Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? " No I don't agree with your sanctimonious judgemental views Do you seriously think all people on benefits spend it all on Sky TV, Fags and booze?? Your idea to give all kids free dinners is ridiculous and yes sure let's make all children of benefit claimants stand out and be ridiculed by their piers by giving them free breakfast. Big news OP, a lot of benefit claimants are working, a lot are disabled or caring for a disabled child/adult too. You should have put this in the politics forum btw | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? " totally agree id go as far as if you can't house look after and feed one child then you shouldn't have kids no benefits for any . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d raise it to 3, but limit it to kids who have two British born parents. Maybe add in a stable (preferably married) long term relationship as another criteria. And before all sorts of race accusations are thrown, British born would be the criteria - race or background immaterial. Any more than 3 kids is just self indulgent and the state shouldn’t pay." So someone British born but marrying a foreign national should be treated differently? Yeah, that’s a no. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"that's the thing about free money, people who get free money don't want the boat rocked .... doesn't matter wether it's benefits, stocks/shares, rental on a property portfolio or whatever ... as long people get their free money they want the staus quo " I totally agree I've met people via work ie clients that are all for "taxing proerty and care home fees." Yes, thats right, the lot i am referring to don't own a property and rarely have more than a few hundred in the bank Labour is desperate to look good as it has failed on its police promises, cutting NHS waiting lists etc et However, Labour is good at doing what they never even talked about leading to the GE. EG, hitting pensioners that are not on benefits and now this rant about the child benefits if anyone wanted to help children - give them all free school meals and this way the money goes to the children and not the parents/step parents drink/smoking etc in many cases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d raise it to 3, but limit it to kids who have two British born parents. Maybe add in a stable (preferably married) long term relationship as another criteria. And before all sorts of race accusations are thrown, British born would be the criteria - race or background immaterial. Any more than 3 kids is just self indulgent and the state shouldn’t pay. So someone British born but marrying a foreign national should be treated differently? Yeah, that’s a no." Yes, why not. In order to settle here there us a minimum income requirement so benefits aren’t needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d raise it to 3, but limit it to kids who have two British born parents. Maybe add in a stable (preferably married) long term relationship as another criteria. And before all sorts of race accusations are thrown, British born would be the criteria - race or background immaterial. Any more than 3 kids is just self indulgent and the state shouldn’t pay. So someone British born but marrying a foreign national should be treated differently? Yeah, that’s a no." Why would you raise it to 3 when the country has already grown from a population of 60 million to 70 million within about 20 years? Already there is a lack of services etc and you may recall those with children and claimed to be single parents were givine prirotised housing. Once child benefit is enough and if you want more kid, be preapred to pay for the. As i said in my OP - we waited to have our 4th childs years after the 3rd kid as earlier we could not afford a 5 bed house why should taxpayers fund peoples children? Child benefits would be better used giving all children a free breakfast and lunch and those from poorer income parent/s also given dinner - this will stop the abuse of this benefit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d raise it to 3, but limit it to kids who have two British born parents. Maybe add in a stable (preferably married) long term relationship as another criteria. And before all sorts of race accusations are thrown, British born would be the criteria - race or background immaterial. Any more than 3 kids is just self indulgent and the state shouldn’t pay." Married/long term relationship - hard no. Parents in abusive relationships further penalised if they separate. The financial burden is on the parent with custody (unless there is a 50/50 arrangement or similar), so to deny them any child support places them at a disadvantage and less likely to leave an abusive relationship. Single parents in general - widowed for example. Surely we wouldn't expect them to not qualify for child benefit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d raise it to 3, but limit it to kids who have two British born parents. Maybe add in a stable (preferably married) long term relationship as another criteria. And before all sorts of race accusations are thrown, British born would be the criteria - race or background immaterial. Any more than 3 kids is just self indulgent and the state shouldn’t pay. Married/long term relationship - hard no. Parents in abusive relationships further penalised if they separate. The financial burden is on the parent with custody (unless there is a 50/50 arrangement or similar), so to deny them any child support places them at a disadvantage and less likely to leave an abusive relationship. Single parents in general - widowed for example. Surely we wouldn't expect them to not qualify for child benefit? " A seriously and fundamentally flawed argument. In the scenarios you give - why not take care of the whole situation EG paying for their food, gas, electric, tv, car, mortage, insurance, clothing etc, etc? There is already a 'widowers allwance' When not get both parents to contribte and if they don't take it way from their benefits/pay? We don't live in an ideal world and someone has to pay and its always those stuck in the middle ie taxpayers who are working long hours to pay their mortgages, repair their home and try and save a bit to imprive their lives always get battered by new taxes - just look at pensioners 11 minillon losing their winter fules payments because they worked hard to remain off benefits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d raise it to 3, but limit it to kids who have two British born parents. Maybe add in a stable (preferably married) long term relationship as another criteria. And before all sorts of race accusations are thrown, British born would be the criteria - race or background immaterial. Any more than 3 kids is just self indulgent and the state shouldn’t pay. Married/long term relationship - hard no. Parents in abusive relationships further penalised if they separate. The financial burden is on the parent with custody (unless there is a 50/50 arrangement or similar), so to deny them any child support places them at a disadvantage and less likely to leave an abusive relationship. Single parents in general - widowed for example. Surely we wouldn't expect them to not qualify for child benefit? A seriously and fundamentally flawed argument. In the scenarios you give - why not take care of the whole situation EG paying for their food, gas, electric, tv, car, mortage, insurance, clothing etc, etc? There is already a 'widowers allwance' When not get both parents to contribte and if they don't take it way from their benefits/pay? We don't live in an ideal world and someone has to pay and its always those stuck in the middle ie taxpayers who are working long hours to pay their mortgages, repair their home and try and save a bit to imprive their lives always get battered by new taxes - just look at pensioners 11 minillon losing their winter fules payments because they worked hard to remain off benefits. " I don't believe it is a flawed argument, but hey ho! Have a lovely day.