On 6 Feb 2013 at 7:56pm the old mayor wrote:
Is everyone happy to take a cut in Child Benefit ? Whilst under EU Agreement immigrants who live and work here can claim Child Benefit for the children who remain at home in the mother country. Cost to us approx £15m. If I went to work in Poland would I get Polish Government money to send to my kids at home ?
On 6 Feb 2013 at 8:14pm Billionaire wrote:
That's right, fight amongst yourselves plebs, the winner gets my crumbs, but only so long as you keep creating wealth for me.
On 6 Feb 2013 at 9:28pm Banker wrote:
15 mill? That's peanuts! You should see my bonus.
On 6 Feb 2013 at 10:04pm maggiemoo wrote:
if children not born here and dont live here....... no child benefit, simple.
On 6 Feb 2013 at 10:20pm Danny wrote:
Can someone pls xplain the cuts
On 6 Feb 2013 at 10:24pm Danny wrote:
what's the problem with our money from the UK going to other parts of Europe. The ricker countries need to help the poorer ones. I think that policy is absolutely fine. I'm sure if we work say in Poland their government would pay for our kids in the UK. That is how the EU works.
On 6 Feb 2013 at 10:52pm Local wrote:
Can someone please explain why people who elect to have children should receive taxpayers money, whether they need it or not?
Seems like a pre-election bribe that never ended...
On 7 Feb 2013 at 7:33am Sussex Jim wrote:
Local, if you do not have children, who is going to look after you in your later years? Doctors, shopkeepers, bus drivers,etc.- they will all be younger than you, and other people's children.
On 7 Feb 2013 at 2:44pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Jim, I'd be far happier sponsoring college courses for doctors and nurses than chucking money at people who have kids they can't afford. Contraception is free these days so there's no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy in most cases and I would suggest that if you're already reliant on hand outs from the government to support yourself, having a baby is irresponsible at best.
I'm not against supporting people who have kids, I just think universal child benefit is a really silly way to do it. Spend the money on childcare support so parents can get back into work quicker and on education and training schemes so their kids grow up with some employment prospects themselves.
On 7 Feb 2013 at 3:08pm Local wrote:
Judging by the current workers in your suggested jobs across much of the country Jim, it'd be people from abroad.
I'm not saying that no-one should have children (although a separate thread on vetting prospective parents would be good fun).
On 7 Feb 2013 at 3:25pm bastian wrote:
Local, if you really want to know the roots of universal child benefit it was set up by Barbera Castle after the war because she realised that many women, even of well earning husbands were not recieving money to keep their kids from those men and were in poverty within the marriage. It used to only be payable to the woman so that they always had enough to feed/ clothe their children. In later years, in the name of equality it could be claimed by either the father or the mother. Women are still the underpaid and mostly rearers of children and the benefit can be an absolute life line, even if their partners are earning 35K or more, they are often earning much less.
On 7 Feb 2013 at 4:30pm Local wrote:
Thanks for that. The last sentence reinforces the view that it should be a means-tested benefit now.
On 7 Feb 2013 at 7:03pm Boris wrote:
Careful Old Major your wandering into Bigot territory with this post.
SQ will not like this at all and will, as we speak, be anxiously flicking through old copies of the Guardian to find a poll which will prove that the vast majority of people in this country our quite happy with 15 million of our tax pounds being sent to Poland.
On 7 Feb 2013 at 8:05pm Sussex Jim wrote:
My comment was basically directed at people who take the view "I do not have children, so why do my taxes go to support them."
I am basically against child benefit. But if a couple decide to have children, to provide the next generation, they need some support during the years when only one partner works. It should be limited to two children, though. If you want more, fine if planned- but at your own expense.
I am certainly against irresponsible single young women who become pregnant without the father making any contribution, and who go on to get a free council flat.
On 8 Feb 2013 at 3:52pm bastian wrote:
sadly sussex jim there are statistics to disprove even that, most single mothers are over thirty and had children with a father who wandered off for someone younger without a baby belly. this is daily mail headline stuff again, please read a more informative paper. women don't get pregnant on their own, drag the boys up and educate them in responsiblility.
On 8 Feb 2013 at 6:22pm Boris wrote:
More Guardian Stats me thinks.
On 9 Feb 2013 at 9:54am bastian wrote:
and of course there are those scroungers who are left with children when their wife/husband dies. They are also single parents.
On 9 Feb 2013 at 9:56am bastian wrote:
it is, of course the tarring with the same brush that is the problem. People become in need of financial assistance for reasons out of their controll, it could be you, it may suporise you that you might need the sfety net one day, so let's keep it.
On 9 Feb 2013 at 6:07pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Bastian, the over-30, professional mothers you're talking about would surely receive money from their kids' fathers through CSA payments? Also, child benefit isn't something that kicks in when someone needs it, it's a blanket benefit that everyone who pops out a sprog gets, be they already a benefit-dependent serial scrounger or a couple on £40,000 a year each. Nobody suddenly needs the "safety net" of child benefit.
On 10 Feb 2013 at 2:50pm bastian wrote:
All this discussion about benefits disguises and sets asunder the real problems this country has with tax avoidence by the rich. It is a far greater problem than universal child benefit.
If you are a white working male you probabley won't need any safetey nets until you lose your job, womens lives are not as simple as that, theyare more likely to need a safety net and these days they pay more into the coffers than they used to in the 1960s when it was less exceptable for women to work. They do, however, earn less than men on average and have interupted careers because of children and elderly relatives needs.
Not everyone is earning £40k or even £50k. How soon before you only have to have £10k to be eligable, can you raise children on A fraction over that?