Welfare Reforms... worrying information coming daily...

[feeble]

So today, in the Lords (and we have to remember that for a bill to get to the Lords it has already gone through parliament) they are discussing a proposed 'fee' on the use of the CSA

this will include a one off payment of between 50 and 100 pounds, plus a percentage of all money given to the acting parent.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/...d-maintenance-and-social-fund-live-discussion

Now this to me is VERY worrying, surely you are quite literally taxing CHILDREN by having this sort of thing in place??? How can this possibly be right?

Also i have heard today (and i am looking for further evidence for links of this) is the plan to give tax credits to families but only until the first child is 5 at which point the care-giving parent will be treated as if on JSA until that parent finds a job for at least 16 hours a week

this will not be in force in the school holidays but makes no allowance for home schooling families or those with disabled children or elderly relatives.

Also on the bill is a plan to remove the childs age for income support payments, from 5 years (as it is currently) down to 1 year, so when a single parent's youngest child hits 1, they will be put on JSA and expected to find work... I cannot see HOW that is going to work and i fear we will be returning to the days of overcrowded houses, with children being born into families once a year in order to avoid working.

With the proposed cut of housing benefit this is even scarier.

So i would love to know what people make of all of this, how such changes will affect us regardless of our circumstances (i know they will affect me in some ways) and if anyone knows of anymore items on this bill which are going to affect us further...

 

[Thumper]

]

Also on the bill is a plan to remove the childs age for income support payments, from 5 years (as it is currently) down to 1 year, so when a single parent's youngest child hits 1, they will be put on JSA and expected to find work... I cannot see HOW that is going to work and i fear we will be returning to the days of overcrowded houses, with children being born into families once a year in order to avoid working.

I've not looked into this in detail so only a quick comment but I do support benefit cuts. I think however that they should limit payments to 2 children, thus ensuring the problem you've stated above won't exist. Harsh I know, butwe all have it easy in the UK sompared to toher places. I do think provisions should be given for those who do wish to work and childcare vouchers or something similar given if possible.

Just an idea

 

[feeble]

see i actually totally agree that it is completely unfair that women on income support stay home for years whilst working mothers are basically forced to return to work after a year!

but i think things need to be in place to stop women from just having a baby every year to avoid working because i can guarantee that is what will happen!

And with such a shortage of council housing and already a situation where folk in social housing are happy to have 4/5/6 children in a 2 bed flat... i think it would be devistating for the welfare of the children x

 

[Eternal]

*I am using the word YOU to describe people in general not aimed at anyone or any group of people*
I support it, I dont understand the CSA aspect at all so I wont comment there.

But like a PP I am totally in agreement that benefits should be stopped at a certain number of kids, if you decide you want a big family then YOU have to pay for it, not the tax payer.

As for tax credits changing to JSA at 5 years, good, at that age the child is at school and although I appreciate how difficult it is to find work around school if someone decides to have a child they should be able to afford it and not be able to stay home until the child is 18!!!

There are plenty of working mums who would love to have been able to stay home until their child was 5 and if they did they probably would be financially better off

I am a SAHM but we don't receive any benefits, I do think more help should be given towards the cost of childcare but I think it needs to be available to everyone. Like we certainly dont get £500 a week every week, and we have to pay for our mortgage, costs of home maintenance, etc etc. I would love to be able to work a little part time jobs so we are able to enjoy some of the things like holidays and new cars that seems to have became a need enough to have benefits high enough to afford the things that a lot of working families cannot.

As for parents with disabled children, they will get money for that child which will allow them to stay home or provide additional support where needed, elderly parents, again you can get carers allowance if its needed.

I see it as a way of supporting and not carrying, where as right now, the government pays for all needs, wants and desires and it doesn't make anyone want to work.

I think changes like this will mean people HAVE to take responsibility for their decisions, if you want children then YOU have to pay for them, not expect to get money as you decided to have children.

I can imagine how scary it would be for parents who haven't worked in a long time or who have never worked, if these things go through at any point then things will have to change and there will be lots of creases to iron out.

