Child Benefit To Be Cut Off At 13 As Government's 'poverty Tsar' Plans To Wean Parents Off Handouts

[Tin Foil Hat]

How about scrapping it altogether along with the other perks which are so attractive to thick and lazy young women. How often is the money spent on the child anyway? If it is, then it's often a case of going to McD's for happy meals cos they can afford that with the benefits. No benefits = work and cook proper food. Spending the increased amount of time at home with the child might even mean they get to know them and do some real parenting.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Tin Foil Hat

[Mr Yogi]

No, not usually unless some form of monopoly blocks market competition preventing prices being held close to production cost

As an example, the price of cars didn't go up because women went to work and had more money.

No, but it means that all families now have at least 2 cars...

Besides, the cost of production is not the defining element of a product's selling price. The price is set by the market - by the law of supply and demand.

What you have put above is near meaningless; EVERYTHING, no matter how manipulated, monoplised, regulated or abusive, obeys the rules of price, supply and demand. The media would give you the impression that because you can use the words 'supply' or 'demand' in relation to the housing market, this means the housing market is more or less like any other market.

Intervention might affect supply, demand, or both. Th fundamental law of supply and demand still applies to the housing market however, just as it applies to all other markets.

[Stars]

No, but it means that all families now have at least 2 cars...

Right - that's how a market in production tends to work. The housing market doesn't work like this

Besides, the cost of production is not the defining element of a product's selling price. The price is set by the market - by the law of supply and demand.

Yes, the price is set by supply and demand and the supply and the demand are set by the cost of production and the utility to a person.

Intervention might affect supply, demand, or both. Th fundamental law of supply and demand still applies to the housing market however, just as it applies to all other markets.

Again, that's totally vacuous. .Everything obeys supply and demand - that doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem with the market

Edited June 13, 2010 by Stars

[mitchbux]

In first family there will be childcare costs.

In 2nd family there will not be....

Not necessarily, some will have family doing it for free.

Those that do have childcare costs are entitled to get a lot of it back as Childcare Tax Credit. It's also very easy to lie about the amount you spend on childcare to ensure that you get 100% back, you wouldn't get checked up on unless someone reported you.

[PopGun]

Heard a young mother recently she is about 34 two young kids has to work full time , would love to be at home with her kids she said

" Those women who burnt their bras for us in the sixties have fu--ked us up not helped us "

Why bother getting your own hands dirty, when you have a mass array of useful idiots to do your bidding for you?

[PopGun]

This problem isn't a deficiency in the concept of women having equal rights to men, this is a problem with the housing market.

I think you're confusing symptom with cause.

[ken_ichikawa]

Today it is not about a choice of women working or not , many have no choice they have to work whether they want to or not.

I have worked with many women over the years some wanted to be there and had a carrear driven mentality , many did not want to be there but they had no choice.

But this is what they wanted, men have never had a choice of anything else but careers crappy jobs and until fairly recently conscription.

You can't demand something and then complain about it when you don't like the reality of it, once that genie is out the bottle it can never be put back.

[miko]

But this is what they wanted, men have never had a choice of anything else but careers crappy jobs and until fairly recently conscription.

You can't demand something and then complain about it when you don't like the reality of it, once that genie is out the bottle it can never be put back.

But if you read what was put in front of you , you might understand that the women who demanded to work are the ones who had the choice, the ones working today have no choice.

Edited June 14, 2010 by miko

[miko]

Why bother getting your own hands dirty, when you have a mass array of useful idiots to do your bidding for you?

Err.

[Hectors House]

Child benefit should end at 16 and not 19. To end it at 13 might be harsh on some families.

I left school at 16 in 1983, certainly my parents certainly didn't receive it after I was 16, a year wasted getting £25 a week on YTS

[grizzly bear]

Not true; child benefit was phased in from 1977 -1979; as boomers are defined as those born 1945 -1960 they won't have benefited. Sorry to bust yet another boomer bashing thread.

Yes they will have benefitted from in when bringing up their children in the 1970s and 1980s.

