I don't know how much childcare is round your way, but my wife will be looking at working full-time for about a twenty quid a day. She'll probably do it as well, but I can understand why a lot people wouldn't want to.

Either way it doesn't affect me as we'll still be getting it. Self employment FTW!

Yep. I've got a 2 year old boy.
My wife works 3 days a week at an admin job. Earns enough to pay childcare and a bit extra to go towards bills.

That's cheap childcare or well paid admin!

Childcare is about £55 a day at the nursary we use.

I can understand that some people won't want to work for £20 a day but if you're not willing to put the effort in to get money then why should you expect it to be given to you by the government?

We chose to have a child and we understood that it would cost us money & the wife wouldn't have a lot left over from her wages after childcare costs but we thought about that before we had him.

Likewise, but it doesn't stop the money being useful. And, as I've been saying, it would be easier for people to take on the chin if it weren't for families with more money than them still getting it.

I still don't get it. I don't understand how people who earn good money are expecting hand outs for free!

No I wouldn't.

However, in these financial conditions, I'd count myself lucky not to be receiving a 100% drop in income


I don't it as remotely fair or just that parents get benefits merely for having children.

Nobody forced anybody to have children. Parents either chose to have them or to not take adequate precautions to prevent them. They should have thought about the consequences beforehand.


In which case they don't have to accept the pay rise.


Yes.

Because the children are my fault and nobody else's.

It's quite simple. I would have chosen to share my income - I cannot then moan that my income is shared.

i have read all the thread and augments for and against

all benefits should be means tested and i mean all benefits regardless
benefits are there to help aid and support they are not a god given right
that would also stop a lot of fraud and a life long benefit culture
i also believe that full benefit should be paid for a maximum of 2 years after that it should be reduced by 10% per year until it hits a 50% minimum benefit payment and that includes all paid benefits (there are exemptions, disabled, carers etc)

working parents regardless of income should be able to have schools available for child care
this child care can be charged for by that school as extra income for that school
the infrastructure for this is already in place

universal benefits have gone well past there sell by date
so a new system will evolve maybe better maybe worse, i just don't know until its tried and tested
but i know this, the whole system needs to change.

but i also believe that this should be based on total household income as opposed to a single earners income
unless of course you are a single earner within a single parent household earning above the threshold
the fair way is not always the easiest way ...

I refuse to believe the fraud rate for universal benefits is anything approaching the rate for means tested benefits - by its very definition the former can be claimed by anyone! On a quick side note - the billions of pounds lost to benefit fraud is severely dwarfed by the figure lost through corporate tax avoidance. Priorities and all that.

I also don't agree with reducing benefit payments - it seems all well and good if there are actually jobs available but in an economic situation such as the present one, there's no guarantee of a job at all and to reduce someone's income may well push them into crime or homelessness.

The welfare state is far from dead, and should it ever die then British society will have gone backwards, not forwards.

Quite.



But it isn't for free .. is it? Higher rate tax payers are not expecting anything for nothing. That is the whole point. They are actually paying IN more than most. Please don't get into an idea that those paying tax on 50k a year are having child benefit paid for by those on 15 grand a year. It is a nonsense concept.



I have taken a 10% pay cut. My wife has taken a larger pay cut than that.

I really find it hard to feel lucky given that scenario.




Well that is another argument altogether. Like it or not, if people stopped having children the country would have a massive financial crisis as workers started to retire with no-one then able to replace their tax income. Or maybe we could just import all our workers?
Most of us DO think about the consequences of having kids. But I base my decisions on the information that is available at the time. Maybe - if I had your crystal ball, I would have made different decisions.



LOL great argument.



I don't think anyone is moaning that it is shared, just pointing out that these 'Rich" people on 45K + probably, in many cases, have far less disposable income than most single people on 30k and are therefor less able to afford the effective tax rise.

Like it or not, this country can not operate without a steady stream of children being born. If you take away the tiny bit of help that one section of society gets, you are effectively discouraging that section of society from having kids. If the country wants to help those who have them either everyone should get it or no-one. In-fact, if you want to socially engineer in that way, you should be discouraging the section of society where the kids stand virtually no chance of being useful participants.

Didge

I smell....snobbery!

You know all those policemen, firemen, paramedics, nurses etc? Well, those utterly useless people tend to be blue-collar workers.

i live on a council estate and i know of at least 3 families (2 own there own homes) that there husbands/partners are not (virtually) living there
but they are

they are claiming benefits (and no, i am not a grass)
if people can claim it and get away with it, they will

move into the real world please ...

So your answer to that is to take benefits away from everyone? All aboard the failboat.

Where there's money, there's crime - there's a fact of life for you. As the behaviour you describe is a criminal offence, which can both be prosecuted now or when it's discovered in 10, 20 or even 50 years time then I don't see a problem with the system.

What's at fault here is you - if you're not happy with the behaviour you should be phoning the benefits fraud hotline. People get away with benefit fraud because other people like you let them.

not at all
just all benefits should be means tested, universal benefits are history
if you or yours, after means testing, are entitled to the benefit then that is the requirement of said benefit
for a term of 2 years after which it would be reviewed every year with a reduction of 10% unless you or yours are exempt ...

If anyone I knew was committing benefit fraud I'd be the first to call the police and let them know.