# General > General >  benefits

## Doreen

What do you think about the chancellors decisions he has made on child benefit and people on benefits

----------


## Dadie

What were the decisions he finally made?
Havent had the news on yet today.
Found the child benefit and it will only affect households where more than £44k is earned...which wont affect us!
It would have affected us if I was working fulltime ... but then again it doesnt pay for me to work at all.
I would pay out more than I earned in childcare costs..I would have just about broken even with childcare when it was only the two girls...The child benefit would have covered my shortfall.
But I love my work....most of the time!

----------


## Alice in Blunderland

> What do you think about the chancellors decisions he has made on child benefit and people on benefits


This is going to have major implications on many families who have been in receipt of these benefits and now no longer will.

In all these up and coming changes I think the families who fall within the £35 to £55 thousand pay bracket are going to possibly be the worse off.

----------


## Anfield

Why should anyone be entitled to child benefits?

----------


## mums angels

It will effect me , we will no longer be entitled to it but that doesnt really bother me however i would like to see the goverment really doing something about the fraudsters /immigrants and druggies out there istead of just hitting the highearners and the normal working families . They havnt thought it through very well for it to be fair .. stop it for one parent on 44 thousand but you can have 2 in the household earning £40, 000 each and they can still claim child benifit when others can't .  
I have nothing agaisnt those on benifits that truly need them and would choose not to be on them if they could . 

The goverment throws grants at those who know how to work the system there grants for xmas , stairgates , bedding/duvets and others but the goverment just send them cash and do not make sure the money is actually been used for its intended puprose and there are sadly parents out there that would rather buy a 47inch plasma than make sure there kids have shoes with no holes in them. Id like to see the govement tackling these kind of people and those that are claiming to be single when they have men out working /or claiming benifits alongside them . 
When i tell my children to try and do well in school and get a job so they can have what they want in life i want to mean it , but even my 8 year old knows that people can have what they want by working the system and popping out kids just for a few extra quid . I think that the goverment really needs to change the whole system start by filtering out the repeat offenders for instance .. those that have kid after kid with no dads in the picture why should they get more money thrown at them . A woman with 6 kids gets £1700 a month and rent and council tax paid for her - what are they going to do about that ?

----------


## steeko

> Why should anyone be entitled to child benefits?



Why shouldn't they?

----------


## Penelope Pitstop

> What were the decisions he finally made?
> Havent had the news on yet today.
> Found the child benefit and it will only affect households where more than £44k is earned...which wont affect us!
> It would have affected us if I was working fulltime ... but then again it doesnt pay for me to work at all.
> I would pay out more than I earned in childcare costs..I would have just about broken even with childcare when it was only the two girls...The child benefit would have covered my shortfall.
> But I love my work....most of the time!


I may be wrong, but I think it will be lost where one parent earns more than £44K (in the higher tax bracket).   I don't think it will be based on a combined income of both parents.

----------


## Rheghead

> I may be wrong, but I think it will be lost where one parent earns more than £44K (in the higher tax bracket).   I don't think it will be based on a combined income of both parents.


Is that based on just basic or with overtime included?

----------


## Doreen

If it is only one in the household thats making 44 grand a year they will loose there child benefit but if there is two in the household thats both earning 44 grand each they wont loose there child benefit maybe i misunderstood. ::

----------


## mums angels

> I may be wrong, but I think it will be lost where one parent earns more than £44K (in the higher tax bracket). I don't think it will be based on a combined income of both parents.


 
Sadly you are right however It should be based on the combined ,why should a single parent say earning £44,000 not get child benifit when there 2 parent neigbours who earn £80,000 between them recieve child benifit

----------


## Doreen

Its just making the richer better off if thats the case does not make sense ::

----------


## mums angels

> Its just making the richer better off if thats the case does not make sense


Well yes and no .. for instance say one husband earns £80,000 but his wife doesnt work they will recieve no extra so therfore will be worse off than they would be today . However those that earn £80,000 between them will continue living life with money off the goverment even though the one earning more than £44,000 will be having to also pay the 40% tax . the goverment is obviously just not that clever that they can't figure out how this is unfair for all concerned

----------


## Dadie

Drat should have read it more carefully...but in my defence I scanned it quickly as world war III was about to break out between my 2 girls over a toy!
That doesnt make any sense other than it would be easier for the government bodies to check up on as those in the higher tax bracket would be easy to find..rather than adding up 2 persons in a household who earn less to get a combined total.

Bit lazy of them..

