# Benefits.... which one is the correct one?



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on the amounts people should get compared to what they do get.

I am going to give some examples, and see if you can guess the right one.

Now the example i am giving you is based on someone renting privatly (because the waiting list take forever for social housing), in a reasonable area but not the best.


Demographics

single dad = 37yo
child 1 = 5 
child 2 = 6

Rent = £795 for a 3 bed property, the only one in the area at the time that would accept dss money.

c/tax - taken out of his benefits before he recieves them
electricity and gas = £85 a month
food/nappies/toiletries/clothes = £350 a month
bus pass = £40 a month
phone/tv/internet = £40 a month

TOTAL: £1310

Now... guess which is his income from benefits?


(ps... before people ask this isnt my own example, this is from a friend. Mine varies from this because i am studying and because my son is disabled).

His example is a standard single parents in the uk who is currently not working. His youngest child has just this term started full time at school (phased entry) and he is actively seeking work as we speak.

Here is a hint... max housing benefit award available to him in this area is £140 a week


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

he probably gets the highest?


personally i want to see all child tax credits scraped. kids are a priveledge not a right... cant afford it dont have them. condoms are free at the health clinic.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

This is the reality of it BBM 

The issue with benefits is those who DEFRAUD the system not those genuinely in need and that is down to the Government to admistrate better not for the working community to pay for.

Most people on a middle income are about 3 months away from being in that situation if it all goes pear shaped for them due to job loss or illness.

Savings ??? Who the hell can save on a low or middle income 

Some of us did save by way of ISAs and Endowements not to mention Pensions and look where that got us  

I will say again There but for the grace of God go I .


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

nic101 said:


> he probably gets the highest?
> 
> personally i want to see all child tax credits scraped. kids are a priveledge not a right... cant afford it dont have them. condoms are free at the health clinic.


I think you have already posted this once.

What a sorry state we will all be in in our old age if everyone thought like that.

So now we are saying only the rich can have the "luxury" of children 

So if my OH loses is job who shall i hand my kids back to then


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

nic101 said:


> he probably gets the highest?
> 
> personally i want to see all child tax credits scraped. kids are a priveledge not a right... cant afford it dont have them. condoms are free at the health clinic.


he didnt ask to be a single dad. His wife commited suicide whilst suffering post natal depression! Before that he was working full time.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Yep rainy this is the reality of it. i shall wait for a few more votes though until i reveal his actual income from benefits!


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> he probably gets the highest?
> 
> personally i want to see all child tax credits scraped. kids are a priveledge not a right... cant afford it dont have them. condoms are free at the health clinic.


Then only very rich people will be able to afford them 

Not all children are planned, so should people have abortions/adpotion e.t.c because of mistakes condoms break, and the Morning after pill fails not everyone finds out early enough to do something about it.

child tax credit isnt for the parents its to stop child poverty (well meant to be apprently) they will have to give parents money another way, or people will quit there jobs as they wont be able to pay the very high child care fees (as tax credits can pay up to 80%) so there would be a higher drain on the benefit system and the goverment- yes i can totally see why tax credits should be stopped your a genius


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I think you have already posted this once.
> 
> What a sorry state we will all be in in our old age if everyone thought like that.
> 
> ...


They will have to go back were they came from


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I think you have already posted this once.
> 
> What a sorry state we will all be in in our old age if everyone thought like that.
> 
> ...


i did say that onceon adifferent thread and its still relevent on this,

not at all. I dont honestly think i will be able to afford kids, (and dont want them right now) but if i did and coludnt afford them quite honestly - tough,

No if people want kids - accounting for every possibility imo.

I was stating what i think - *people should not rely on benefits - thats my point.*

(take the idiot on the 20kj a year who pops out kids cause benefits pay for it all).....who picks up that bill? the likes of me - who wouldnt have kids unless *I* can affford them out of *my wage * ..... not other people (taax payers)



billyboysmammy said:


> he didnt ask to be a single dad. His wife commited suicide whilst suffering post natal depression! Before that he was working full time.


thats really sad.

