Further cuts to child benefits?

[brucemillar]

Sadly (depending on where you sit) there are people who are 100% prepared to work the benefit system rather than going out to earn a wage. I also know people who quite openly and happily will admit to that.

That is not to say they are a majority but they do exist. We now see some of these people complaining that they can't afford housing. No worries "affordable housing" is your friend. This can be built without all the usual regulations that are required by those who can afford housing (or a mortgage). The obscenity is that once again we are potentially rewarding those who chose to live on benefits at the expense of those who chose to go to work and pay tax.

Whichever way we cut it? We have a system in this country that allows you (should you choose to do so) to be housed, fed, clothed and looked after without ever having to get a job. We then reward those who do have a job by taxing them on everything that they earn and they spend. Work harder get taxed more. Stay at home see your benefits roll in.

 

[Mr E]

And I thought we lived in an enlightened society today!!!

Perhaps we (and today's politicians) should read the Poor Laws Royal Commission report written in 1832. Many similar views expressed in there.

Consider the case back then of one Annie Kaplan - widowed with 6 children, but only enough support given to keep 4 children. The option was to nominate two children to be given up to the orphanage, or get not support at all.

Whilst I admire the Victorians for many achievements, the curtailment of "outside relief" forcing persons into workhouses, forced labour in order to receive financial support (which essentially kept you in poverty anyway, and unable to get out of the workhouse) and societal demonisation of those in receipt of relief are not things to be proud of.

When you consider that the drivers behind there reforms (although done with an altruistic view) were the lack of fund due to massive military spending, migration of workers into towns (thus effectively raising the "poor tax" burden on city dwellers) and the ample supply of cheap labour (back then in the form of children) ensuring that many adults could not find work.

Any of that sound familiar today? Lack of government funds, migration of work force, availability of cheap labour - all forces in the market today. Back then governments didn't want to upset the industrialists (increase the cost of labour, etc) and so shifted the focus on what they deemed to be the crux of the problem - money paid out in poor relief.

It would seem that our modern-day reformers pay much heed to Malthus, Bentham, Ricardo, etc - economic reformers of the 19th century who seemingly had the same problems to overcome - without learning any of the lessons.

 

[Sp!ke]

I'll say again that I agree there should be a safety net and I am saying this as someone you was told only yesterday that my job is at risk and is now starting on a 30 day redundancy consultation process at work.. I have a mortgage to pay and mouths to feed and may find myself relying on this same safety net before christmas.

What I am talking about here is dealing with the tricky task of retaining the safety net whilst making it no longer feasable to elect for a life on benefits if you are a perfectly healthy and able bodied person.

In parallel, we need to ensure that choosing the path to work is more rewarding and will get you further in life than it would be playing the benefits system. In many cases, this is not how people find themselves today. Housing costs is key here as many would be low paid workers are trapped in the benefits system due to high housing costs.

 

[st4]

Nothing to do with the loss of millions of jobs in our heavy, mining, manufacturing and other industries then ?

Nothing to do with allowing the City and big business free reign to create massive wealth for themselves and cause economic chaos for the rest of us then ?

Nothing to do with squeezing public spending and benefits whilst cutting top rate tax then ?

C mon Scott are you trolling.

You don't believe all that wishy washy left wing everyone deserves a hand out stuff?

 

[Scott_F]

C mon Scott are you trolling.

You don't believe all that wishy washy left wing everyone deserves a hand out stuff?

Why is "trolling" now the word of the week ?

By "trolling" do you mean am I merely disagreeing with you ??

And nowhere have I stated that "everyone deserves and handout".

 

[Bellow]

Lol. I see it with my own eyes up here in Glasgow and overheard a scummy couple talk about how they'll get a bigger "hoos aff the cooncil" when the 2nd wean popped out

And the smaller house will be liberated for others. Where's the problem?

A growing underclass is forming due to financially incentivised breeding and it needs stopped, now.

This talk of a ''growing underclass'' being so by choice is utter rubbish - as if they've chosen poverty and are ''breeding'' strategically for economic advantage.
The ''growing underclass'' you fear have no such choices. Look closer and see people so lacking control of their lives they lack the feat of contraception. Breeding for financial gain? No - breeding out of drunken stupidity. Address that before starving everyone in genuine need of income. And don't be surprised to find their behaviour is what it is precisely because they have nothing else to do - such as a job.

What is becoming noticable is the growing family size of some, particularly those of a cultural/religious leaning toward large families. Nothing wrong in this as such, but councils abondoning good (but small) properties as no longer suitable dwelling because of this is wasteful nonsense. A plentiful supply of good small housing suitable for plenty others at a time when housing is at a premium is being overlooked on an assumption that a new family unit of six plus strong is the only requirement that need be catered for. This in itself creates antagonism toward larger families.

While the above is a little off-topic for the thread, it is a fact that the poorest become scapegoats for all the benefit issues while those who peddle poor policies go unquestioned.

 

[Dryce]

Without some help, most people who are born poor will stay that way. Even with help, most will stay poor but let's at least try to level the playing field a little bit.

A growing underclass has been forming due to the policies of successive governments producing an ever-wider gap between the better-off and the poor.

The benefits system is hardly new.

It doesn't - in its established form - appear to be actually solving the problem if it is growing.

So basically a whole load of money gets spent to little (or possibly even negative) effect. That has to be questioned.

 

[Dryce]

While the above is a little off-topic for the thread, it is a fact that the poorest become scapegoats for all the benefit issues while those who peddle poor policies go unquestioned.

I think this overstates what some of us are saying.

The issue is whether the benefits system causes parts of society to adapt to it. It's no different from pointing a finger at the bankers and suggesting that the deregulation caused them to adapt in ways that had consequences to their corporate culture.