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d raise it to 3, but limit it to kids who have two British born parents. Maybe add in a stable (preferably married) long term relationship as another criteria. And before all sorts of race accusations are thrown, British born would be the criteria - race or background immaterial. Any more than 3 kids is just self indulgent and the state shouldn’t pay. Married/long term relationship - hard no. Parents in abusive relationships further penalised if they separate. The financial burden is on the parent with custody (unless there is a 50/50 arrangement or similar), so to deny them any child support places them at a disadvantage and less likely to leave an abusive relationship. Single parents in general - widowed for example. Surely we wouldn't expect them to not qualify for child benefit? A seriously and fundamentally flawed argument. In the scenarios you give - why not take care of the whole situation EG paying for their food, gas, electric, tv, car, mortage, insurance, clothing etc, etc? There is already a 'widowers allwance' When not get both parents to contribte and if they don't take it way from their benefits/pay? We don't live in an ideal world and someone has to pay and its always those stuck in the middle ie taxpayers who are working long hours to pay their mortgages, repair their home and try and save a bit to imprive their lives always get battered by new taxes - just look at pensioners 11 minillon losing their winter fules payments because they worked hard to remain off benefits. I don't believe it is a flawed argument, but hey ho! Have a lovely day. "Many thanks - you too!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hard disagree. It doesn't work as a deterrent to people having children. It is just driving more families and children into poverty. I work in this area, and I see the reality of it every day and how demonised people who claim benefits are. As a society I don't think we should be forcing children to live in poverty. The economic circumstances the children are born into are not their fault. All it's doing is making children suffer. " Can’t stop people having children and if there’s not enough money the children suffer. In the meantime tax payer coughs up. How about tax reductions for single people with no children the state has to look after. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hard disagree. It doesn't work as a deterrent to people having children. It is just driving more families and children into poverty. I work in this area, and I see the reality of it every day and how demonised people who claim benefits are. As a society I don't think we should be forcing children to live in poverty. The economic circumstances the children are born into are not their fault. All it's doing is making children suffer. Can’t stop people having children and if there’s not enough money the children suffer. In the meantime tax payer coughs up. How about tax reductions for single people with no children the state has to look after. " brilliant idea but I don't think any government would implement it definitely a vote winner | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts. A nod to government, your better off solving rich people’s problems, they pay better? " The poor and middle earners will have a breaking point beyond which they won’t be squeezed any further. You see the reaction to Luigi Mangione? - absolutely idolised for allegedly killing a CEO. Eat the rich isn’t just a saying | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts. A nod to government, your better off solving rich people’s problems, they pay better? The poor and middle earners will have a breaking point beyond which they won’t be squeezed any further. You see the reaction to Luigi Mangione? - absolutely idolised for allegedly killing a CEO. Eat the rich isn’t just a saying " This is what I learned, a few years ago I watched a BBC doc, in this doc they spoke to a guy who was driving through a wood. He was talking about how the public would come to their senses sooner or later. They came to a stop in this wood were the man explained that himself and many others he knows are building underground silos in locations like deep in to large s. To escape the fallout. This guy I have come to know as elton musk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? " In Wales, all primary aged children are eligible to have free school meals. At the secondary school I have knowledge of, free breakfasts are available. Child benefit is not means tested, but there is a High Income Benefit Charge for those in the higher tax bracket. The amount received each 4 week period is less than £100 for one child. It's under £150 for two. It really doesn't go very far, cost of school uniforms (grants available in certain circumstances), constantly growing out of clothes and footwear, food, let alone any out of school activities. As someone else has said, taking away child benefit won't stop people from having children, but will negatively affect those on the lowest incomes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? In Wales, all primary aged children are eligible to have free school meals. At the secondary school I have knowledge of, free breakfasts are available. Child benefit is not means tested, but there is a High Income Benefit Charge for those in the higher tax bracket. The amount received each 4 week period is less than £100 for one child. It's under £150 for two. It really doesn't go very far, cost of school uniforms (grants available in certain circumstances), constantly growing out of clothes and footwear, food, let alone any out of school activities. As someone else has said, taking away child benefit won't stop people from having children, but will negatively affect those on the lowest incomes. " Why on earth should schools feed children free of charge? Breakfast clubs are another travesty. If you have children then you should get them up in time to have a family breakfast at home before school. Don’t expect others to do your parenting job for you. Healthy nutritious food costs very little. People who argue otherwise are poorly educated on the benefits of