My point still stands though - regardless of cicrumstances. I know someones whos partner has died and bringing up kids - not relying on child tax credits.

eta - earlier - stupid comment on sending kids back - im talking about now forward. grow up.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Daynna said:


> They will have to go back were they came from


OUCH! :yikes:


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Daynna said:


> They will have to go back were they came from


There are days when that seems like a good option :lol:


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

nic101 said:


> i did say that onceon adifferent thread and its still relevent on this,
> 
> not at all. I dont honestly think i will be able to afford kids, (and dont want them right now) but if i did and coludnt afford them quite honestly - tough,
> 
> ...


ok i get your point. now pop back onto your high horse and ride up to your glass house in the sky.


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

I have no idea but have made a guess.

All I can say is I wish my gas and electricity came to £85 a month for both


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> ok i get your point. now pop back onto your high horse and ride up to your glass house in the sky.


its called debating. Its not called 'insulting people'

give me a good argument on why people should get child tax credits...? Do people have a right to have kids and expect tax payers to cough up money? (whether they are paying or not)

dont insult me just because you cant come up with a good argument.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

westie~ma said:


> I have no idea but have made a guess.
> 
> All I can say is I wish my gas and electricity came to £85 a month for both


tell me about it! I honestly dont know how he does it! Mine is much more, but then my heating is on a fair amount for my son.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> i did say that onceon adifferent thread and its still relevent on this,
> 
> not at all. I dont honestly think i will be able to afford kids, (and dont want them right now) but if i did and coludnt afford them quite honestly - tough,
> 
> ...


You live in a dream world

Tax credits arent a benefit hence why WORKING people upto £62k can get them, Single people under £16.5k can get working tax credit to top up thier wages And guess what they pay tax aswell Just the same as you do so they are funding themselfs not you :thumbup:


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

Daynna said:


> You live in a dream world
> 
> Tax credits arent a benefit hence why WORKING people upto £62k can get them, Single people under £16.5k can get working tax credit to top up thier wages And guess what they pay tax aswell Just the same as you do so they are funding themselfs not you :thumbup:


im talking about *child* tax credits..... i shoudl have stated that more clearly.

tax credits im all for - people who work get wages topped up.... brilliant (i dont get it i work but im too young)


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Can we keep this thread civil, thank you


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

nic101 said:


> its called debating. Its not called 'insulting people'
> 
> give me a good argument on why people should get child tax credits...? Do people have a right to have kids and expect tax payers to cough up money? (whether they are paying or not)
> 
> dont insult me just because you cant come up with a good argument.


I am not convinced you understand Tax Credits. They are not a benefit they are a tax break, people have to be working to get them therefore they are contributing via the tax they pay on their earnings.

They ENABLE people to get off benefits and back to work thus costing the country less. Is that not a good enough argument.

If the average person waited until they could "afford" kids taking every scenario into consideration there would be very few kids born so where will all the tax payers of the future come from then ?????


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

I voted for £1380 - Whilst I agree that those who need help should get it esp for those that have worked who suddenly find themselves made redundant or lose a partner etc - the facts are that a lot of people get benefits just for having kids and imo that is wrong.

My OH's ex is a prime example - she has NEVER had a job and has two children - she lives in a 3 bedroom house - managed to go on holdiay 3 times abroad last year - bought them new laptops at christmas etc etc the list goes on - she also gets free prescriptions free dentist - but the children are now 11 and 14???? can she not go to work part time?? its these type of people who really get my goat!

I work full time managed to go abroad in 2008 - yes I have some nice things and yes I have laptop/computer etc but the fact is I EARNT those things - I often feel penalised as a working person.

There are far too many people who have children who rely on benefits ALL their life and imo that is wrong - it is not a crutch to hold u up indefinetly its to help u if you are struggling but this is where the system gets abused.