----------


## Doreen

It all disna make sense i canna get ma head round it im confused ::

----------


## mums angels

> Drat should have read it more carefully...but in my defence I scanned it quickly as world war III was about to break out between my 2 girls over a toy!
> That doesnt make any sense other than it would be easier for the government bodies to check up on as those in the higher tax bracket would be easy to find..rather than adding up 2 persons in a household who earn less to get a combined total.
> 
> Bit lazy of them..


 
thats exactly it they are lazy .. too lazy to check there grants are spent correctly , too lazy to check up on reports of benefit fraud and too lazy to make the system fair for all . 
With the current changes we as a family will be set to loose over 200 a month just with the changes on child benefit ,not alone the other changes they are making . Thankfully i don't mind giving it up but i dont want to see other folk having it taken away just for it to go to help more fraudsters /druggies and such like and for 2 parent decent earners to benefit just because the goverment are too lazy to sort out who gets what .

----------


## Anfield

> Why shouldn't they?


It would save £12 billion per year.

----------


## Penelope Pitstop

> Is that based on just basic or with overtime included?


I would image it would be based on your last years P60 figures?

----------


## mums angels

Just noticed that they are also capping the amount of benifits that one family can recieve however with talk of it being at £26,000 is a bit ridiculous i know families that both work and are on less than that .

----------


## tonkatojo

> Sadly you are right however It should be based on the combined ,why should a single parent say earning £44,000 not get child benifit when there 2 parent neigbours who earn £80,000 between them recieve child benifit


If a single parent can't manage on £846.15 per week theres something wrong with their life style.  ::

----------


## tonkatojo

> Its just making the richer better off if thats the case does not make sense


You didn't expect any other from the Tory's did you, but the Lib Dem's now that's another thing.  ::

----------


## tonkatojo

> Just noticed that they are also capping the amount of benifits that one family can recieve however with talk of it being at £26,000 is a bit ridiculous i know families that both work and are on less than that .


That is £500 per week, Sheesh it pays to breed don't it.  :Wink:

----------


## Gronnuck

I imagine high earners will be justifiable annoyed when they lose their Child Benefit but continue to pay the higher rate of tax to fund parents who spawn dozens of offspring.  :: 
George Osborne's announcement does nothing to address the problem of people producing dozens of children to gain increased benefits. A limit should be set on the number of kids for which Child Benefit will be paid. IMHO three should be enough.

----------


## tonkatojo

> I imagine high earners will be justifiable annoyed when they lose their Child Benefit but continue to pay the higher rate of tax to fund parents who spawn dozens of offspring. 
> George Osborne's announcement does nothing to address the problem of people producing dozens of children to gain increased benefits. A limit should be set on the number of kids for which Child Benefit will be paid. IMHO three should be enough.


In this over populated country, couples should have an incentive to produce only one or non.

----------


## changilass

China did this and they have an inbalance.

Who is going to work to pay for the system in 30yrs time if fewer kids are born now?

----------


## steeko

> It would save £12 billion per year.


There are many ways of saving £12 billion. There are lots of families who earn nothing like £40k+ a year. Cuts should be fair and balanced.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

Seems a pretty good compromise.

From reading some of the more detailed information available on various websites it would appear that the decision to base it on the whether an individual is a higher rate tax payer is to make life simple and therefore cheap to administer.

It would appear that any higher rate tax payer will need to declare on their tax return that they are claiming child benefit, this will then be recouped via the tax system, or the higher rate tax payer will be able to simply stop claiming the child benefit. Nice simple system.

True it may cause some unfairness regarding those on a combined income exceeding 44K (or whatever that actual limit is) compared to those that only have one earner, but that's life.

It may be that the single earner household earning just over the limit may still be entitled to some other benefits that the higher joint income may not be able to receive.

The cap on benefits at around £26k seems totally sensible, as I cannot see any reason why a family cannot live on that amount.

----------


## mums angels

> Seems a pretty good compromise.
> 
> From reading some of the more detailed information available on various websites it would appear that the decision to base it on the whether an individual is a higher rate tax payer is to make life simple and therefore cheap to administer.
> 
> It would appear that any higher rate tax payer will need to declare on their tax return that they are claiming child benefit, this will then be recouped via the tax system, or the higher rate tax payer will be able to simply stop claiming the child benefit. Nice simple system.
> 
> True it may cause some unfairness regarding those on a combined income exceeding 44K (or whatever that actual limit is) compared to those that only have one earner, but that's life.
> 
> It may be that the single earner household earning just over the limit may still be entitled to some other benefits that the higher joint income may not be able to receive.
> ...





