Dave's cuts are going be deep and they will hurt

[FellatioNelson]

I've been hearing this all day on the radio. I can't take the suspense any longer. They are going to affect the lives of 'every one of us'

I feel like a person wincing and clenching my teeth in anticipation of the big fuck-off needle the school nurse is wielding, and I'm next in the queue....

Come on then, what's it going to be?

They shouldn't cut child benefit for over 13's either the people who will just want a baby will not think a head to 13 years down the track when that young person still needs feeding and clothing.
If I had a pound for everyone I hear moaning kids cost more as they get older but in the same breath encouraging friends and family members to have another because a packet of nappies and baby milk is peanuts I'd be rich.

I worked in a cake shop at 13 to buy tapes and concert tickets not food and towards the rent.
Now EMA I think should be scrapped in favor of the paper round/Sat job.

I suppose it would be cheaper than means testing yes. To me it just seems stupid to give and take at the same time but I see what you are saying.

I honestly believe everything must be looked at. When people elect to take a private alternative to state provision that is a luxury and should be taxed accordingly. Some parents will do anything to avoid state education, only a very small few would leave the private sector.

The FF proposal sounds a bit complicated and child benefit replaced child tax allowances as that was yet another thing the state wanted to encourage - have chilren and you get a tax break. As said above by MH the state wants us to tax avoid to follow the behaviours it prefers (invest in a pension - hence tax relief), invest in research in a company - hence tax breaks, take on young unemployed staff and get a tax break. Tax avoidance can be a moral good both for the state's and your own benefit (feeding your chidlren well and building them a good life through your earnings are moral goods). Tax evasion is illegal.

As I say I've just heard so many conversations around how babies don't cost much and all they need is love etc etc both in real life and online as an argument for baby's that can't be afforded being brought into the world.
I personally think if there was no help whatsoever for accident baby's or 2nd born children then people might think a head to how much school trips cost for your 13 year old because that's when the gap between the haves and have nots becomes really apparent and when it has most impact. Plenty of children didn't go on history and geography field trips when we took our GCSE's because the parents couldn't afford them. Maybe if that was when we handed out the equivalent HIP or surestart grant it might do more good than the council estates of Birmingham looking like a Bugaboo showroom.

I believe that so called health tourism costs the NHS a staggering amount. I'm not entirely sure how it could be policed though.

From what I've been told 13 year old boys wear mens shoes and clothes and eat like horses, the baby will look like a bargain in comparison and doesn't back chat !

True Fellatio - very sad but true

Earthworm 'There have been no cuts to HE - 10,000 more places are being funded.'

Not correct. Really really not correct. University budget is being cut by 20 - 25% and we are being told to make further cuts. I am being made redundant despite recognition I have an outstanding record. Here whole courses have been slashed and in others numbers hugely reduced (think 50% less students). Our university alone is making millions of pounds of 'savings' e.g. job losses. So fewer staff per student. Courses have all been capped and if we over recruit (very easy with the ucas system) we get fined thousands per student. Many many universities will not go to clearing at all this summer or only for a few courses.

I have no idea where the 10,000 extra students figure is going (as I have heard it too).

Mumatomany are you suggesting adopting China's one child policy for the poor?

Do you think having more children you can't afford is in anyone's interest, the child or the parents ? My husband is an only child because on two teachers salaries they could only afford one so that was what they had and thank goodness they did because he had bugger all growing up.

My carer's Allowance is taxable and I don't have an issue with that for benefits thata re not* means tested

• CA is part means tested; the carer is checked for earning potential (under @ £100 per week) but partner is not. Id designed to compensate carer for loss of earnings IYSWIM.

However I think stopping CB at 13 is wrong: you can't hadnd your child back at 13 and the still need food. A basic dash of common sense says that you can predict ,ore reliably what will happen to your family during babyhood than a decade later- who knows what will be happening then?

How about anyone who vists the UK must be in possession of a travel insurance certificate valid for the length of their stay - I wouldn't dream of going abroad without health insurance and if I were struck by a car abroad I wouldn't expect the tax payers of that country to fund my treatment.

The trouble with reciprocal agreements between countries is that no one can really be faffed with the paperwork, it is easier to treat and release.

'Fio - I am not saying I object to working through uni. As the child of middle income parents I did just that. I was arguing against the reaction that higher fees would drive poorer students out of uni. If the middle income students manage with zero grants and zero parental support them surely poorer students can do the same. Both would be in exactly the same position (ie 100% dependent on work and loans).

'

technically yes but

big problem

I graduated in 2008, and quite a few of my contemporaries are still holding on to their student jobs rather than face the jobless queue.

So new students are not getting access to jobs.

S then more people after a shrinking number of aplces will affect people gaining access to Univeristy won't it?

Am not pro more grants but think more loans should be amde available, perhaps to people in certain areas (study, not locality). Not sure about that.

Mama you are focussing entirely on people who know they won't be able to afford their kids.

A great many people in well paid jobs will lose their incomes shortly esp. in public sector.

I am sure most of them had their children not expecting dependancy!

Frank Field believes that there is a clear case for weighting CB towards the early years when one parent may decide to stay at home - by 13 s/he is more likely to be back in employment.

I was going to say that it would be a disincentive to stay in full-time education until 18, but of course that will be compulsory soon anyway.

Peppapig - yes, of course, lots of cuts in HE at the moment, but government still adamant that there will be 10,000 extra places this year (according to Culture Minister on Question Time last night).