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I am not convinced you understand Tax Credits. They are not a benefit they are a tax break, people have to be working to get them therefore they are contributing via the tax they pay on their earnings.
> 
> They ENABLE people to get off benefits and back to work thus costing the country less. Is that not a good enough argument.
> 
> If the average person waited until they could "afford" kids taking every scenario into consideration there would be very few kids born so where will all the tax payers of the future come from then ?????


*child tax credits!!!!*

working tax credits - brill - they top up wages etc.... i know that lol!!! im on about child tax credits - people using them to have kids and expect the taxpayers to pay for their kids.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

nic101 said:


> *child tax credits!!!!*
> 
> working tax credits - brill - they top up wages etc.... i know that lol!!! im on about child tax credits - people using them to have kids and expect the taxpayers to pay for their kids.


OK so we are clear what do you mean by child tax credits. Do you mean the child benefit and/or the £250 one off savings payout ???


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> im talking about *child* tax credits..... i shoudl have stated that more clearly.
> 
> tax credits im all for - people who work get wages topped up.... brilliant (i dont get it i work but im too young)


The same thing goes though Families with an income of £62k can still claim child tax credit, hardly scrounging money from your tax are they?

The normal benefit system of NON workers needs a kick up the arse, But then so does the cost of child care which is extremely high.

So what will you replace child tax credit with then for working families?


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> OK so we are clear what do you mean by child tax credits. Do you mean the child benefit and/or the £250 one off savings payout ???


my point and then i completly give up lol.

was stating that i consider it wrong for people to rely on *child* tax credits in order to have kids (people do ive seen it first hand).... and so i think*child* tax credits should be scrapped.

*working* tax credits however are a good idea for people (who work) to top up their wages - i know this varies on the amount of hours you do.... (i dont get this as i have to be 25)? So im all for that.

As for the £250 in which parents get when they have a child - im 50/50 i do think it should be scrapped if parents can use it there and then but if its for when the child reaches 18 thats a different story. I don t know enough about that aspect hence why im 50/50 with different views..

cleared up?


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I think the genuine people who need help to survive get targeted with the one"s that play the system.We have never had children and pay alot of tax I dont object to genuine people getting some of my tax but the ones who are still in bed when we set off to work and are sitting in the pub garden supping on a summers evening when we limp home yes I do


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

:scared:


Daynna said:


> The same thing goes though Families with an income of £62k can still claim child tax credit, hardly scrounging money from your tax are they?
> 
> The normal benefit system of NON workers needs a kick up the arse, But then so does the cost of child care which is extremely high.
> 
> So what will you replace child tax credit with then for working families?


62k who get taxed of 40% which is rediculous.

*child* tax credit should be scrapped completely. point has be made before.

and yes the whole benefit system needs a complete kick up the arse.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

nic101 said:


> its called debating. Its not called 'insulting people'
> 
> give me a good argument on why people should get child tax credits...? Do people have a right to have kids and expect tax payers to cough up money? (whether they are paying or not)
> 
> dont insult me just because you cant come up with a good argument.


as a single parent i found your posts insulting... so touche

Tax credits SUPPORT familys. Working tax credit by definition supports WORKING people. Child tax credit helps to support underprivaleged CHILDREN!

1 persons income today is unlikely to support the family unit, the cost of living rose massively the last 30 yrs. 30 years ago most grandparents were not working (especially grandmothers), so when mums sstarted going to work they had free childcare. A generation on and most grandmothers now are still working (my mother is), so childcare is sought outside the family. This costs astronomical amounts of money and supports other familys by providing employment!

Without children being born there will be no future. There will not be enough people to support our country. Who will be your doctor, your denstist, your checkout girl, your road sweeper, your hairdresser or your repairman?

Your attitude would mean that only 5% of the people in this country could afford (without RISK) to have children. People with enough savings to cover for the entirity childs life. Its completely unrealistic.

Without children what are we going to do with the people unemployed because of it? Teachers, nurses, doctors, dentists, opticians, nursery assistants, teaching assistants, school caretakers, toy manufacturers, pushchair manufacturers, etc etc etc. Shall we just round them up and shoot them? Saves on taxes after all.