[AskFrank]

How about scrapping it altogether along with the other perks which are so attractive to thick and lazy young women. How often is the money spent on the child anyway? If it is, then it's often a case of going to McD's for happy meals cos they can afford that with the benefits. No benefits = work and cook proper food. Spending the increased amount of time at home with the child might even mean they get to know them and do some real parenting.

I really hate this kind of mentality. Child benefit is to help bring up our kids, it doesn't begin to cover food, clothing and accomodation, but it's a little added bonus to help parents out. What is so wrong with that? It really annoys me that people presume those having kids and receiving child benefit are scroungers! You don't get child benefit because you are not working! You get it regardless of your personal situation.

Our situation, we are both hard working parents, expecting our first child. We don't need child benefit, but we certainly welcome that little extra help.

All this talk about getting rid of it, is not good. It's as bad as when they stopped giving kids milk at school! We should be investing in our children and giving them the best childhood we possibly can!

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

All this talk about getting rid of it, is not good. It's as bad as when they stopped giving kids milk at school! We should be investing in our children and giving them the best childhood we possibly can!

That's right - you should be in investing in your kids. Fail to see why I should be financially contributing to your children, particularly as the missus and I cannot afford to have our own.

[AskFrank]

That's right - you should be in investing in your kids. Fail to see why I should be financially contributing to your children, particularly as the missus and I cannot afford to have our own.

And I fail to see why we should all be paying for your tax credits to bump up your wage because you can't earn enough on your own!

See now I sound nasty don't I. It's all swings and roundabouts. Either the government withdraws all types of benefits and you fend for yourselves, even if you are unable to work, or the government uses their judgment to see how they can enhance peoples' lives.

What do you say about families who can afford to have kids initially and then suddenly lose their jobs. Should they then have their kids taken off of them?

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

And I fail to see why we should all be paying for your tax credits to bump up your wage because you can't earn enough on your own!

See now I sound nasty don't I. It's all swings and roundabouts. Either the government withdraws all types of benefits and you fend for yourselves, even if you are unable to work, or the government uses their judgment to see how they can enhance peoples' lives.

What do you say about families who can afford to have kids initially and then suddenly lose their jobs. Should they then have their kids taken off of them?

This is another damaging side effect of the British obsession with building slaveboxes the last decade. In the past you could have kept your children and sent them out to work up chimneys, that option is much reduced now meaning giving them away is almost the only option left. There are also less smokers now so you cant even send them out selling matchsticks

[Wario]

When my hopeful monsters were at nursery, it was not unusual for Child Benefit, when it cropped up in the waiting at the gate natter, to be hailed in terms of "a godsend" and " a richt life-saver" by the typically hard-pressed young singlewomen in the herd, (domestics, cleaners, pole-dancers, taxi-drivers; nane of your slimy bourgeois stereotyping of single mums roond here, if you please.

OK there were a few ex-junkies wasting away with The Virus, and project-wallahs (except they were girls) and so on, but I was generally dismayed by how much they grafted for buttons, compared to lazy ole tradesman me).

And d'ye ken why they loved the ole CB?

Because no matter how they budgetted, and scrimped, and haunted FarmFoods, and probably even stole, they were always brought up short by IT. Because IT was always there.

That's right, it was a monthly miracle of another kind. It helped them {they confessed artlessly) "pey ra ******en Cooncil Ta-ax". Even rebated.

[edit: spelly spelly]

Edited June 14, 2010 by Wario

[sophia]

Heard a young mother recently she is about 34 two young kids has to work full time , would love to be at home with her kids she said

" Those women who burnt their bras for us in the sixties have fu--ked us up not helped us "

This is so true! I went to an all girls very academic school and then on to uni and studied sociology and feminism and believed all the cr@p about women in the workforce and careers etc.

Let me tell you ladies, I've had the career - it is stress, it is ********, it is bitchy and back stabbing, it's not the media creation of power woman!

Yes, those 60's womans/feminist movements have wrecked it for us women. Men won't even get off a seat on a bus to let a heavily pregnant woman sit down anymore etc

Now I am a stay at home mum with 2 young children - husband goes out to work, and I don't know any of my professional female friend that wouldn't leave their jobs tomorrow and stay home with the kids etc..... we were all sold a lie.

