Question Time

[Albion Dan]

You've never been entitled to/claimed Child Benefit? I thought that was available to everyone (all twenty quid a week of it)?

Tax credits and child benefit are two different things. The latter used to go to everyone but now actually only goes to households where the biggest earner is on less than £40k even if the only family income. If two of you earn £39k you still bizarrely do though. That was the coalition that was.

 

[Winker]

The Waynetta test:-

If a teenage single mother of more than one child (that are not twins, triplets etc.), who is not divorced or widowed, who has rarely or never worked, who will not name the father(s) of their children, then they should not receive a penny of state aid after the first child. Simples.

 

[Zebedee]

The Waynetta test:-

If a teenage single mother of more than one child (that are not twins, triplets etc.), who is not divorced or widowed, who has rarely or never worked, who will not name the father(s) of their children, then they should not receive a penny of state aid after the first child. Simples.

I'm not sure I'd even pay for the first one. Having children is a personal choice and is not something the state should fund in any way.

 

[Berty23]

You NEED a car when you have children. Interesting.

Living where I do (Warwick) it is cheaper to have a car than use public transport. I actually work and so does my wife (two days a week with one being Saturday). I am not skint by any means but many people will not be as fortunate and having twins could cripple them financially.

 

[Winker]

I'm not sure I'd even pay for the first one. Having children is a personal choice and is not something the state should fund in any way.

I'm allowing them the benefit of the doubt on the first one - they might be too thick to understand how they became pregnant.

 

[Berty23]

I'm not sure I'd even pay for the first one. Having children is a personal choice and is not something the state should fund in any way.

Do you really believe that?

Close schools now. If parents want kids they should all pay for schooling.

In fact as I have kids I am not often out after dark so I don't want to pay for street lights which other people benefit from so turn them off.

I have not called the fire brigade out so stop paying them too.

It is called society. If the middle classes stopped having kids do you want your pension paid by kids from workless households? Or would you rather a little help to society now to gain down the line.

Pay as you go on all services I say.

 

[Zebedee]

Do you really believe that?

Close schools now. If parents want kids they should all pay for schooling.

In fact as I have kids I am not often out after dark so I don't want to pay for street lights which other people benefit from so turn them off.

I have not called the fire brigade out so stop paying them too.

It is called society. If the middle classes stopped having kids do you want your pension paid by kids from workless households? Or would you rather a little help to society now to gain down the line.

Pay as you go on all services I say.

What I meant was that parents should not receive a regular (and significant) weekly payment from the state just because they have decided for personal reasons to have a child. Schooling etc is rather different I think. If scrapping child benefit is too draconian, it should be limited to one child and families whose combined income is less than £30K. My neighbours freely admit that they save up most of their child benefit each year to pay for family holidays, cars and Xmas presents and that they don't actually need it and this seems to me to be morally wrong at a time when disability/support payments for many deserving cases are being cut.

 

[ditchy]

I'm not sure I'd even pay for the first one. Having children is a personal choice and is not something the state should fund in any way.

This

 

[Bozza]

What I meant was that parents should not receive a regular (and significant) weekly payment from the state just because they have decided for personal reasons to have a child. Schooling etc is rather different I think. If scrapping child benefit is too draconian, it should be limited to one child and families whose combined income is less than £30K. My neighbours freely admit that they save up most of their child benefit each year to pay for family holidays, cars and Xmas presents and that they don't actually need it and this seems to me to be morally wrong at a time when disability/support payments for many deserving cases are being cut.

I agree entirely, and I say that as part of a family that has lost/will lose (when does it happen?) child benefit. It's archaic.

 

[Simster]

There will always be winners and losers when benefits are dished out. You can always argue either way as whether they should be given out or not. What is abhorrant to pretty much everyone is when people abuse the system that has been decided upon and use the welfare net as a lifestyle choice. In all honesty, I don't know what can be done about this without a major cultural change. It needs to be deemed unacceptable amongst all people to do this, including the underclass that indulge in it.

In the meantime, SURELY there needs to be some maximum level of benefit that can be claimed. I liked the coalition's idea that benefits would always be under the average income, whatever the circumstances of the claimant.

 

[Berty23]

What I meant was that parents should not receive a regular (and significant) weekly payment from the state just because they have decided for personal reasons to have a child. Schooling etc is rather different I think. If scrapping child benefit is too draconian, it should be limited to one child and families whose combined income is less than £30K. My neighbours freely admit that they save up most of their child benefit each year to pay for family holidays, cars and Xmas presents and that they don't actually need it and this seems to me to be morally wrong at a time when disability/support payments for many deserving cases are being cut.

Personally I think it would be much better to means test all the stuff retired folk get. My dad is 66 and still works earning 40k a year. This is topped up by his full naval pension and income from rent on properties. He probably has shed loads in the bank. Nevertheless he gets a free bus pass and winter fuel allowance. Does he need this more than families going on holiday (which can be enriching educationally too). He must be due tv license soon too.

This overlooks the fact that many old people are sat in massive houses which mean the market is distorted.

Changes to all This will never happen because old people all vote.

 

[Zebedee]

Personally I think it would be much better to means test all the stuff retired folk get. My dad is 66 and still works earning 40k a year. This is topped up by his full naval pension and income from rent on properties. He probably has shed loads in the bank. Nevertheless he gets a free bus pass and winter fuel allowance. Does he need this more than families going on holiday (which can be enriching educationally too). He must be due tv license soon too.