Your attitude is more black and white than your sig pic! Not everyone (in fact the majority) of people on benefits are happy to sit and take from the system. Not every woman on benefits has decided to keep producing children until they hit the menopause, we are not all scum as you seem to think!

For the vast majority of familys and single parents, circumstances out of their control took over and they have ended up needing the support of the state and "your" taxes. Taxes that up until then many were contributing too!

I am truely grateful to live in a country that allowed me to continue to stay at home and raise my children, until such time that they were adjusted mentally to the changes and i was able to begin the path for a career that WILL support them for life, without benefits.


----------



## tafwoc (Nov 12, 2009)

Come on then, how much? Im inpatient as you can tell


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> as a single parent i found your posts insulting... so touche
> 
> Tax credits SUPPORT familys. Working tax credit by definition supports WORKING people. Child tax credit helps to support underprivaleged CHILDREN!
> 
> ...


When did i ever call anyone scum who has kids? thats just plain rude.

Note what i said above about *child* tax credits

i dont give a hoot about working tax credits as stated above.

I get naff all in help - i work and study, im heavily in debt - whos going to help me? myself!


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> my point and then i completly give up lol.
> 
> was stating that i consider it wrong for people to rely on *child* tax credits in order to have kids (people do ive seen it first hand).... and so i think*child* tax credits should be scrapped.
> 
> ...


No as you dont actually seem to understand the tax credits system.

A family of 4 on say £13k a yr can claim Child tax credit and working tax credit
A family of 4 on £25 k can claim child tax credit and poss working tax credit child care element 
A family of 4 on £55k can claim child tax credits But NO working tax credits.

Child benefit can be claimed by anyone who gives birth in this country or has children in this country 
The £250 for trust funds can be used for savings/shares and something else, parents can only add to it not take anything away


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

The trust fund scheme i am in agreement and it should be scrapped, it was nothing but a publicity stunt!

It cannot be used by the parents, it can only be accessed by the CHILD once that child turns 18. Parents howver can add to the savings from their own pockets.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

nic101 said:


> my point and then i completly give up lol.
> 
> was stating that i consider it wrong for people to rely on *child* tax credits in order to have kids (people do ive seen it first hand).... and so i think*child* tax credits should be scrapped.
> 
> ...


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

Daynna said:


> No as you dont actually seem to understand the tax credits system.
> 
> A family of 4 on say £13k a yr can claim Child tax credit and working tax credit
> A family of 4 on £25 k can claim child tax credit and poss working tax credit child care element
> ...


im saying scrap child tax credit and keep working tax credit..........

and yes that would mean working people get help and those who arnt dont *waits for it*



billyboysmammy said:


> The trust fund scheme i am in agreement and it should be scrapped, it was nothing but a publicity stunt!
> 
> It cannot be used by the parents, it can only be accessed by the CHILD once that child turns 18. Parents howver can add to the savings from their own pockets.


I read at one point that parents were spending the money now? lol mightbe wrong....

Again - i dont know enough on it so i wont agree nor disagree on tha tpoint/


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

nic101 said:


> im saying scrap child tax credit and keep working tax credit..........
> 
> and yes that would mean working people get help and those who arnt dont *waits for it*
> 
> ...


its in a savings account that can only be opened by the named child on or after their 18th birthday, never before.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

nic101 said:


> im saying scrap child tax credit and keep working tax credit..........
> 
> and yes that would mean working people get help and those who arnt dont *waits for it*
> 
> ...


Without wishing to be rude i am not sure you do understand how it works which is why maybe there are crossed wires here 

All of these things are designed to support children so if you remove them ultimately it's the children who will suffer :frown:


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> nic101 said:
> 
> 
> > Thankyou  I just suddenly thought we might be talking at crossed wires which was causing a problem.
> ...


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

the poll results are proving interesting!

So nic...


for my friends example...

whats the soloution?