We have house prices that are so high now you need two salaries, if us women had have stayed at home, house prices would be lower and based on one salary, we could all be 'ladies that lunch'!!

[Olebrum]

More fractured families, more whining about 'Broken Britain' on the way.

[cockrobin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285812/Poverty-tsar-Frank-Field-hints-wield-axe-child-benefits.html

No just stop paying it to everyone, if your a higher rate tax payer you don't qualify. Simple.

I love the way he's assuming that mothers will just be able to get jobs as soon as the child hits 13 and also the not being home comment is priceless, I can imagine the Mail headlines now about lawless teenagers on the rampage because no one is home.

Again it all boils down to will there be jobs for these people to do.

It boils down to common sense, at 13 children are quite able to work and start earning money for themselves. I did.

[Britney's Piers]

There are two problems which are linked.

People won't have jobs so will be poor. Poor people don't have money to spend on the goods the robots are making.

We can do other things, like take in each others washing, sell houses to each other, hold seminars on how to sell houses to each other, gamble on imaginary financial instruments with imaginary money, get politicians to create 100s of new laws which creates 1000s of jobs for new lawyers, and we can all continually sue each other if we get served coffee that is too hot.

It's the "service economy".

Edited June 15, 2010 by Britney's Piers

[RichB]

Combined income of max £44k too complicated?

Or abolish it completely and give it as a lower rate tax which should cut out paperwork.

Even easier, allow all personal allowances to be shared by a single household. Even kids have a personal allowance - rarely used though. If you pool the personal allowances for a married couple, with 3 kids and gran in the back room they get best part of 30k tax free. Should be easy enough to do.

[Self Employed Youth]

And the pay to go with it.

The problem is no-one is willing to be the first person to risk it.

A lot of work pays less than benefits unless you have overtime available so you can work 48, 60, 72, 84 hours in a week and earn a living wage, at least when you are paid minimum.

We seem to be moving to an economy where you work 84 hours a week for a couple of weeks and buy a TV, then sign on and watch it for the rest of the year, waiting till Christmas for a working week to become available where you can earn more than you would on benefits for a few weeks.

It's like councils with a few idiots on ridiculously high salaries 'hogging' the public funds like the greedy pigs they are.

If you (a public employer) fire a member of staff on 180k how many staff can you afford to take on?

Assume 10k benefits.

Assume minimum wage + 1/2

180k saved.

90k tax lost.

10k benefit.

15k wage-10k benefit being previously claimed?

16 jobs?

Much better for society in my eyes.

And not all of the tax is lost neither.

Tax the basics etc. etc.

[Self Employed Youth]

I really hope they do this.

Our benefit system is bad. I'd like to see no money for unmarried mothers. Why should some lazy cow just get a house for opening her legs?

A woman using a house to open her legs in the form of a brothel could earn a hell of a lot and be able to buy the house.

It's illegal though.

So if you open your legs you get one given to you instead.

[Self Employed Youth]

I really hope they do this.

Our benefit system is bad. I'd like to see no money for unmarried mothers. Why should some lazy cow just get a house for opening her legs?

A woman using a house to open her legs in the form of a brothel could earn a hell of a lot and be able to buy the house.

It's illegal though.

So if you open your legs you get one given to you instead.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

And I fail to see why we should all be paying for your tax credits to bump up your wage because you can't earn enough on your own!

Agreed. Lower taxes instead.

See now I sound nasty don't I.

No you sound reasonable. People should pay their own way.

It's all swings and roundabouts. Either the government withdraws all types of benefits and you fend for yourselves, even if you are unable to work, or the government uses their judgment to see how they can enhance peoples' lives.

I don't want the govt deciding what's best for me. I'll be the judge of that. You are looking at this in a binary fashion, I am not. My original point was that if you have decided to have kids then make sure you have the money to pay for them. I didn't say get rid of all benefits.

What do you say about families who can afford to have kids initially and then suddenly lose their jobs. Should they then have their kids taken off of them?

People should be saving to tide them through the tough times. For the poorest unemployment benefits should obviously be available. My point is that if you are planning to do something you should be funding it yourself, not just doing it anyway and then expecting someone else to foot the bill.