26k a year seems very steep in my opinion . Being on benifits should never pay more than being on minimum wage .

----------


## mums angels

> If a single parent can't manage on £846.15 per week theres something wrong with their life style.


 Oh i agree i just mean that  why should a family earning more between them still benefit if the others that earn the £44,000 don't , they should both loose out not just the one

----------


## Anfield

> There are many ways of saving £12 billion. There are lots of families who earn nothing like £40k+ a year. Cuts should be fair and balanced.


Yes like closing hospitals, schools, cutting back on policing etc etc.

----------


## changilass

> [/b]
> 
> 
> 26k a year seems very steep in my opinion . Being on benifits should never pay more than being on minimum wage .


 
If someone lives in any of the major cities, a lot of that money could be taken up on housing benefit alone, so can sort of understand their reasoning.

----------


## changilass

> Oh i agree i just mean that why should a family earning more between them still benefit if the others that earn the £44,000 don't , they should both loose out not just the one


As Nick says, its cheeper to simplify the sytem than means testing, which requires that every case would have to be dealt with individually.

----------


## tonkatojo

> China did this and they have an inbalance.
> 
> Who is going to work to pay for the system in 30yrs time if fewer kids are born now?



What system will be left in just 5yrs after Osborne is finished ?, Don't forget they have conspired to a guaranteed 5 years in power now.  ::

----------


## mums angels

> As Nick says, its cheeper to simplify the sytem than means testing, which requires that every case would have to be dealt with individually.


 
Maybe it is but its not very fair ..they should get everyone to reapply for child benifit stating there earnings as a family on the form , off course you will always have those that lie etc but you would also have some honest folk that will tell the truth and opt out of having the child benefit - i would anyway !

----------


## Penelope Pitstop

> Seems a pretty good compromise.
> 
> 
> The cap on benefits at around £26k seems totally sensible, as I cannot see any reason why a family cannot live on that amount.


Yes, having a cap is sensible, but £26K is far too high a cap. Goodness sake that's far more than a full time worker would take home. Probably not far off what a teacher or a nurse gets, maybe even more. Doesn't makes sense at all.  ::

----------


## steeko

> Yes like closing hospitals, schools, cutting back on policing etc etc.


If you want a blanket ban on child benefits then this shouldn't bother you.

----------


## ducati

> That is £500 per week, Sheesh it pays to breed don't it.


After tax, you need to earn about £35,000 to take home £500 per week.

So the benefits takers at £500 per week are doing very well indeed. Although if you take the average over the country it includes very high rent areas like parts of London and claiments there may get £500 per week in housing benefit alone, so I don't know how they will manage.

----------


## ducati

Wasn't child benefit introduced after the war to encourage large families (to make the numbers back up, you know)?. 

Job done, move on, I'd say.

----------


## Rheghead

> Wasn't child benefit introduced after the war to encourage large families (to make the numbers back up, you know)?. 
> 
> Job done, move on, I'd say.


I agree here.

----------


## annemarie482

maybe this link will explain a few things to those confused.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/04102010/389...cut-means.html

----------


## Metalattakk

> maybe this link will explain a few things to those confused.
> 
> http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/04102010/389...cut-means.html


Thanks for the link, but I'm not sure I'd believe any of the information presented:




> *How many of us are affected?*
> 
>  According to ministers, around 1.2 billion families across the nation  will be hit by this benefit cut. Thats around 15% of all families in  the UK.


1.2 BILLION families??  ::

----------


## Aaldtimer

The Tory/Lib Dem Government is reaping the harvest of the Thatcher legacy that put millions out of work and the following generations out of hope, work and created the number of people now on benefits. 
Ley them get on with it! ::

----------


## ducati

> The Tory/Lib Dem Government is reaping the harvest of the Thatcher legacy that put millions out of work and the following generations out of hope, work and created the number of people now on benefits. 
> Ley them get on with it!


Haven't you forgotten about the idiots reign in between. Blimey blinkered or what?

----------


## Cattach

> I may be wrong, but I think it will be lost where one parent earns more than £44K (in the higher tax bracket).   I don't think it will be based on a combined income of both parents.


You are correct and this is the nonesense of the suggestion.  Whether one is in favour or against child benefit one must accept that it can hardly be fair that a family with one wage earner taking in £44,000 lose the benefit  whoile afamily woth two earners aking in £80,000 keep the benefit.

