Benefit changes

`ear `ear.

Also there are many people who decide that they can't afford to have more children and so don't. Why shouldn't people be encouraged to only have what they can afford to pay for?

Just got a questionnaire from the council for opinions on the new council tax reforms, it has gone through the shredder nicely.

Absolutely agree Hinch. The working poor are the ones who are getting screwed and will get even more screwed too. This and the last government basically subsidise very poor employers who pay very poor wages. Things are worse though for the low paid with this government as they cut tax credits, and are cutting Council Tax benefit and housing benefit. So much for encouraging people to work.

What I will say is if they are going to stop paying extra money for new births, then I hope they stop paying the Windsor family more money for every addition to their family, whether it's a new birth or someone marrying into them. Privatising them could raise a few quid.

I agree Hinch and UTD. (That is apart from the Windsor family dig ;P )

Once there are jobs available that pay a wage a family can live on, then there is a case.

As it stands, when new graduates are lucky to get jobs stacking shelves and you NEED adegree for even that - forget it.

Having never been a believer in universal benefits and that ALL welfare should be by dint of 'need' I see no merit whatsoever in not completely overhauling the welfare system to that effect. I agree with Charly's post regarding numbers of children which whilst it may constitute a greater need in the given circumstance a method must be in place to stop any abuse. Having children without resposibility for the 'costs' is an abuse of the present system. Hinch. You are correct in your observations regarding 'headlines' and those who will suffer the most. Only a complete overhaul will ever make remedy to that.

It could be argued though that the state paying for each child is a good thing as in the future the vast majority will contribute to society in some way or other, by paying taxes etc. Child benefit and other extra benefits that are paid for children do not come close to paying for all of a child's upkeep. Do we want hte risk of children being brought up in even more poverty? Maybe their should be a limit to the number of children the state will pay benefits for? If so that limit should be the same for which the state contribute to the Windsor family.

When a child is born, no one knows what will become of that child in the future. They might become a professional footballer earning millions of ponds a year paying loads of tax and buying goods that incur taxes etc. And yet many say that if that child is born to a single parent who is a house parent they should not be given any state help financially. And yet if Catherine Windsor has a child, or five they or them will be provided for by the state from cradle to grave under the present system, in such a way that will be a very lavish and privileged lifestyle.

All this talk about the royals misses the point. I'd much rather vote for a President to be the head of state, but whatever happens, we'll always have a head of state, and pay for them, whether voted into the job or born into it. There is one head of state, but millions of people on benefits, so if we decide that the benefit bill is too large, getting rid of the Windsors will make no real difference it.

It's not a matter of whether we have a non elected head of state, it is a matter of that family getting millions of pounds extra off us tax payers every time they have an addition to their ranks. Especially if they are worth Billions.

I am much happier for my taxes to go to the needy than the non needy. When we get to a situation when there is enough work for ALL working age people who are able, both physically and mentally to hold down a job, then yes punish if you will who refuse to work, or deny them benefits etc. The problem is now, there is not enough work for all those who actually want to work, never mind those being forced into applying for work by ATOS and the government who are not fit for work. If we want these non working parents to work we have to INCREASE nursery and low priced child minding provision, not DECREASE it.

I want a situation in which no one gets paid for being unemployed unless they are unable, but also an end to the situation in which many millions of workers have to rely on tax credits due to poverty pay.

By the way, 90% of new HB claimants are WORKING. Same with council tax benefit.

Here are the correct figures re new claimants of HB in year 2010 to 2011. I would presume that an increase in HB claimants would also mean an increase in Council tax benefit claimants, though of course workers are going to be able to claim less of that with the new petty measures brought in by the government.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/majority-of-new-housing-benefit-claimants-in-work/6521183.article

Just a point re getting people into work, if you want to encourage people into work, 2 things need to happen ,
1) Better wages and
2) Cease the reductions in working tax credits and child tax credits.

That of course also means we have to have enough jobs for these extra people to do. As I have said they will be in competition with those now forced off sickness, and those who are losing their jobs plus all the millions already seeking work, not all of which are on the official job less lists.

Charly wrote:I didn't realise nursery places were decreasing.
In fact I know that the age for 15 free hours nursery provision has been lowered to 2 years old, it used to be 3 years old, this I know for definite as my grandson becomes eligible in the term after he reaches 2, which will be January term as his birthday is November, his nursery fees will reduce by the cost of 15 hours

If local authorities start closing them due to cut backs, there will be a reduction. Don't know if nursery's are ring-fenced for being kept open. Meant to say there needs to be an increase in provision, 15 hours would not be enough for someone to be able to go to work full time, or even half time, unless they have someone to look after the children. Sure start centres have closed, not sure if that affects someone's ability to work.

15 hours reduction in cost, the child gets 15 hours free then you pay for the rest...simples.. tsk

Why? do people really expect free child care ?

Child care has to be paid for, this is just another example of taking responsibility for providing for your children isnt it?

An independent expert on Radio 4 reports that the changes as ‘exposed’ will come nowhere near cutting the billions promised, in fact tens of millions is nearer the mark. He went on to state, not exactly the obvious as Hinch tried to point out above, that the real savings would have to hit state pensions and disability benefits. So not counting the Lib Dems, I was away for their conference ‘threats’, we have the 2 main partys assuring us that we are a one nation society. In other words what WE have WE keep and we, the politcal masters, have no intention of redistributing the wealth to you lot down there.
Come and join us it’s great being Loony.
Thank goodness I joined the Monster Raving Loony Party 4 weeks ago.

Charly wrote:15 hours reduction in cost, the child gets 15 hours free then you pay for the rest...simples.. tsk

Why? do people really expect free child care ?

Child care has to be paid for, this is just another example of taking responsibility for providing for your children isnt it?

They might not be able to find the extra hours of child care, and what if the cost of the extra child care is more than the pay they receive from working?

Old Regulator wrote:An independent expert on Radio 4 reports that the changes as ‘exposed’ will come nowhere near cutting the billions promised, in fact tens of millions is nearer the mark. He went on to state, not exactly the obvious as Hinch tried to point out above, that the real savings would have to hit state pensions and disability benefits. So not counting the Lib Dems, I was away for their conference ‘threats’, we have the 2 main partys assuring us that we are a one nation society. In other words what WE have WE keep and we, the politcal masters, have no intention of redistributing the wealth to you lot down there.
Come and join us it’s great being Loony.
Thank goodness I joined the Monster Raving Loony Party 4 weeks ago.

Agree with what you say Frank. It's grandstanding by the government. If the Condems or Labour want to sort the finances out then, they should concentrate on collecting the tens of Billions of pounds of un collected taxes.

UP THE DALE wrote:
They might not be able to find the extra hours of child care, and what if the cost of the extra child care is more than the pay they receive from working?

Now we're going round in circles UTD.
I get it that you are all in favour of people having numerous children and expecting others to provide for them, why didn't you just say so at the beginning?

Now where and when did I say that? I was merely pointing out possible consequences of cutting out entitlement to benefits! I made it clear to those who wish to see it that I support people working !