Just because people are designated vulnerable or poor doesn't mean the policies shouldn't be fundamentally questioned in terms of actual strategic benefit to society *as a whole*.

 

[markjay]

This has a lot to do with social acceptance.

In the olden days being a single mother (or even just an unmarried woman), or long-term unemployed, was frowned upon. As was for a child to be born out of wedlock. As result fewer people fell into this category, and those who did endured great hardships.

We now think it is unfair on these people that we stigmatise them in this way. We accept them and say that there is nothing wrong with their predicament. And we help them through the state benefits system.

This means that single mothers, long-term unemployed, and children without proper families will have a normal life like everyone else. However this also has the undesirable effect of actually encouraging some people to be that way.

It is very difficult to find the right balance. What we really want to say is that everyone should build families and work for their living. If they can't do that, we won't let them suffer too much, but we won't encourage it either.

The question is, how to achieve this.

 

[Bellow]

I think this overstates what some of us are saying.

The issue is whether the benefits system causes parts of society to adapt to it. It's no different from pointing a finger at the bankers and suggesting that the deregulation caused them to adapt in ways that had consequences to their corporate culture.

A small minority surely. And no more greedy than some of the bankers you allude to's behaviour. The economic collapse is costing me more than mere unemployment ever did. The same collapsed economy that created a housing bubble that is at the source of concerns re benefit payments. Let's face it, those doing well out of this are the landlords in (indirect) receipt of housing benefit. They milk the system more than an impoverished with a need for shelter.

Just because people are designated vulnerable or poor doesn't mean the policies shouldn't be fundamentally questioned in terms of actual strategic benefit to society *as a whole*.

Agreed, and within that questioning we may ask 'what would happen if benefits were cut such as to lead to more crime and social unrest?' and 'why don't we invest in real employment creation?'.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

This has a lot to do with social acceptance.

In the olden days being a single mother (or even just an unmarried woman), or long-term unemployed, was frowned upon. As was for a child to be born out of wedlock. As result fewer people fell into this category, and those who did endured great hardships.

We now think it is unfair on these people that we stigmatise them in this way. We accept them and say that there is nothing wrong with their predicament. And we help them through the state benefits system.

This means that single mothers, long-term unemployed, and children without proper families will have a normal life like everyone else. However this also has the undesirable effect of actually encouraging some people to be that way.

It is very difficult to find the right balance. What we really want to say is that everyone should build families and work for their living. If they can't do that, we won't let them suffer too much, but we won't encourage it either.

The question is, how to achieve this.

Encouraging people into work is the key, showing them the personal benefits and pride that goes hand in hand with having a job and paying your way in life.

You don't achieve it by sneering headlines that then become self-fulfilling and taking away a safety net for those who need it most; children.

 

[Gollom]

... was told only yesterday that my job is at risk and is now starting on a 30 day redundancy consultation process at work..

Sorry to hear this Spike - just escapedredundancy 48 hours before the end of my consultancy period. Was 6 months here though (originally 3 months but extended to 6 months when they realised they had bit off more than they could chew!)

I may not always agree with your views but would like to wish you good luck and good fortune in escaping the noose

 

[Sp!ke]

Ahh... just been given the chop 20 minutes ago.

I shall try to remain philosophical about it.

 

[Harrythedog]

Ahh... just been given the chop 20 minutes ago.

I shall try to remain philosophical about it.

Very sorry to hear that Spike, extremely bad news. Hope you get sorted ASAP

 

[markjay]

Ahh... just been given the chop 20 minutes ago.

I shall try to remain philosophical about it.

Sorry to hear that. A new opportunity will turn-up soon.

 

[Sp!ke]

Lets hope they give me a ton of money and I stumble on a new job in a couple of weeeks.

 

[WesLangdon]

I think a lot of people feel the same way as Sp!ke way but are afraid to say it. It kinda needs saying though, don't ya think?



If it involves ethnic minority parents & a culture creating disabled children from inbreeding within a gene pool limited to a village in the home country, then perhaps you are right.

Do you include all cousin marriages in that statement as it applies equally well to Mr. & Mrs Windsor-Mountbatten.

 

[Scott_F]

Encouraging people into work is the key, showing them the personal benefits and pride that goes hand in hand with having a job and paying your way in life.

But as others have said, how do we achieve this ?

Much of the low-paid, unskilled work that is available pays little more than the benefits system once housing benefit, council tax benefit and child benefit have been added to the jobseekers allowance. And let's not forget that these benefits only provide what the government deems to be the minimum level of money required to sustain people.

When you then factor in the cost of travel and of childcare for working parents then a lot of jobs simply become uneconomical to undertake.

Further, many jobs at the low-end of the scale are part-time or offer no guaranteed hours per week and so those that take them may find that they are actually a lot worse off some weeks and that the tax credits system takes weeks to catch up with this shortfall (if it catches up at all).

No one can deny that for too many people benefits are a lifestyle choice but there are many other factors at play which mean that for many people benefits are their only choice to maintain even a minimum living standard.

 

[stevieb15]

Lets hope they give me a ton of money and I stumble on a new job in a couple of weeeks.

I sincerely hope that happens and you have my wishes to that end... However if you were told yesterday you are in a consultation process and given the result today, I'd suggest you get some professional advice as plainly the "consultation" is a farce.
There are many employment lawyers around, some good others not so much, if you want the details of one of the former send me a PM.
In the meantime good luck and good hunting.
Steve

 

[Palfrem]

Ahh... just been given the chop 20 minutes ago.

I shall try to remain philosophical about it.

Sorry to read your news. If it's any consolation Spike, I know exactly how you feel. Crap!. All you can do is brush off the CV and see what's out there.