Clealy the chamcellor made a big error while shooting rom the hip and missing the target.  There EILL be changes to this suggestion as the Tories cannot afford to lose the votes of the stay at home mothers.

----------


## Penelope Pitstop

> You are correct and this is the nonesense of the suggestion. Whether one is in favour or against child benefit one must accept that it can hardly be fair that a family with one wage earner taking in £44,000 lose the benefit whoile afamily woth two earners aking in £80,000 keep the benefit.
> 
> Clealy the chamcellor made a big error while shooting rom the hip and missing the target. There EILL be changes to this suggestion as the Tories cannot afford to lose the votes of the stay at home mothers.


I too think they will have to have a rethink the 2 parents incomes before this comes into force. There will be a down right riot if not !

Breakfast telly was on about it this morning and that seems to be the general opinion that both parents income would have to be taken into account.  It all means more paper work...how much will it all cost to run the system??

----------


## Alba.gu.brath

It should be made that 44k is the limit for combined family income otherwise a couple could earn 87k and get CB but a single parent on 45k wouldnt 
HOW many MPs claim CB ????

----------


## bekisman

> Why should anyone be entitled to child benefits?


Sheesh! What ever next! Beks agreeing with Anfield?

Yep, why should we pay for folks to have kids (say I who bred four of 'em and with ten grandkids).._ "__Child Benefit has its origins in post-war Britain when the coalition government tried to ease burden on families suffering amid housing shortages and food rationing. Known as the Family Allowance, the 5 shillings a week payment was given to parents only for their second and subsequent children, thus helping shore up the depleted population by encouraging more births."_ 

"helping shore up the depleted population by encouraging more births"

That was fine then, but the bleeding war's finished and the population is up to par, so that purpose has long gone..  :Wink:

----------


## Anfield

> "..Sheesh! What ever next! Beks agreeing with Anfield?
>  Yep, why should we pay for folks to have kids (say I who bred four of 'em and with ten grandkids)


Do you know that if all of your four children had 4 children,  and they also had 4 kids and so on,  that by the time of the 10th generation of Bekisman children,  that your family  would have added 1,048,576 to the worlds population..
 4
16
64
256
1024
4096
16384
65536
262144
1048576

----------


## _Ju_

> Do you know that if all of your four children had 4 children,  and they also had 4 kids and so on,  that by the time of the 10th generation of Bekisman children,  that your family  would have added 1,048,576 to the worlds population..
>  4
> 16
> 64
> 256
> 1024
> 4096
> 16384
> 65536
> ...


if Bekismans decendants become parents at the average age of 20, and the oldest live to be 200, then that would be true. 
Have you saved us from the benefit of your reproduction, Anfield?

----------


## Anfield

> if Bekismans decendants become parents at the average age of 20, and the oldest live to be 200, then that would be true.


As the average life expectancy increases this might not be too far fetched!

----------


## scotsboy

> Why should anyone be entitled to child benefits?


Why should anyone be entitled to unemployment benefits?

----------


## bekisman

> Do you know that if all of your four children had 4 children, and they also had 4 kids and so on, that by the time of the 10th generation of Bekisman children, that your family would have added 1,048,576 to the worlds population..
> 4
> 16
> 64
> 256
> 1024
> 4096
> 16384
> 65536
> ...


That's Great! what's that: 20 million quid a week.?. nice, I'll get the Op reversed!

----------


## Anfield

> That's Great! what's that: 20 million quid a week.?. nice, I'll get the Op reversed!


Don't bank on it Bekisman
Under planned new (Tory) guidelines, over £44K per year and you don't qualify.
Also  consider the fact that you would have to remember 1 million birthdays,  and you would have to move house to accomodate all the birthday and  christmas presents that you and your wife would get.

----------


## tonkatojo

> Why should anyone be entitled to unemployment benefits?


Probably because they have paid into the system or because it is their right to claim.

----------


## ducati

Actually, you can pay into the system for 30 or more years then change your employment status for a couple of years and not be entitled to a penny.  ::

----------


## Aaldtimer

> Havn't you forgotten about the idiots reign in between. Blimey blinkered or what?