cooking everything from scratch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Breakfast clubs are another travesty. If you have children then you should get them up in time to have a family breakfast at home before school. Don’t expect others to do your parenting job for you." The 1950’s called. Said the world has moved on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Breakfast clubs are another travesty. If you have children then you should get them up in time to have a family breakfast at home before school. Don’t expect others to do your parenting job for you. The 1950’s called. Said the world has moved on. " https://www.tastingtable.com/1069834/the-history-of-russias-government-run-cafeterias/ Russia 1920 called. Said "da"! "...the communist government determined that it would be the state's responsibility to feed the populace. The program that resulted was designed to make home cooking a thing of the past by establishing cheap, state-run canteens everywhere, from schools to workplaces, that were designed to feed vast quantities of people simultaneously..." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Breakfast clubs are another travesty. If you have children then you should get them up in time to have a family breakfast at home before school. Don’t expect others to do your parenting job for you. The 1950’s called. Said the world has moved on. https://www.tastingtable.com/1069834/the-history-of-russias-government-run-cafeterias/ Russia 1920 called. Said "da"! "...the communist government determined that it would be the state's responsibility to feed the populace. The program that resulted was designed to make home cooking a thing of the past by establishing cheap, state-run canteens everywhere, from schools to workplaces, that were designed to feed vast quantities of people simultaneously..."" Breakfast clubs are as a result of rampant capitalism meaning both parents typically need to work. But you know that already | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Breakfast clubs are another travesty. If you have children then you should get them up in time to have a family breakfast at home before school. Don’t expect others to do your parenting job for you. The 1950’s called. Said the world has moved on. https://www.tastingtable.com/1069834/the-history-of-russias-government-run-cafeterias/ Russia 1920 called. Said "da"! "...the communist government determined that it would be the state's responsibility to feed the populace. The program that resulted was designed to make home cooking a thing of the past by establishing cheap, state-run canteens everywhere, from schools to workplaces, that were designed to feed vast quantities of people simultaneously..." Breakfast clubs are as a result of rampant capitalism meaning both parents typically need to work. But you know that already " Oh, absolutely. They're actually a great idea. Also for parents who don't have the skills to feed their kids properly. Unfortunately, that's alarmingly common. And we can't punish the kids for having inadequate parents. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? In Wales, all primary aged children are eligible to have free school meals. At the secondary school I have knowledge of, free breakfasts are available. Child benefit is not means tested, but there is a High Income Benefit Charge for those in the higher tax bracket. The amount received each 4 week period is less than £100 for one child. It's under £150 for two. It really doesn't go very far, cost of school uniforms (grants available in certain circumstances), constantly growing out of clothes and footwear, food, let alone any out of school activities. As someone else has said, taking away child benefit won't stop people from having children, but will negatively affect those on the lowest incomes. " I don’t think anyone has suggested doing away with child benefit. But I think it should be means tested. Nobody earning £50k a year should be receiving any form of state benefits | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don’t think anyone has suggested doing away with child benefit. But I think it should be means tested. Nobody earning £50k a year should be receiving any form of state benefits " It's common, in many countries, for people to get tax breaks depending on how many dependents one has. Would you support a tax break? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? In Wales, all primary aged children are eligible to have free school meals. At the secondary school I have knowledge of, free breakfasts are available. Child benefit is not means tested, but there is a High Income Benefit Charge for those in the higher tax bracket. The amount received each 4 week period is less than £100 for one child. It's under £150 for two. It really doesn't go very far, cost of school uniforms (grants available in certain circumstances), constantly growing out of clothes and footwear, food, let alone any out of school activities. As someone else has said, taking away child benefit won't stop people from having children, but will negatively affect those on the lowest incomes. I don’t think anyone has suggested doing away with child benefit. But I think it should be means tested. Nobody earning £50k a year should be receiving any form of state benefits " Why "50k" and not 100K or 20k? Why should those working ie getting off their big arse and going to work and away from home for about 12 hours a day whislt many of the workshy stay at home and enjoy the tv, sun and bed not have to contribute Too many times I hear about people saying on the radio "i would be happy to pay more for the nhs" would they f as most of them that say that dont work - a bit like taking/IHT those that are in favour often dont have a penny to their name As always, those in the middle get sahfted and the way infaltion is going, everyone will be earing "50k" soon then what in lond, my children can pay up to 100 quid a quid a week in fares and are often away from home for 12/13 hours. Why should working people lose out every-time a a good expalme is pensioners the 10 million that lost out were almost all working people who saved in order to avoid the benefits sytem and were kicked in the teeth by this lot. Labour does not want to see the ordinary working people being conformable financially is what i am seeing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? In Wales, all primary aged children are eligible to have free school meals. At the secondary school I have knowledge of, free breakfasts are available. Child benefit is not means tested, but there is a High Income Benefit Charge for those in the higher tax bracket. The amount received each 4 week period is less than £100 for one child. It's under £150 for two. It really doesn't go very far, cost of school uniforms (grants available in certain circumstances), constantly growing out of clothes and footwear, food, let alone any out of school activities. As someone else has said, taking away child benefit won't stop people from having children, but will negatively affect those on the lowest incomes. I don’t think anyone has suggested doing away with child benefit. But I think it should be means tested. Nobody earning £50k a year should be receiving any form of state benefits " Once again, depending on location, £50k isn’t that much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well." Child benefit is only two children. I only had two, but once the older one was an adult (it's still paid during further education) and theirs stopped, the younger one then became eligible for the higher rate. I don't know if you have more that two, whether the third child becomes eligible? