Child Benefit

[The Spartan]

Whilst this is true, I'd rather my taxes went to a hard working family who've had a bit of bad luck (and have themselves paid taxes) and need a bit of support for a short time to get back on their feet than someone who never has, and never plans to work.

But what about the children?

Sorry couldn't resist that one

[psychocandy]

Its a complete joke. One of my relations, bought a house while on benefits and has 10 years later paid the mortgage off. Thanks tax payers! No kids either.

Another cant work (as he is 20 stone overweight "bad back") and gets free council flat, no tax, enough money to over eat to that extent etc etc

Its a life of Riley and dont let anyone tell you different.

Yep Agreed. Disability is the new scam. Make up all sorts of illnesses which means they can't make you work.

Which is an insult to disabled people who work and also those who are genuine.

Remember seeing something in the Wales on Sunday about some woman moaning about benefit cuts etc. She must have listed 15 different ailments and things she was on disability for. It was almost as if she'd googled a few things and thought the more she put down the better.

[d000hg]

Its a complete joke. One of my relations, bought a house while on benefits and has 10 years later paid the mortgage off. Thanks tax payers! No kids either.

Another cant work (as he is 20 stone overweight "bad back") and gets free council flat, no tax, enough money to over eat to that extent etc etc

Its a life of Riley and dont let anyone tell you different.

You must have missed the part where I said "in theory". The problem with being nice to people is some of them will inevitably take advantage.

[psychocandy]

Agreed I know a lot of people who got the right to buy the council homes they had lived in and they got a massive discount based on how much rent they had paid since living there. Funny thing is as they got benefits they didn't pay diddly squat towards it, but still received the discount.

Yep. I know people like that.

[formant]

Middle class people struggling after they over-extend themselves

You seem strangely obsessed with the idea that anyone should be able live off 71 quid a week. Why would anyone in work live that frugal a life - and why should they?

The people who are struck hardest by redundancy/job-loss don't need to have 'over-extended' themselves.

I'm on an only marginally higher income than my other half and we could cover our outgoings with one salary. Just about. I'm not sure that's classed as 'over-extending' with 2, very soon to be 3 kids. Now how many women have my kind of income? There aren't many, particularly not where there are kids involved. So the scenario that psychocandy mentioned, whereby one gets nothing beyond 71 quid a week living with a partner who earns 12k, isn't at all unlikely. And it's pretty crap.

You also still don't seem to get that many people have outgoings on yearly contracts that they won't be able to get out of the moment their income is gone/drastically reduced.

[d000hg]

You seem strangely obsessed with the idea that anyone should be able live off 71 quid a week. Why would anyone in work live that frugal a life - and why should they?

Who said they should, WHILE THEY'RE IN WORK. But if they haven't prepared for the - let's face it pretty likely - scenario where one of them is going to lose their job, then they HAVE over-extended themselves. We're not talking about them both losing work, because then you can get other benefits, but one of them losing work, which happens all the time. If you can't manage for several months on a single salary, with the extra help of JSA and any savings you might have, you have not managed your finances correctly.

If anything, I'm 'obsessed' with the idea that JSA is there to provide a minimum level to cover food and essentials. You might be tied into a 2 year contract on your £40 mobile contract but you can still find a way to stop paying for a few months if you have to, until you are earning and can sort it out.

[escapeUK]

You also still don't seem to get that many people have outgoings on yearly contracts that they won't be able to get out of the moment their income is gone/drastically reduced.

So you think the tax payer should pick up the tab for peoples sky contracts or for their £40 a month iphone?

Benefits should never have been a lifestyle for the idle, there should always have been an element of earning the money. There is always rubbish to be picked up, graffiti to be cleaned off, data to be entered into a computer and so on.

It wouldnt have been a nice life for anyone, but great motivation to get off their arse and get a real job.

£70 a week should equal = 10 hours of work. This is for those who have never contributed via NI, for those that have what they get should be calculated in regard to how much they have paid in.

[Old Hack]

Who said they should, WHILE THEY'RE IN WORK. But if they haven't prepared for the - let's face it pretty likely - scenario where one of them is going to lose their job, then they HAVE over-extended themselves. We're not talking about them both losing work, because then you can get other benefits, but one of them losing work, which happens all the time. If you can't manage for several months on a single salary, with the extra help of JSA and any savings you might have, you have not managed your finances correctly.

If anything, I'm 'obsessed' with the idea that JSA is there to provide a minimum level to cover food and essentials. You might be tied into a 2 year contract on your £40 mobile contract but you can still find a way to stop paying for a few months if you have to, until you are earning and can sort it out.

So work in Middle management, with your wife at home, living within your means for 35 years and suddenly you face unemployment, and you have £50k saved.

What happens when this mans money runs down?

Does he deserve to have to live on £71 a week after paying in for 35 years?

Really?

[vetran]

There are 3 situations we need to address.

1. Never worked / fallen from work into benefit dependency. Normally breeding the next generation of benefit claimants.
2. Lost long term Job likely to find another in ~ 3-6 months or at least continue to try.
3. Lost Job will never find another due to infirmity.

Scenario 1

No sympathy - workfare candidate. Probably working illegally as well.

These are the ones we need to weed out. These are normally voluntary (possibly it may seem that there are no jobs but eastern european immigration for work suggests otherwise.)

Scenario 2
These are the people we need to assist with interim loans and retraining.

Scenario 3

If its age then retraining and support.
If its infirmity then look for ways to include.



Living on £71 per week food & pocket money is not that difficult.
If you have to pay accommodation, Council tax etc then its quite difficult.


I think most people are angry about Scenario 1 and scenario 3 disguising scenario 1 people.

[Malcolm Buggeridge]

I haven'read the entire thread and I am sure that somebody else has made this point as it seems pretty obvious.

Child benefit is a classic case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Do these people bleating about their entitlement to child benefit not realise that it is funded through the taxes they pay?

Abolish it completely and simply lower taxes instead. We'll also be shot of the administrative burden.