 
No, not blinkered, I remember the big picture.
The idiots you refer to were handed the poisoned chalice when they took power. The seeds of ruin just grew out of control. :Frown:

----------


## purplelady

> I may be wrong, but I think it will be lost where one parent earns more than £44K (in the higher tax bracket). I don't think it will be based on a combined income of both parents.


nope think dadie is rite a single person earning £44.000 loses it but if there are two earning under it they still get it well that is my understanding anyway because as long as they earn under £44.000 each they get to keep it hate to say it but those earning all that money do not need £20 per week just my opinion x

----------


## tonkatojo

> Actually, you can pay into the system for 30 or more years then change your employment status for a couple of years and not be entitled to a penny.


Who or what party introduced that to the system ?.

----------


## Rheghead

Just because you are entitled to claim something does mean you have to, despite being entitled to claim child benefit for the last 3 years I never have.

----------


## ducati

> Who or what party introduced that to the system ?.


No idea  :Wink:

----------


## bekisman

> Just because you are entitled to claim something does mean you have to, despite being entitled to claim child benefit for the last 3 years I never have.


I thought you were older than that?  :Wink:

----------


## bekisman

Quite good explanation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11465116

----------


## Dadie

What about those who are just enough to trigger the no child benefit who go for salary sacrifice for childcare?

----------


## Penelope Pitstop

> nope think dadie is rite a single person earning £44.000 loses it but if there are two earning under it they still get it well that is my understanding anyway because as long as they earn under £44.000 each they get to keep it hate to say it but those earning all that money do not need £20 per week just my opinion x


Yip, that's what I said...!!!! :Wink:

----------


## Penelope Pitstop

> Just because you are entitled to claim something does mean you have to, despite being entitled to claim child benefit for the last 3 years I never have.


 
I totally agree with you there Rheghead.  There's benefits I could have claimed for but didn't.  I say, save it for the people who actually need it, not the clever ones who know how to work the system.

----------


## Phill

Quite a fitting news(?) story from the Maily Dail:

Benefits pay for boob job.

"As millions of decent families face benefits cuts, one woman who's  never worked in her life is investing hers... in a £4,500 boob job"

----------


## Doreen

That is totally disgraceful she should be ashamed of heself but what can you do there is loads more out there scamming the system that just cant be bothred getting up of their backsides to get work and they get money thrown at them and use kids as an excuse shame on them. ::

----------


## Thumper

> Quite a fitting news(?) story from the Maily Dail:
> 
> Benefits pay for boob job.
> 
> "As millions of decent families face benefits cuts, one woman who's  never worked in her life is investing hers... in a £4,500 boob job"


Its people like this who give others who genuinely need help a bad name,no wonder everyone thinks everyone on benefits are on the take,lord knows how she gets so much,and how she lives with herself!x

----------


## Geo

I've never understood why it wasn't means tested.

----------


## mums angels

> Its people like this who give others who genuinely need help a bad name,no wonder everyone thinks everyone on benefits are on the take,lord knows how she gets so much,and how she lives with herself!x


 
she lives with herself because she selfish and has no thought for anyone but herself . the goverment really should think about only paying for say 3 kids and anymore than that and they are on there own . Children should not be able to be used as a means to a free ride in life - if you cant afford them then don't have them . I couldn't afford more than the 4 i have so why should someone who isnt supporting theres get to have as many as the wish too .

----------


## Doreen

:: Could not said that better myself it angers me to think that me and my husband and thousands more works every hour pay our taxes just to keep people like that who is born idle and never worked a day in their lives to give them all the luxeries. wonder if their children will turn out the same way because thats all they know

----------


## Alice in Blunderland

When applying rules to any system its difficult. Yes I can see where the pay for the first three then after that they are on their own idea comes from but just say.........

Mum of five living quite comfortably husband main provider. He goes out to work drops down dead and doesn't come home. Has not left a good life insurance world changes overnight. If a draconian system is set down then some of the genuine cases will also be penalised.


Child benefit is paid to all at present no matter what the income or circumstances and yes it is probably overdue being looked at, however it needs to be implemented fairly. Its the unfair penalising of the one parent just over the limit versus two just under that I do totally disagree with.

----------


## Alice in Blunderland

> Could not said that better myself it angers me to think that me and my husband and thousands more works every hour pay our taxes just to keep people like that who is born idle and never worked a day in their lives to give them all the luxeries. wonder if their children will turn out the same way because thats all they know



Again its the age old saying of the few spoiling it for the many.  :: 

There are many genuine claimants of any benefit out there who have to take a lot of flak because of the selfish few.

----------


## changilass

There is no fair way of doing this without means testing and that costs a lot of money so no savings would be made..

What about the single working mum that has a reasonable ex, he gives her money for the kids against the mum that gets nowt from dad.  Its just not possible to make it truley fair.