Kids go into care? and still cost the tax payer? Purely because at the moment he cannot afford to support them alone, although he is trying to find work.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> OK so we are clear what do you mean by child tax credits. Do you mean the child benefit and/or the £250 one off savings payout ???


Rainy I don't really understand this stuff and google isn't helping, can you explain a couple things to me? Is child benefit different to child tax credits, and how do child tax credits work? ie. do you get a little bit of money or do you get a slightly lower rate of tax on things etc?

Sorry I really don't get it but would like to be able to understand it more, and you seem to understand and be good at explaining this stuff 

I understand the view of if you suddenly lose your job and so does your OH and it looks like you wont get work for a very long time its probably not a good idea to get pregnant asap and rely on the little money available. But at the same time a couple could have one child, the woman get pregnant and then they both lose their jobs. Even if they have savings, they will only go so far.

My parents had one child and one on the way when they moved here, had everything they needed and a small mortgage, plus £11,000 in savings, this was in about 1989 ish time. They lost all of the £11,000 and my Dad worked full time for the NHS and saw private patients for 2.5 hours every weekday and did paper work all day Saturday at work too. They got really badly caught out, but I would have thought they could have afforded kids. They were doing better than most and my parents waited until they were 28 to have my brother because by that point they had managed to get a house and have some savings and be more stable, but they still got caught out  Surely that shows things never work out perfectly, no matter how many precautions you take?


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Without wishing to be rude i am not sure you do understand how it works which is why maybe there are crossed wires here
> 
> All of these things are designed to support children so if you remove them ultimately it's the children who will suffer :frown:


I think my point is more how i feel the system sholud be changed

like; working tax credits for those only who are working (incentive)

cut child tax credits for everyone - working or not....

like i said before - its a decision to have kids not a right - cant afford them then dont have them.

... and i do get why people are worried.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

yes child benefit is different.

child benefit is given to EVERY child regardless of income.


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> the poll results are proving interesting!
> 
> So nic...
> 
> ...


course they shouldnt go into care lol.

Nothing he can do except get a job. (yes i know easier said than done).... go back to college- uni - get qualifications while he looks for a job.

.... i know i cant get a good well paid job (i do work now and have worked everyday since i was 16).... hence why im at uni. and the recession dosent help... education in a recession imo is the way to go.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> RAINYBOW said:
> 
> 
> > glad we are back ontrack and everyone is getting my point lol
> ...


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> Rainy I don't really understand this stuff and google isn't helping, can you explain a couple things to me? Is child benefit different to child tax credits, and how do child tax credits work? ie. do you get a little bit of money or do you get a slightly lower rate of tax on things etc?
> 
> Sorry I really don't get it but would like to be able to understand it more, and you seem to understand and be good at explaining this stuff
> 
> ...


Ok Child benefit - Payable to every child born, you get less for each additional child you have

Working tax credits - to cover up to 80% of the cost of childcare for working parents

Child tax credits - an additional sum of money paid to people on earnings of up to approx 60K. The less you earn the more you get. This replaced the old "married mans tax allowance" as a fairer system and is more of a tax break than a "benefit" but recognises the different types of "family" we have nowadays.

EG someone earning £20,000 can claim 80% childcare costs plus an additional amount monthly to support that low income. Bear in mind a childminder costs on average £200 per week per child you can see how this helps people consider work who couldn't have done previously.

£250 one off payment - payable to all children on birth regardless of parents income but must be paid into a "savings scheme" and cannot be accessed until the child is 18 and the money belongs to the child not the parent.

