and you would starve if you didn't claim the benefits you're entitled to then it's very bad and you're a feckless scrounger.

Apparently you also claim benefits that you don't need freddos, you're saving it up for your DCs to use when they're older. Frankly I find that much harder to stomach than somebody who needs child benefit and tax credits to buy his or her kids food and clothing. If anyone is a living embodiment of entitlement culture it's people like you because you take money from the government that you don't need, but that you're 'entitled to'.

So you should claim everything you can regardless of if you need it or not? like millionaire OAPs claiming winter fuel allowance and free TV licence, so why begrudge anyone who claim all that they are entitled to even if that means they are better off then if they where working? why not choose that as a lifestyle if they are entitled to do so?, what is the incentive not to? and why should they be judged for it when the millionaire who keeps all their money off shore and pays 1% tax isn't judged at all.

Yes, I will take it for my children.

If the government is stupid enough to give it to me, why the hell shouldn't I? I pay more than enough tax.

And the fact that I pay income tax is the reason I can justify it. If I paid nothing in considering I'm fit and healthy, then I'd feel pretty ashamed of myself for claiming.

My entitlement is no different to anyone else's. If you can't beat em, join em.

Go you!

Also, that's pretty damn hypocritical. You can't condemn people for claiming money they do need in order to survive, when you claim money you don't need just because you can.

There you go if you can get it do so, thus you have no reason to insult others for doing so, I don't care about your statement of I've paid enough tax some would take that to mean you have paid for your own medical care and pension in your old age, the point is your entitled to is as are others who haven't worked.

still has nothing to do with the point that the minimum wage isn't enough to live on but still you have no reason to insult others for claiming what they are entitled to and if that amount leaves them better of then in work, then that is the fault of the government for setting the wage far too low and not capping utility bills and rent.

I don't condemn people for claiming money they need in order to survive at all! I fully believe in the welfare state for those who have fallen on temporary hard times or for those who are ill or disabled.

I condemn people for not trying to get themselves into a position where they don't need to claim. I condemn people for conceiving children they have no way of supporting.

Im not entirely comfortable with the fact that I claim money I don't need tbh, it's ridiculous that the government not only give it to me, but offer it up on a plate the day I popped with a bounty pack! But if they are going to give money to my children, why should I stop them?

They way things are oing they will be desparately in need of it to help them through uni or to help them learn to drive. I wouldnt be able to afford those things without help, it's not like I'm rolling in it.

I haven't insulted anyone.

Anyway, my post was about one person banging on about an irrelevant and uneccesary personal question, which I think is a horrible thing to do. Why don't you address that point instead?

My moral position has never wavered. People have a moral duty to avoid lawfully tax but not to evade it as the state spends money badly but we must obey the law. Nor do I have a problem with benefit claimants claiming their entitlement as it is the system at fault not they. I said a good few older people 70+ had an ethos of not claiming, and good for them but people have to work within the system. I fyou can be paid never to do a day's work in your life or have as much money and work then it's not surprising if most people take the asy option and I include housewives in that too. Few working men with wives are given the same life of indulged idleness bestowed upon housewives particularly when children are at school although many then do return to work when they have not shot their career into so many pieces by foolishly giving up work in the first place.

The difficulty for all states is how to ensrue we have a welfare state with children fed whilst not incentivising people not to work. It's a hgue dilemma. There aer various options. I quite like payihng all over 18 £200 a week regardless of number of children or housing costs and whether they work or not in place of all benefits and pensions, a minimum income and if you earn more great coupled say with a flat tax of 20% for all perhaps capped at £50k tax paid a year. The problme with that idea is that the couple taking £20.800 in that system might simply choose never to work and we probably do need people earning more than that to keep this country exporting things. however it appeals as then you could not benefit cheat and nor could you be paid massive amounts in housing benefits nor be rewarded for having loads of chidlren you cannot afford as it remains at £200 a week per adult however many children they have.

By why have a problem with others claiming what they are entitled to? if what they are entitled to leaves them better off when working in the unskilled jobs they can apply for why begrudge the individual doing whats best for them rather then the system that makes it possible?.

everyone is out for number one, and benefits are not all that, the problem is rents are too high, bills too much, taxes extortionate and wages are not keeping up.

then working in an unskilled job not when.

and but why not by why, oh forget it you know what I mean I'm sure you can get the point in amongs all the wrong words

I don't have a problem with people claiming what they are entitled to.

I have a problem with people not bothering to try and support themselves.

They might be the same person, but I don't have a problem with both of the things they do.

I do have a very big problem with a system that enables people to be better off out of work, especially when they are better off just because they made a choice to have children.

teenstrop Also, that's pretty damn hypocritical. You can't condemn people for claiming money they do need in order to survive, when you claim money you don't need just because you can.

I completely agree with this. And with the point about winter fuel allowances going to people who have no need of it. We have professors at work on £60K salaries who laugh when their winter fuel allowance arrives in the post after they've turned 60. Some of them send it back, one of them gives it to a low paid member of staff on the quiet, but most of them keep it.

I don't have a problem with people not bothering, if you have looked at the options and found (as many do) that you would be worse off I don't begrudge them for not bothering, child benefit, income support, housing benefit, council tax exemption etc, if you have looked at what you can do and it's minimum wage and you realise you'd loose out or be no better off with your benefits cut to take into account your wage so you walk away with the same amount at the end of the day then why should you bother?.

The system is at fault but unlike others here I don't think the answer is cutting benefits not when you have people in full time work still having to claim benefits because the wage isn't enough to cover basic needs. wages need to catch up with reality of the cost of living.

Freddos
I have a problem with people not bothering to try and support themselves.

Do you mind if I ask you a question? Do you believe that the majority of people on benefits fit into this category? Yes or no?

Ideally you should bother because you want a fulfilling life and because you want to contribute to society.

But I can understand why you wouldn't bother if you have never seen the good side of society and have always lived in a run down area and spent time with people with no ambition or aspiration.

No, I don't think the majority fit into that catergory. But I think a very significant minority do.