Life aint fair - FACT

TBH I think that it should be totally fazed out over the next 10 years anyway.

With regards to kids with folks on benefit, its ok to say that you should only have the kids you can afford, but as non of us can see into the future, how are we to know that the same situation will be in place in 5 yrs time.

The benefits system was brought in to support those in need, it was never intended for the long term unemployed.

----------


## Alba.gu.brath

..............

----------


## Thumper

As alice rightly stated there are lots of reason for benefits having to be taken when life sometimes deals a hards blow,I was employed and in a very well paid job,infact I actually had two jobs and my husband worked away in another well paid job,what i didnt expect was for him to take off and not come back,stop paying anything towards the children or the mortgage and then also have to give up my jobs as his mum would no longer look after my kids when i was working,life changes quickly and sometimes drastically so there needs to be a cushion for those who need it at times,what we dont want is the kind of people who take advantage of the situation and bleed it dry x

----------


## Kodiak

> Here is a list of Benefit rates in the UK for 2010/2011


Either I am getting shortsighted or the is no list or link to a list.

----------


## Dadie

The reason I asked about those on the limit...£44K, if they use salary sacrifice for the childcare vouchers, the vouchers come off before tax..and their ajusted salary would maybe take them under the magic £44K limit....

----------


## mums angels

> There is no fair way of doing this without means testing and that costs a lot of money so no savings would be made..
> 
> What about the single working mum that has a reasonable ex, he gives her money for the kids against the mum that gets nowt from dad. Its just not possible to make it truley fair.
> 
> Life aint fair - FACT
> 
> TBH I think that it should be totally fazed out over the next 10 years anyway.
> 
> With regards to kids with folks on benefit, its ok to say that you should only have the kids you can afford, but as non of us can see into the future, how are we to know that the same situation will be in place in 5 yrs time.
> ...


 
Obvioulsy for situations like death , seperation there are ways of prooving that you are alone and struggling so yes those cases would have to be means tested -i'd rather the tax we pay go towards means testing to filter out the fraudsters than continuing to pay for them . i for instance would be in that same predicment if my husband and i seperated however he would still have to provide for his children and in death  we have an insurance policy that would help and yes until i could find work i would have to go back on to benifits but thats why its there - to help people until they find work . Not keep the bone idle for there whole lives . 

however i cant see why a red flag doesnt come up when a 32 year old woman has had 6 kids by 6 unnamed fathers and recieves no child support for any of them and has also never worked a day in her life - the goverment is bacically paying her a very good wage for lying on her back and popping out kids and sadly the children will be learning by example - being bone idle , and loose pays in this country so why wouldnt they follow there mothers examle .

----------


## changilass

lol Mums.

Even using means testing she would still get the money, its worked out on how much you need the money and not how many partners you have had, and state sterilization is not enforcable in this country.

You have to give her the money as the kids have to eat.

The only other way to do it is to issue vouchers or a ration book like in the war, but folks would just sell them on so the kids still loose out.

Not sure what the answer is, but then thats why I aint a politician.

----------


## Alice in Blunderland

> however i cant see why a red flag doesnt come up when a 32 year old woman has had 6 kids by 6 unnamed fathers and recieves no child support for any of them and has also never worked a day in her life - the goverment is bacically paying her a very good wage for lying on her back and popping out kids and sadly the children will be learning by example - being bone idle , and loose pays in this country so why wouldnt they follow there mothers examle .


Many red flags will pop up however by stopping the benefits who will be the biggest losers in this situation ?   The children.  Absent fathers are supposed to pay but you cant get blood from a stone and many don't. ( CSA another debate )

Yes they may also turn out the same however, through proper education and changes in the system they may turn out to be six prospective tax payers.  :Smile: 

Its long been thought that this country is soft, handing out money too easy. 

Accepted it needs tightening up and by addressing the child benefit issue that's a start however by making a half decent job of it you cant just say tough. If that were the case then the government could say the same to the hard working tax payer who helps fund the present system.