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well." Universal credit is to help support families where parents work, to pay up to 80% of childcare fees, to get more people in employment and paying tax and NI. That one is means tested. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well. Child benefit is only two children. I only had two, but once the older one was an adult (it's still paid during further education) and theirs stopped, the younger one then became eligible for the higher rate. I don't know if you have more that two, whether the third child becomes eligible? " . If you have more than two children you can receive child benefit for the other children as well.Say for example you have 4 children you will get £26.00 for your eldest child and £17.25 for the other 4 children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well. Child benefit is only two children. I only had two, but once the older one was an adult (it's still paid during further education) and theirs stopped, the younger one then became eligible for the higher rate. I don't know if you have more that two, whether the third child becomes eligible? . If you have more than two children you can receive child benefit for the other children as well.Say for example you have 4 children you will get £26.00 for your eldest child and £17.25 for the other 4 children." You are right, child benefit is for all children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? In Wales, all primary aged children are eligible to have free school meals. At the secondary school I have knowledge of, free breakfasts are available. Child benefit is not means tested, but there is a High Income Benefit Charge for those in the higher tax bracket. The amount received each 4 week period is less than £100 for one child. It's under £150 for two. It really doesn't go very far, cost of school uniforms (grants available in certain circumstances), constantly growing out of clothes and footwear, food, let alone any out of school activities. As someone else has said, taking away child benefit won't stop people from having children, but will negatively affect those on the lowest incomes. I don’t think anyone has suggested doing away with child benefit. But I think it should be means tested. Nobody earning £50k a year should be receiving any form of state benefits Why "50k" and not 100K or 20k? Why should those working ie getting off their big arse and going to work and away from home for about 12 hours a day whislt many of the workshy stay at home and enjoy the tv, sun and bed not have to contribute Too many times I hear about people saying on the radio "i would be happy to pay more for the nhs" would they f as most of them that say that dont work - a bit like taking/IHT those that are in favour often dont have a penny to their name As always, those in the middle get sahfted and the way infaltion is going, everyone will be earing "50k" soon then what in lond, my children can pay up to 100 quid a quid a week in fares and are often away from home for 12/13 hours. Why should working people lose out every-time a a good expalme is pensioners the 10 million that lost out were almost all working people who saved in order to avoid the benefits sytem and were kicked in the teeth by this lot. Labour does not want to see the ordinary working people being conformable financially is what i am seeing" So how much in benefits should someone on £100k a year get? Another £100k? But the rest of your post seems to suggest you want people off benefits and in work. I’m confused The last time I looked at child benefits, people could claim as long as they earned less than about £52k. But I’m sure the figure is now about £60k but you seem to still get it but it’s taken back as a charge, all very strange. The benefits system was designed as a safety net. I’m sure people on £50k don’t need a safety net. And now the benefits system is a career choice. People used to follow parents into the same profession, now they follow them to the job centre. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And now the benefits system is a career choice. People used to follow parents into the same profession, now they follow them to the job centre. " What percentage of benefits claimants don’t work? I’m sure you have the data to hand to make such a statement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And now the benefits system is a career choice. People used to follow parents into the same profession, now they follow them to the job centre. What percentage of benefits claimants don’t work? I’m sure you have the data to hand to make such a statement." Any more than one is too many, with the exception of genuine incapacity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And now the benefits system is a career choice. People used to follow parents into the same profession, now they follow them to the job centre. What percentage of benefits claimants don’t work? I’m sure you have the data to hand to make such a statement. Any more than one is too many, with the exception of genuine incapacity " So you don’t have any data to back up your claim that benefits is a ‘career choice’ then? Ok | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And now the benefits system is a career choice. People used to follow parents into the same profession, now they follow them to the job centre. What percentage of benefits claimants don’t work? I’m sure you have the data to hand to make such a statement. Any more than one is too many, with the exception of genuine incapacity So you don’t have any data to back up your claim that benefits is a ‘career choice’ then? Ok" I have personal experience. Like I said, any more than one is too many. And I have personal knowledge of at least half a dozen families where the parents are close to retirement age and they have never worked a day in their lives and neither have their kids | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Any more than one is too many, with the exception of genuine incapacity So you don’t have any data to back up your claim that benefits is a ‘career choice’ then? Ok I have personal experience. Like I said, any more than one is too many. And I have personal knowledge of at least half a dozen families where the parents are close to retirement age and they have never worked a day in their lives and neither have their kids" Can you please explain why is more than one too many, and what is a genuine incapacity? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Any more than one is too many, with the exception of genuine incapacity So you don’t have any data to back up your claim that benefits is a ‘career choice’ then? Ok I have personal experience. Like I said, any more than one is too many. And I have personal knowledge of at least half a dozen families where the parents are close to retirement age and they have never worked a day in their lives and neither have their kids Can you please explain why is more than one too many, and what is a genuine incapacity? " A genuine incapacity is a medical reason why a person can’t work. A quadrapeagic (not sure I’ve spelt that right) would be a good example but there will be others. Reasons assessed by a medical professional to say that a person can’t work. I had a heart attack and was off work for a few weeks. That would be a good example of a temporary reason. A stroke where a person loses mental capacity etc etc. As I said, I know of families where none of them want to work. I’ll say it again “don’t want to work”. Like it’s an option to not work. Nothing wrong with any I’ve them. I dated one of them 35 years ago, not done a days work in their life and neither has their daughter who is about 26 or their son who is 30. They are experts at milking the system. All the kids have some form of “diagnosis” that qualifies them for DLA. The son and his gf who has also never worked get just under £2800 a month in benefits. How can not working be a choice? Bet your ass they don’t tell their work coach they don’t want to work so they are lying in their claim. How many of these types of situation is ok with people who work their ass off and pay tax? One is too many. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? " I would leave it at 2 children, but add a payment for pets don't want the pets going without. Why not introduce a Pet benifit so everyone can afford them, and while we are at it an NHS service for animals we are supposed to be an animal loving nation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Any more than one is too many, with the exception of genuine incapacity So you don’t have any data to back up your claim that benefits is a ‘career choice’ then? Ok I have personal experience. Like I said, any more than one is too many. And I have personal knowledge of at least half a dozen families where the parents are close to retirement age and they have never worked a day in their lives and neither have their kids Can you please explain why is more than one too many, and what is a genuine incapacity? A genuine incapacity is a medical reason why a person can’t work. A quadrapeagic (not sure I’ve spelt that right) would be a good example but there will be others. Reasons assessed by a medical professional to say that a person can’t work. I had a heart attack and was off work for a few weeks. That would be a good example of a temporary reason. A stroke where a person loses mental capacity etc etc. As I said, I know of families where none of them want to work. I’ll say it again “don’t want to work”. Like it’s an option to not work. Nothing wrong with any I’ve them. I dated one of them 35 years ago, not done a days work in their life and neither has their daughter who is about 26 or their son who is 30. They are experts at milking the system. All the kids have some form of “diagnosis” that qualifies them for DLA. The son and his gf who has also never worked get just under £2800 a month in benefits. How can not working be a choice? Bet your ass they don’t tell their work coach they don’t want to work so they are lying in their claim. How many of these types of situation is ok with people who work their ass off and pay tax? One is too many. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These idiots in number 10 are very good at one thing Giving out, the taxpayers money. The UK has a record number of people living in it and it is growing. We lack services so WTF remove the '2 child benefit" cap? If you can't afford children, don't have them We have 4 kids. The youngest, we waited 7 years after the third child as as the time we could not afford a 5 bedroom house and the upbringings of our child. If the UK was lacking people like some countries do, then fair enough but the population has grown from under 60 million in the yr 2000 to 70 million now THERE IS NO REASON to remove the 2 child benefit cap If anf gov really wants to help children rather than give benefits which may be used on drinking, smoking and sky tv - give all children free school meals and those parent/s on benefits, give those children free breakfast as well. Job done ie money going where it needs to Do you concur? I would leave it at 2 children, but add a payment for pets don't want the pets going without. Why not introduce a Pet benifit so everyone can afford them, and while we are at it an NHS service for animals we are supposed to be an animal loving nation." May I ask what tax you would increase or what spending you would cut to pay for it? I kinda agree that it would be nice to have a free NHS for pets, but if every pet owner bought pet insurance then that kinda the same thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...back up your claim that benefits is a ‘career choice’ then? " While perhaps an isolated example, we know one young lady (17 years ago now) who chose (yes, chose) to get pregnant and have a child... Twice. She then proceeded to advise a close relative of ours to get pregnant, "because of all the free stuff you get". Disgusting. She had never worked a day, either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Any more than one is too many, with the exception of genuine incapacity So you don’t have any data to back up your claim that benefits is a ‘career choice’ then? Ok I have personal experience. Like I said, any more than one is too many. And I have personal knowledge of at least half a dozen families where the parents are close to retirement age and they have never worked a day in their lives and neither have their kids Can you please explain why is more than one too many, and what is a genuine incapacity? A genuine incapacity is a medical reason why a person can’t work. A quadrapeagic (not sure I’ve spelt that right) would be a good example but there will be others. Reasons assessed by a medical professional to say that a person can’t work. I had a heart attack and was off work for a few weeks. That would be a good example of a temporary reason. A stroke where a person loses mental capacity etc etc. As I said, I know of families where none of them want to work. I’ll say it again “don’t want to work”. Like it’s an option to not work. Nothing wrong with any I’ve them. I dated one of them 35 years ago, not done a days work in their life and neither has their daughter who is about 26 or their son who is 30. They are experts at milking the system. All the kids have some form of “diagnosis” that qualifies them for DLA. The son and his gf who has also never worked get just under £2800 a month in benefits. How can not working be a choice? Bet your ass they don’t tell their work coach they don’t want to work so they are lying in their claim. How many of these types of situation is ok with people who work their ass off and pay tax? One is