Benefits are a good thing, they SHOULD be there to help people, a stop gap measure, so that people who find themselves at hard times for whatever reason can SURVIVE, and that how I see it, If my husband lost his job then I would grateful for money to be able to feed and clothe my family until he or I was able to find another job as quickly as possible. I would expect to be given enough money to be providing games consoles, New TVs or holidays. The idea that people can be on benefits for 18+ years is shocking to me.

My sister is an example that shocks me, she is nearly 40 and had her first child at 15 or 16, she has NEVER worked a day in her life, and I KNOW she doesn't see why she should or have any intention of EVER working. I cannot imagine what goes through peoples heads to have got to 40 years old and NEVER worked.

 

[feeble]

I suppose what is scary about the tax credits change, is that they are attacking families with one parent in work. At the moment if your husband or wife is working, you can stay home and be with your kids, homeschool etc

Do you really think it is acceptable to live in a society where both parents need to be in full-time work to support a family? Do we even really have an economy that can support that? Is it fair on the children?

Not all children are disabled but many have social and developmental issues which would benefit from a parent being home more than i think these changes will allow.

I dont think changing tax credits attacks those people on full welfare benefits, it attacks working families, suggesting that as well as a parent working maybe 40/50 hours a week, the other parent should also be out of the house working.

Which cannot be right surely?

 

[Thumper]

Generally I do believe that if you have children, you should be able to support them. That said, we didn;t plan on having a child so my savings had recently been blown on myself! And we aren't going to make the same 'mistake' again...and again....and again until we have 15 children! But we spend within our means, and that is the key. We don;t spend money on cigerettes, alcohol, eating out (god I miss that) or spontaneous breaks away. My life has changed so much and a lot is due to money but that's the proce I pay. And it is so, so worth it. I don;t believe that all SAHM/Ds should go out to work (I would like to stay home with my son for as long as possible) so long as they can live on what they earn as a family unit. Single parents I'm just not sure on. It's to easy to make a sweeping statement when many cases are unique. A government provision of childcare would help though.

 

[feeble]

whats the difference between the government paying for childcare, and the government assisting families so that one parent can stay at home?

It is a fault of our economy, surely, that one person working at a decent wage (say the national average) cannot support a parent and children?

Does forcing both parents into work and giving suppliments so the children can be cared for by a stranger really help? Surely that is just diverting the money that was going to the stay at home parent and instead giving it to a childminder?

It just seems nonsensical to me...

 

[mum22ttc#3]

whats the difference between the government paying for childcare, and the government assisting families so that one parent can stay at home?

It is a fault of our economy, surely, that one person working at a decent wage (say the national average) cannot support a parent and children?

Does forcing both parents into work and giving suppliments so the children can be cared for by a stranger really help? Surely that is just diverting the money that was going to the stay at home parent and instead giving it to a childminder?

It just seems nonsensical to me...

TBH I can't see how it makes sense either, usely childcare costs the same or even more for government than it would to give the family the bit of tax credits they have been entitled to.
Surely if this is the case then it would be better for one parent to stay at home and bring up their own children rather than have a childminder look after them. It just seems a little backwards to me.

I don't think the economy could support it either, there is a job shortage as it is and to expect every mother to get a job once their children are over 5 around school hours IMO is just unrealistic.

TBH though I can't see it going through, it seems that a few are getting rejected at the moment once getting to the house of lords, did you find any more info on it or was it just hear say kind of thing. (The middle one you was on about)

Saying all that though I do think that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the benefit system but personally I think the first emphasis needs to be on the 'workshy'. I also think that there should be a cap as to how many kids they give out benefits for.

 

[feeble]

I agree, the workshy and the terminal 'sickies' NEED addressing...

Also the fact that if you are in a family with one member working, you are often poorer than you would be on benefits!

These measures JUST seem to attack SAH parents though, I suppose its hard for them, to pass laws without seeming immoral, personally i would not give out benefits unless proof of birth control could be provided, be it the injection, the implant etc.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

I agree, the workshy and the terminal 'sickies' NEED addressing...

Also the fact that if you are in a family with one member working, you are often poorer than you would be on benefits!