I think thats right anyway


----------



## Cazza1974 (Sep 23, 2009)

I am now a single parent after my relationship ended with the girls father last year. I am actively seeking work and yes I am in receipt of benefits.
I get money for the girls and money for myself to live on.
By the time I have paid ALL my bills I am left with very little. If child tax credits were to be scrapped then we wouldn't be able to survive. And I mean that literally as most of the money I get for the girls goes on groceries, heat,electricity and water rates.
And as for a holiday? Forget it! I am lucky if I can afford a day trip to Scarborough (About an hour away from here)
It is not that I don't want to work it is that there is very little work around here. I applied for a part time post last week. It is ideal for me and I was approached by the company. I have everything crossed that I will get an interview but I doubt it!
It makes me feel inadequate sometimes that I can't provide for my children the way I would like to.
I would love to be able to say to one of them "Yes" when they ask for something in a shop.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

nic i understand your frustration at the people who have children JUST to get the money involved. There are some people like that, and who continue to have children just to stay on benefits but the vast vast majority of people are not there through choice, but through circumstance. Given the short term support they need most of us will be able to get back on our feet fully and support ourselves (and others through our taxes).

NB: Income support and all its supporting benefits (housing benefit, higher rate child tax credit, free prescriptions, council tax benefit etc) ALL stop once the child reaches 7 years old. They stop because it gives a family (when needed) enough time to raise their children through the toughest years, and to give them the time to find the right career to support themselves.

The point of me doing this thread is to show its not as rosey on benefits as people seem to assume. Everyone (without direct experience) assumes that the amount given is much much more than it actually is. I'll wait a while longer before posting the results.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

nic101 said:


> course they shouldnt go into care lol.
> 
> Nothing he can do except get a job. (yes i know easier said than done).... go back to college- uni - get qualifications while he looks for a job.
> 
> .... i know i cant get a good well paid job (i do work now and have worked everyday since i was 16).... hence why im at uni. and the recession dosent help... education in a recession imo is the way to go.


So who looks after his kids while he is at Uni :

I charge £200 per week per child as a childminder.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2010)

nic101 said:


> course they shouldnt go into care lol.
> 
> Nothing he can do except get a job. (yes i know easier said than done).... go back to college- uni - get qualifications while he looks for a job.
> 
> .... i know i cant get a good well paid job (i do work now and have worked everyday since i was 16).... hence why im at uni. and the recession dosent help... education in a recession imo is the way to go.


A lot easier said than done when you have small children to care for.
What happens when one is ill, as happens often when they first start school


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

Daynna said:


> nic101 said:
> 
> 
> > How can you have an issue with something you dont seem to understand? should "child" tax credit for working families go on the their working tax credits then? As child tax is worked out on wages for working families the working family on £25k a yr might get £30 a week to help them out, they wouldnt be able to work anymore hours or afford the extra child care to do overtime, but they would be worse off by £30 a week if you scrap child tax credit hardly fair to a working family is it?
> ...


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> nic i understand your frustration at the people who have children JUST to get the money involved. There are some people like that, and who continue to have children just to stay on benefits but the vast vast majority of people are not there through choice, but through circumstance. Given the short term support they need most of us will be able to get back on our feet fully and support ourselves (and others through our taxes).
> 
> NB: Income support and all its supporting benefits (housing benefit, higher rate child tax credit, free prescriptions, council tax benefit etc) ALL stop once the child reaches 7 years old. They stop because it gives a family (when needed) enough time to raise their children through the toughest years, and to give them the time to find the right career to support themselves.
> 
> The point of me doing this thread is to show its not as rosey on benefits as people seem to assume. Everyone (without direct experience) assumes that the amount given is much much more than it actually is. I'll wait a while longer before posting the results.


im seeing everyones points. agree and disagree with some....

intresting they stop (and surprising).

i know its not all rosy on benefits... however for some it is - does my nut in when people dont work -live off benefits - pop a few kids out and afford horses too (honestly...) and this is choosing to stay on benefits so slightly diffferent.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

nic101 said:


> course they shouldnt go into care lol.
> 
> Nothing he can do except get a job. (yes i know easier said than done).... go back to college- uni - get qualifications while he looks for a job.
> 
> .... i know i cant get a good well paid job (i do work now and have worked everyday since i was 16).... hence why im at uni. and the recession dosent help... education in a recession imo is the way to go.


Which is what i am doing, studying towards a vocational degree, but i am a few years off qualifying.