I stand to lose my child benefit however I don't mind so long as those who need it still receive it

----------


## mummieslilgirl

> It will effect me , we will no longer be entitled to it but that doesnt really bother me however i would like to see the goverment really doing something about the fraudsters /immigrants and druggies out there istead of just hitting the highearners and the normal working families . They havnt thought it through very well for it to be fair .. stop it for one parent on 44 thousand but you can have 2 in the household earning £40, 000 each and they can still claim child benifit when others can't .  
> I have nothing agaisnt those on benifits that truly need them and would choose not to be on them if they could . 
> 
> The goverment throws grants at those who know how to work the system there grants for xmas , stairgates , bedding/duvets and others but the goverment just send them cash and do not make sure the money is actually been used for its intended puprose and there are sadly parents out there that would rather buy a 47inch plasma than make sure there kids have shoes with no holes in them. Id like to see the govement tackling these kind of people and those that are claiming to be single when they have men out working /or claiming benifits alongside them . 
> When i tell my children to try and do well in school and get a job so they can have what they want in life i want to mean it , but even my 8 year old knows that people can have what they want by working the system and popping out kids just for a few extra quid . I think that the goverment really needs to change the whole system start by filtering out the repeat offenders for instance .. those that have kid after kid with no dads in the picture why should they get more money thrown at them . A woman with 6 kids gets £1700 a month and rent and council tax paid for her - what are they going to do about that ?



While I agree people shouldn't be getting benefits for "popping" out child after child as you said for a "few extra quid" and not having the dads in the picture I feel none of us know their ACTUAL circumstances and unless we walk in their shoes never will so although it is easy to judge these people sometimes we have to be mindful that we are not privey to all the information even if it is friends of ours or family members we may not know the full facts.  

There are those people out there who have never worked a day in their lives and are stay at home mums or dads with a partner to support them and that is all well and good but even they are entitled to some "benefits" depending on earnings but at that the threshold is quite high before you are not entitled.

I think that the government is actually making it harder for ALL single  parents even the ones that work however until this bill actually goes  through none of us know who it will or won't affect.

I don't think we should be here slagging who or who isn't entitled to these things it's not our place. I work full time and am a single parent however I have also claimed benefits in my time and have never managed to get a grant that would allow me to get a 47inch plasma - information on that would of been appreciated  :Grin:

----------


## Alba.gu.brath

Here is a list of ALL Benefit rates in the UK for 2010/2011
http://www.focusondisability.org.uk/brates-1.html

My original post went wrong

----------


## chr15

how does a mother of 6 find a job?? does it really make a difference how many dads there are? should the government not be chasing theses fathers and forcing them to pay their bit? if mums angel can sit and put the world to rights via the org all day long and still have more than 44k coming in then she's clearly a kept woman. whats the difference?

----------


## Alba.gu.brath

MAY of this year was the first time i claimed benefit yet i felt that i was being classed the same as the people who want to live off benefit! Who wants to Exist on £65 a week . 
I no longer claim JSA

----------


## Thumper

> MAY of this year was the first time i claimed benefit yet i felt that i was being classed the same as the people who want to live off benefit! Who wants to Exist on £65 a week . 
> I no longer claim JSA


You were probably treated like most honest people,made to feel like dirt and bad for needing to claim,while at the same time to person next to you is telling them when they want to sign on,what time and when they want their money....and getting told yes to it all! I honestly could not believe it when I heard it,I was being told come here on this day,at this time etc while right next to me (and its not like you cant hear the conversation on the next desk) the woman was demanding payment and then siad she didnt like having to get up early to sign on.....so they gave her a later time! ::  x

----------


## Bazeye

> Just read your listings and perhaps you should get your facts right as what you are saying is completely untrue and you should not be using the org to get back at someone because you have had a fall out - she has worked and does know the fathers names just because you don't doesn't make them "unknown" she also does not claim grants for all of her kids stuff, has not had her house refurbished by her partner and does not live with anyone other than her children. If you are in a relationship and claiming benefits you are entitled to have a partner stay over so many nights a week and he has his own privately house. Personally I don't mind that you don't like people who claim benefits but there are plenty people out there who have actually Never worked a day in their lives and claim benefits or rely on partners to keep them none of us are infallible...


How do you know who this woman is?

----------


## brandy

heres a queary.. will it affect DLA and carers allowance?
i know that Ben reciving DLA has allowed me to be able to stay at home and be a full time mom. 
im very thankful for that. 
if i had to go back to work i would, but will be the first to admit that i am so glad to be able to be here in the mornings with him and help him off to school, to be able to join in with school activities with both of them helping out when needed. 
and being able to greet him after school with a set routine that helps him to be a happy 
well adjusted little boy. 
with hubby working shifts, i was working around him so that one of us was always here, but it left 0 time to be a family. 
fingers crossed if i have to go back to work i will be able to find something that will allow
me to work during the school day

----------


## mums angels

> how does a mother of 6 find a job?? does it really make a difference how many dads there are? should the government not be chasing theses fathers and forcing them to pay their bit? if mums angel can sit and put the world to rights via the org all day long and still have more than 44k coming in then she's clearly a kept woman. whats the difference?