These measures JUST seem to attack SAH parents though, I suppose its hard for them, to pass laws without seeming immoral, personally i would not give out benefits unless proof of birth control could be provided, be it the injection, the implant etc.

Yes me and OH was talking the other day and we actually worked out that we would be better off for him to be out of work. That just isn't right.

I have 3 children and am entitled to tax credits but I still do think it should probably be capped at 2.

 

[Blah11]

i assume the tax credit but is ctc, not wtc but other than that, i dont think theyre a bad thing tbh.

 

[Blah11]

whats the difference between the government paying for childcare, and the government assisting families so that one parent can stay at home?

It is a fault of our economy, surely, that one person working at a decent wage (say the national average) cannot support a parent and children?

Does forcing both parents into work and giving suppliments so the children can be cared for by a stranger really help? Surely that is just diverting the money that was going to the stay at home parent and instead giving it to a childminder?

It just seems nonsensical to me...

because working parents give back to the economy with tax, ni and whatever their job is and the nursery/childminder pay tax too.

 

[feeble]

I would say working mothers put just as much back into the economy... if i was to be paid for looking after your kids and you were paid to look after mine, how would that be helping anyone?

its just stopping mothers from looking after their own kids! I dont see any benefit in that! If the childminder is just paying money that has been given to her by the government in vouchers, whilst someone else looks after her kids because otherwise she cannot afford them, how is that okay?

we should not have a society reliant on everyone being seperated!

 

[Blah11]

because they need to pay tax... you dont pay tax for looking after your own children, you do if its someone elses.

 

[feeble]

But surely if that tax is only coming from childcare vouchers which the government have paid, its actually just recycling nothing in order for one woman to not look after her own kids and instead have to look after someone elses?

Complete chop logic...

It only wouldnt be if the mother was earning substantially more than it cost for childcare, and that would be unlikely unless she was a skilled worker (in which case she would probably be working anyway) or in the case of only one child.

In the case of more than one child, you would be working all day for nothing, to look after children for other people... all which would be paid for by childcare vouchers... rather than just helping working families keep one family member at home (which also makes more sense due to the huge job shortage...)

 

[Blah11]

i didnt really understand your last post tbh.


im just fed up of jeremy kyle type people literally sponging. does my head in how an entire family (mum, dad, grandparents, uncle, auntie) ALL are on some form of IS or jsa

idc if the mum has small children but when theyre at primary they have no excuse (unless they convienently have 4 kids all 4-5 years apart lol)

 

[feeble]

Oh i am Totally with you, but forcing 2 parents from every family into work will not help that, if anything it will hinder it... we already have a problem with there being 2 high wage earners in many families which means the cost of living is astronomical and those who are on the lowest amount of money, being unable to get a decent, realistic job because if your not on LOADS there is no point x

We need to work out how to make it more even across the board and that would be there being one high wage earner per family, rather than getting everyone doing jobs (which honestly would be just looking after each others kids, because there arent any other jobs... especially ones that fit in around school etc)

Mostly we need to make working work for people, and stop allowing not working to work for people x

 

[Thumper]

I'm with Blah, if a parent goes to work then they are putting into the economy. Feeble, you're going on the assumption that every parents wants to stay at home. Lots of people like going out to work, for various reasons. And the more that do, the more taxes paid. That's how a country's economy works. Also the choildcare would provide jobs thus creating more money through tax.
I'm not saying every parent should work, I don't. But then I don't use benefits either.

 

[feeble]

but this would force every parent to work, nothing i have suggested would force people to stay at home, i can totally understand why a high income earning parent would want to be out at work, but expecting every parent to work is totally against what really needs to happen

 

[Thumper]

But they're not expecting every parent to work! We aren;t on a high income. In fact it's probably considered in the lower brackets. But we live to our means. In the current economic climate with borrowing being so high because people haven't been living to their means we need to instill a work ethic again. Or at least teach people the value of money. We don't actually need lots of money to live well. Maybe having theirbenefits capped people will either take this on board and cut their spending on luxuries, or they will take a part time/full time job.

It's not like the government are forcing people into the workhouse!

I definitely think it should be capped at 2 children though. God knows why it isn't already.