too many. " Thanks for the clarification. I thought in your original comment you were saying more than one child is too many! The "genuine incapacity" also makes sense now. I'm sure your experience is legitimate. However, I also know people with "genuine incapacity", or SEN/ND children who get no additional support. Or that the support they do receive doesn't cover their additional expenses. I don't have any answers - I wish I did! I do think that the media has misrepresented the child benefit part, though. There's a 2 child cap on the childcare element of Universal Credit, but child benefit is separate and applies to all children. So, no changes to child benefit, but Reform is promising to take away the two child cap on Universal Credit. Slightly different take on the thread title and what the press is promoting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well. Universal credit is to help support families where parents work, to pay up to 80% of childcare fees, to get more people in employment and paying tax and NI. That one is means tested. " Don’t understand the concept of universal credit. Isn’t it just propping up bad employers and lazy people who can’t be bothered to work full time? If you work full time your salary should be enough to live on, why should the state subsidise low wages? If you don’t work full time, but need the money then increase your hours or get another job. Out of work benefits should never be paid in cash. They should cover the absolute minimum for existence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well. Universal credit is to help support families where parents work, to pay up to 80% of childcare fees, to get more people in employment and paying tax and NI. That one is means tested. Don’t understand the concept of universal credit. Isn’t it just propping up bad employers and lazy people who can’t be bothered to work full time? If you work full time your salary should be enough to live on, why should the state subsidise low wages? If you don’t work full time, but need the money then increase your hours or get another job. Out of work benefits should never be paid in cash. They should cover the absolute minimum for existence. " There are plenty of reasons why people are in low paid jobs, and if they have childcare needs, it's not as simple as work more hours. Who then looks after the children? People can work full time and be eligible for UC, especially if there are child care costs involved. Salaries should be enough to live on, but in many cases, they're not. At least the people who are working and claiming UC are contributing with tax and NI. And the rest who don't claim UC are supporting those that need the extra helping hand, to try and stay above the poverty line, and be able to provide for their children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well. Universal credit is to help support families where parents work, to pay up to 80% of childcare fees, to get more people in employment and paying tax and NI. That one is means tested. Don’t understand the concept of universal credit. Isn’t it just propping up bad employers and lazy people who can’t be bothered to work full time? If you work full time your salary should be enough to live on, why should the state subsidise low wages? If you don’t work full time, but need the money then increase your hours or get another job. Out of work benefits should never be paid in cash. They should cover the absolute minimum for existence. There are plenty of reasons why people are in low paid jobs, and if they have childcare needs, it's not as simple as work more hours. Who then looks after the children? People can work full time and be eligible for UC, especially if there are child care costs involved. Salaries should be enough to live on, but in many cases, they're not. At least the people who are working and claiming UC are contributing with tax and NI. And the rest who don't claim UC are supporting those that need the extra helping hand, to try and stay above the poverty line, and be able to provide for their children. " The point is that jobs should pay enough to live on. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay tax and don’t get any benefits) subsidise poor employers or unviable businesses? People who are on low wages take out more than they pay in so they are not “contributing”. As for childcare, one parent should take time off work to raise children in the early years. Then train them to be self sufficient. That’s what happened when I was small, my dad worked full time and my mum took time off until I was 6 or 7, my brother was 2 years younger. After that, mum went back to work and it was my job to lock the house up and walk my brother to school and the reverse in the evening. Mum and dad would leave before we did and would not be home until after we were. What’s the issue? Mum taking time off meant we had little money and had to save for things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Or of course we allow skilled immigration to balance the population age and keep tax receipts up to pay for old people. And also prop up the NHS workforce shortages and social care sector due to the increasing demand from our ageing population. " Or we train our native population to do the work. There are lots of unemployed people, and the likes of care workers are low skill therefore it shouldn’t be that difficult to train people up. The problem is that the native population are lazy and have inflated ideas of their worth. Too many people with no qualifications, and too many people with useless degrees instead of people trained to be useful in the workforce and prepared to their hands dirty and work for a living. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The era of stay at home mum is gone as financially many can't afford it ..... or like me some women don't want to be stay at home parent. I worked from when both my kids were 5/6 months old. My ex did a stint as stay at home dad for a short period until I realised he did fuck all and I was still paying for childcare and a cleaner etc I am now a single parent to one teenager and not taking the time out of my career to stay at home means I am in role able to provide for myself and my kids without the need of any financial contributions from my ex. " Each to their own however I can’t understand why people have children then subcontract their care to others. The parents then miss out on the milestones, first smile, first step, first word etc. Also they have to rely on the childcare provider to teach their children in those very important first years so the child won’t get the best start in life. Paying for a cleaner is another thing I can’t understand. There aren’t many worse things than having a stranger in your house moving your things around. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well. Universal credit is to help support families where parents work, to pay up to 80% of childcare fees, to get more people in employment and paying tax and NI. That one is means tested. Don’t understand the concept of universal credit. Isn’t it just propping up bad employers and lazy people who can’t be bothered to work full time? If you work full time your salary should be enough to live on, why should the state subsidise low wages? If you don’t work full time, but need the money then increase your hours or get another job. Out of work benefits should never be paid in cash. They should cover the absolute minimum for existence. There are plenty of reasons why people are in low paid jobs, and if they have childcare needs, it's not as simple as work more hours. Who then looks after the children? People can work full time and be eligible for UC, especially if there are child care costs involved. Salaries should be enough to live on, but in many cases, they're not. At least the people who are working and claiming UC are contributing with tax and NI. And the rest who don't claim UC are supporting those that need the extra helping hand, to try and stay above the poverty line, and be able to provide for their children. The point is that jobs should pay enough to live on. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay tax and don’t get any benefits) subsidise poor employers or unviable businesses? People who are on low wages take out more than they pay in so they are not “contributing”. As for childcare, one parent should take time off work to raise children in the early years. Then train them to be self sufficient. That’s what happened when I was small, my dad worked full time and my mum took time off until I was 6 or 7, my brother was 2 years younger. After that, mum went back to work and it was my job to lock the house up and walk my brother to school and the reverse in the evening. Mum and dad would leave before we did and would not be home until after we were. What’s the issue? Mum taking time off meant we had little money and had to save for things." It may have worked for your family growing up, but that scenario does not translate very well to current society. How do people on low wages take out more than they pay in? They pay NI and income tax, VAT on the majority of goods and services, insurance premium tax and all the other taxes involved in daily living. Salaries can be enough to live on, until a family needs to pay for childcare. That's when the cost of childcare negates the benefits of the salary. To work full time on minimum wage and then pay for nursery fees or a childminder, without financial assistance, would place many families below the poverty line and in debt. There's a negative ripple effect from that, so it's far better to provide financial assistance, have people working, the childminders and nurseries get paid, larger workforce, more NI and tax contributions...... I'd rather my taxes be used to help families worse off than me and have people employed and contributing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Each to their own however I can’t understand why people have children then subcontract their care to others. The parents then miss out on the milestones, first smile, first step, first word etc. Also they have to rely on the childcare provider to teach their children in those very important first years so the child won’t get the best start in life. Paying for a cleaner is another thing I can’t understand. There aren’t many worse things than having a stranger in your house moving your things around. " What utter nonsense that having loving parents who choose childcare means not a good start in life. My eldest is very intelligent, achieved top grades at school and has a great career ahead of them. My teenager is also very intelligent and creative and such an amazing young person. Both of them loved their childcare and are fantastic people. I have taught them the merit of hard work and kindness and how to be decent human beings without the need to sacrifice my career and earning potential. As for having a cleaner ... I agree it was ridiculous but as I was working away and he was doing fuck all I didn't want to get home and have to start cleaning what was mostly his mess. Now I am solo with just a teenager in the house it's my mess so i clean it when I have time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont think abolishing the cap is a good idea, I'd prefer to see the money spent on free nursery places to allow parents to work and free school meals and even breakfast clubs." There are free nursery places available, provided parents are working at least 16 hrs a week at min wage or above, and don't earn more than £100,000 p/a. In Wales, primary school meals are free and some secondary schools provide free breakfast. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is that jobs should pay enough to live on. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay tax and don’t get any benefits) subsidise poor employers or unviable businesses?" Let's stop with this nonsense. The minimum wage for a full time worker is over £28,000. That's ample for a single person. It's probably not enough for someone with a stay-at-home partner and 3 kids, but that isn't the fault of the employer. Yes some people's wages aren't enough to cover their expenses, but that not down to "poor employers or unviable businesses", it's down to people making unaffordable life choices that the state has to cover. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is that jobs should pay enough to live on. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay tax and don’t get any benefits) subsidise poor employers or unviable businesses? Let's stop with this nonsense. The minimum wage for a full time worker is over £28,000. That's ample for a single person. It's probably not enough for someone with a stay-at-home partner and 3 kids, but that isn't the fault of the employer. Yes some people's wages aren't enough to cover their expenses, but that not down to "poor employers or unviable businesses", it's down to people making unaffordable life choices that the state has to cover." An excellent and factual post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is that jobs should pay enough to live on. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay tax and don’t get any benefits) subsidise poor employers or unviable businesses? Let's stop with this nonsense. The minimum wage for a full time worker is over £28,000. That's ample for a single person. It's probably not enough for someone with a stay-at-home partner and 3 kids, but that isn't the fault of the employer. Yes some people's wages aren't enough to cover their expenses, but that not down to "poor employers or unviable businesses", it's down to people making unaffordable life choices that the state has to cover." Minimum wage is just over £25k for a 40 hour week Take home pay works out at around £21k That’s an income of £1750 a month Considering rents here for a 2 bed are at roughly £1200 and over £1000 for a 1 bed…. That doesn’t actually leave much to live on by the time you’ve paid car, fuel, utilities, food etc. Not here to argue over your points - even though I disagree but if we are going to quote figures let’s get them correct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is that jobs should pay enough to live on. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay tax and don’t get any benefits) subsidise poor employers or unviable businesses? Let's stop with this nonsense. The minimum wage for a full time worker is over £28,000. That's ample for a single person. It's probably not enough for someone with a stay-at-home partner and 3 kids, but that isn't the fault of the employer. Yes some people's wages aren't enough to cover their expenses, but that not down to "poor employers or unviable businesses", it's down to people making unaffordable life choices that the state has to cover. Minimum wage is just over £25k for a 40 hour week Take home pay works out at around £21k That’s an income of £1750 a month Considering rents here for a 2 bed are at roughly £1200 and over £1000 for a 1 bed…. That doesn’t actually leave much to live on by the time you’ve paid car, fuel, utilities, food etc. Not here to argue over your points - even though I disagree but if we are going to quote figures let’s get them correct" I would argue that any company that pays minimum wage is a poor employer and that if they can’t afford to pay more then they are an unviable business. The minimum wage is low and there is an argument for increasing it otherwise all we are doing is subsidising these poor and unviable businesses by things like universal credit. Then again, the other question is why people are only able to get minimum wage jobs. Is it poor education, lack of skills, lack of ambition or laziness? So many well paid jobs are available, particularly in the trades, yet we need to (apparently) have immigration to fill them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is that jobs should pay enough to live on. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay tax and don’t get any benefits) subsidise poor employers or unviable businesses? Let's stop with this nonsense. The minimum wage for a full time worker is over £28,000. That's ample for a single person. It's probably not enough for someone with a stay-at-home partner and 3 kids, but that isn't the fault of the employer. " It’s about 24,000 (just under in fact). 12.21 per hour, based upon 37.5 hours per week. Now of course not everyone gets 37.5 hours a week and living costs vary dramatically depending on location. Minimum wage in the south east is a struggle that most couldn’t comprehend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is that jobs should pay enough to live on. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay tax and don’t get any benefits) subsidise poor employers or unviable businesses?" "Let's stop with this nonsense. The minimum wage for a full time worker is over £28,000. That's ample for a single person. It's probably not enough for someone with a stay-at-home partner and 3 kids, but that isn't the fault of the employer. Yes some people's wages aren't enough to cover their expenses, but that not down to "poor employers or unviable businesses", it's down to people making unaffordable life choices that the state has to cover." "Minimum wage is just over £25k for a 40 hour week Take home pay works out at around £21k That’s an income of £1750 a month Considering rents here for a 2 bed are at roughly £1200 and over £1000 for a 1 bed…. That doesn’t actually leave much to live on by the time you’ve paid car, fuel, utilities, food etc. Not here to argue over your points - even though I disagree but if we are going to quote figures let’s get them correct" Quite right, my finger slipped, I meant over £25,000. That's a (just about) livable wage for a single person in a major city. For a single person living in South Wales it's enough to save a deposit for a house in just 3 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would argue that any company that pays minimum wage is a poor employer and that if they can’t afford to pay more then they are an unviable business." You are arguing based on emotion rather than logic. If a company can make a profit whilst paying minimum wage, then it is, by definition, a viable business. What you mean is that it's not a morally justifiable business unless they pay more. Whether anyone else agrees with you is down to whether or not they share your morals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would argue that any company that pays minimum wage is a poor employer and that if they can’t afford to pay more then they are an unviable business. You are arguing based on emotion rather than logic. If a company can make a profit whilst paying minimum wage, then it is, by definition, a viable business. What you mean is that it's not a morally justifiable business unless they pay more. Whether anyone else agrees with you is down to whether or not they share your morals." The fault is with the party that sets minimum wage, not the employer. Employers have law to guide them, that should be all that is needed. Switzerland and other European countries have decided that minimum wage needs to be enough for people to live somewhat decently. Other countries decide to subsidise their population (and thus employers). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is on Universal Credit they only pay for two children but on Child Benefit they pay £26.00 a week for the eldest child and £17.25 for all the other children.Is £43 a week for two children not enough in child benefit.I don’t see why Universal Credit also need to pay for the children as well. Universal credit is to help support families where parents work, to pay up to 80% of childcare fees, to get more people in employment and paying tax and NI. That one is means tested. Don’t understand the concept of universal credit. Isn’t it just propping up bad employers and lazy people who can’t be bothered to work full time? If you work full time your salary should be enough to live on, why should the state subsidise low wages? If you don’t work full time, but need the money then increase your hours or get another job. Out of work benefits should never be paid in cash. They should cover the absolute minimum for existence. " . Universal Credit has replaced 6 benefits Jobseekers Allowance , Employment & Support Allowance, Income Support, Child Tax Credits , Working Tax Credits , Housing Benefits.It is the brainchild of Iain Duncan Smith with a slogan that was something like make work pay.Unfortunately it hasn’t worked out that way as a one cap fits all does not apply to all the claimants as all claimants have a different set of circumstances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Population has exploded because of immigration, not because of births. The idea is to help people to afford children so they don't have to rely on immigration." Birth rates are falling and have been since the fifties here, it raises real issues for policy and how we address it as a society going forward.. Controlled immigration is one way which we will need to literally keep the country running but it's how we do that.. Because it's an issue that is so emotive and which has been a hot potato for most of the last fifty years politically we've yet to have serious discussions about it.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