This overlooks the fact that many old people are sat in massive houses which mean the market is distorted.

Changes to all This will never happen because old people all vote.

But if you are going to means test benefits, is it really fair to target retired folk who will have spent their lifetimes, in many cases, working and paying taxes and arguably are more deserving of freebies that some young people who simply make a lifestyle choice, often at a very early age (and not having worked or paid taxes), to have a child to secure accomm/benefits etc? A difficult conundrum I agree.

 

[Berty23]

I should make it clear not all folk should get child benefit but the way the government proposed to do it was idiotic. Based on whether one income over 44k. You lose it if so. Couple could earn 86k and keep it. This has now been revised but could still be better.

 

[Zebedee]

I should make it clear not all folk should get child benefit but the way the government proposed to do it was idiotic. Based on whether one income over 44k. You lose it if so. Couple could earn 86k and keep it. This has now been revised but could still be better.

I agree. Ultimately, I think we should be doing everything possible to link benefit payments to "genuine" need, that is not self-created. The trick, of course, is how best to do this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

In all honesty, I don't know what can be done about this without a major cultural change.

All the time there is high unemployment we give people the perfect excuse for a life on benefits. So, first, get unemployment down. Second, create real and decent jobs with some form of progression and pride attached. At the moment there seems little out there apart from minimum wage jobs in retail and to be perfectly honest if I was offered a life of long days for £7 an hour in a chain retail outfit or a life at home I'd take the later no question. And the answer is not to cut benefits to force people into a low paid souless job. The answer is to offer people the type of work I suggest. Remember Osborne said he wanted a 'march of the makers'.....well start f***ing marching Gideon. And this will lead to the cultural change you desire Simster.

 

[Bozza]

I should make it clear not all folk should get child benefit but the way the government proposed to do it was idiotic. Based on whether one income over 44k. You lose it if so. Couple could earn 86k and keep it. This has now been revised but could still be better.

In fairness, to implement almost any system which most might perceive as 'fair' could cost more than the savings that are going to be made. For example: how do you define a couple?

In most cases, it's straight forward of course. But are two parents who have separated, but still live under the same roof due to inability to afford another home, a couple?

Also - how do you assess income? Again, for a lot of folk, who receive regular salaries it is straight forward. But what about those who are largely paid on performance in the form of bonuses and/or commissions, where pay can vary wildly both month-to-month and year-to-year?

As [MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION] says - there are always likely to be winners and losers, but I doubt many would argue that chucking some cash at people who have had a child, whilst performing no means testing at all, is the right thing to do.

 

[Simster]

All the time there is high unemployment we give people the perfect excuse for a life on benefits. So, first, get unemployment down. Second, create real and decent jobs with some form of progression and pride attached. At the moment there seems little out there apart from minimum wage jobs in retail and to be perfectly honest if I was offered a life of long days for £7 an hour in a chain retail outfit or a life at home I'd take the later no question. And the answer is not to cut benefits to force people into a low paid souless job. The answer is to offer people the type of work I suggest. Remember Osborne said he wanted a 'march of the makers'.....well start f***ing marching Gideon. And this will lead to the cultural change you desire Simster.

I disagree. There will always be £7 an hour jobs that need doing, you can't pretend there won't. Do we really want to import workers to do these jobs AND pay for the people who prefer a life of benefits instead of doing these jobs themselves?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I disagree. There will always be £7 an hour jobs that need doing, you can't pretend there won't. Do we really want to import workers to do these jobs AND pay for the people who prefer a life of benefits instead of doing these jobs themselves?

Of course there will always be £7 jobs which need doing. I was not suggesting there will not be. But our economy has a disproportionate number of these types jobs. My point is that for huge swathes of the currently unemployed this type of work is the only option. Some might be tempted by it, but others will not be. I personally wouldnt. If you want to move people off of the couch give them options, hope and progression and, in the main, only offering long days at minimum wage in a supermaket is not the way forward. Some might be inspired by this, others will be inspired by making something. We need a mix of employment options, this is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Do we really want to import workers to do these jobs AND pay for the people who prefer a life of benefits instead of doing these jobs themselves?

You cannot force someone to work, you have to encourage them. If someone does not want to one of 'these jobs' what do you then do? You either cut their benefits or maybe ask yourself what is it they want to do. I believe that the vast majority of people do want to work but we need, as a nation, to offer a real mix of employment opportunities to get most people off the couch. If a mix of jobs and employment opportunities are on offer and people still prefer to sit on the couch then you can start pointing a finger. Until this day arrives I will not.

 

[User removed 4]

You cannot force someone to work, you have to encourage them. If someone does not want to one of 'these jobs' what do you then do? You either cut their benefits or maybe ask yourself what is it they want to do. I believe that the vast majority of people do want to work but we need, as a nation, to offer a real mix of employment opportunities to get most people off the couch. If a mix of jobs and employment opportunities are on offer and people still prefer to sit on the couch then you can start pointing a finger. Until this day arrives I will not.

You really, really can, it's the prevalence of this sort of attitude amongst some people that has led to the Jeremy Kyle , benefit addicted generation.