 
Yes mums angels is a kept woman ! and darn well proud of it we started out young having kids and did really struggle on benifits for a time so i know how it can be so when it came to my attention how much things ahd changed and watched first hand how some people can work the system with grants that most people dont know existsed and then abuse that right by spending it on the things that the money was not intended for i was disgusted by the way the system is abused !! As for whats the difference is that i do not take extra benefits of the goverment as i am not entitled and i do not lie at pretending to be single just to claim extra . And when i had my other kids i brought them into this world being able to provide a secure , loving home for them .

As for how does a mother of 6 find a job well agreed child care would be a hassle but yet that should have been thought of before having more . As for the fathers i agree they should be made to pay but in some cases the mother doesnt put there name forward to be chased down for one reason or another .

----------


## Alba.gu.brath

My dad was on DLA due to Heart and lung problems he spent 12 hours a day on oxygen but i knew of man who got higher DLA care and mobility as well as incapacity benefit and income support . He used to go hill walking , jogging :Confused:   and even took part in a 10k road race!!!! yet he was supposed to be unfit for work OK there may have been some jobs that he could not do but DLA higher mobility is for people who have mobility problems!
Some people need benefits but some are just working the system

----------


## mums angels

> While I agree people shouldn't be getting benefits for "popping" out child after child as you said for a "few extra quid" and not having the dads in the picture I feel none of us know their ACTUAL circumstances and unless we walk in their shoes never will so although it is easy to judge these people sometimes we have to be mindful that we are not privey to all the information even if it is friends of ours or family members we may not know the full facts. 
> 
> There are those people out there who have never worked a day in their lives and are stay at home mums or dads with a partner to support them and that is all well and good but even they are entitled to some "benefits" depending on earnings but at that the threshold is quite high before you are not entitled.
> 
> I think that the government is actually making it harder for ALL single parents even the ones that work however until this bill actually goes through none of us know who it will or won't affect.
> 
> I don't think we should be here slagging who or who isn't entitled to these things it's not our place. I work full time and am a single parent however I have also claimed benefits in my time and have never managed to get a grant that would allow me to get a 47inch plasma - information on that would of been appreciated


Like you say not all of us would know ones circumstances but when you have it flaunted in your face for 2 years solid you soon learn that some people just really are in it for financial gain and not much else . 

As for more information on the grants i never knew they exisisted either until it was shown to me and i was even more appalled by amount of trust that the goverments put into these people and just assume that the people will actually use it for its intended purpose and sadly in some cases they don't

----------


## Corrie 3

How many Kids would I have to "Pop out" to claim for a free car ???
My old ones falling apart!!!!!

C3.... ::  :Wink:  ::

----------


## bagpuss

Oh dear- I did warn everyone about what Dave and George were planning- and at the time no-one took me very seriously.

But think again- in the 1960's families with only one child got no child benefit. But they managed. they mainly managed through make do and mend. 

But this is just the beginning- London will soon see an exodus of people on houseing benefit- who will actually be better off giving up any work they have and going to live somewhere cheaper- eg from Hackney to Wick?

----------


## unicorn

When I see people writing about all sorts of Joe and Jane Bloggs and whoever else cheating the system I really have to ask why they are not reporting them on the *benefit fraud telephone line 0800 854 440*
If those who are abusing the system were all reported then the honest people would not have to keep paying for them.

----------


## mums angels

> When I see people writing about all sorts of Joe and Jane Bloggs and whoever else cheating the system I really have to ask why they are not reporting them on the *benefit fraud telephone line 0800 854 440*
> If those who are abusing the system were all reported then the honest people would not have to keep paying for them.


been there done that but under work rotas its too hard to prove however i havnt given up yet

----------


## chr15

ive been fortunate in that since i left school ive been employed (23yrs) and have never recieved benefits, however should that change then i'll be claiming for every benefit under the sun! just like the couples out there who have 5 or 6 six kids and have no interest in working but have the new car and can still afford to pee it up the wall for 4 days out of the 7 and go abroad for holidays as well.

----------


## Moderator

Several posts have been removed from this thread.  Posts of a personal nature and those which identify members of our local community will be removed and Warnings/Infractions issued.

----------