Ive been a single parent for 2 years. Once i start uni (2 more years before that) all the benefits stop, income support stops, housing benefit stops (because income support does).

I will be living on a tiny bursary (lower than income support and thats another debate entirely ), and child tax credits. Those same credits you want to remove. IF you remove them, then i cannot study at all. I will end up in a low paid job having to rely on the state for handouts to forever support my children. I am better than that, and I can prove it, we just need the leg up first.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> course they shouldnt go into care lol.
> 
> Nothing he can do except get a job. (yes i know easier said than done).... go back to college- uni - get qualifications while he looks for a job.
> 
> .... i know i cant get a good well paid job (i do work now and have worked everyday since i was 16).... hence why im at uni. and the recession dosent help... education in a recession imo is the way to go.


how would he pay for his child care? how could he afford to get to these places, pay for the courses e.t.c if child tax credits were stopped

im not sure how much job seekers is £40-50 a week? thats not going to get him very far is it with two children to feed and cloth whilst paying for buses (which arent cheap either) to get to interviews or getting to college/uni


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Which is what i am doing, studying towards a vocational degree, but i am a few years off qualifying.
> 
> Ive been a single parent for 2 years. Once i start uni (2 more years before that) all the benefits stop, income support stops, housing benefit stops (because income support does).
> 
> I will be living on a tiny bursary (lower than income support and thats another debate entirely ), and child tax credits. Those same credits you want to remove. IF you remove them, then i cannot study at all. I will end up in a low paid job having to rely on the state for handouts to forever support my children. I am better than that, and I can prove it, we just need the leg up first.


Im currently 7k in debt - i will be 18k in debt in 2 years time. i live off nothing per month - i couldnt support a child.

mabey people do need a leg up i do see that (vicious circle though remove benefits - stay on low paid job - keep benefits have an opportunity to do better etc)....

What if child tax credits were removed.? Without being rude (and not aimed at quoted poster) what then? whos job is that to find whats happens next...?


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> Daynna said:
> 
> 
> > But thats my point. People i know (personally) cant afford to have kids - so dont have them! harsh but true. same for me - if i cant afford them i wont have them
> ...


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

Daynna said:


> nic101 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but what about the child who are already born? They should suffer for people who dont want to better themselves or get a job?
> ...


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Its catch 22 nic!


Keep tax credits and allow people to study or work whilst supporting them during thier tough times. 

The point about sickness is a good one. My son has been hospitalised 7 times in the last 12months. He has had over 20 different consultant appointments at hospitals. My daughter has been to a&e once (got a bump on the head in school), both had swine flu, daughter sent home with nits, daughter sent home with snuffles, son sent home numerous times with bad chest, both have had norovirus. In total the two kids have had over 60 days sickness... not many employers would be happy with that.


Remove tax credits and children starve, end up in care and cost the taxpayer much much more.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> Daynna said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know the answer to that.
> ...


----------



## Milly22 (Sep 15, 2008)

Yikes I could not live without my CTC.

I split up with husband last year and unfortunately became very unwell so had to go onto Incapacity Benefit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax, my children are 10 & 5, (6 tomorrow) and at the time of having both of them I was financially secure, how can anyone foresee what can happen in the future. I am sure CTC were not around then, although I cannot remember.

I am thinking the man doesn't get as much as some people would think.


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

BBm yeah it is catch 22...

im notgoing to repeat my thoughts again but i do honesly think they should scrap the Child tax credits *not* working tax credits.

there are a lot of benefits out theres as it is..

and yes its easier for me to say as i dont have kids (i might do one day) but im looking at it as an outsider.

obviously if i had kids it may be differnt i do see that. however for now no. views still stand


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

mellowma said:


> Yikes I could not live without my CTC.
> 
> I split up with husband last year and unfortunately became very unwell so had to go onto Incapacity Benefit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax, my children are 10 & 5, (6 tomorrow) and at the time of having both of them I was financially secure, how can anyone foresee what can happen in the future. I am sure CTC were not around then, although I cannot remember.
> 
> I am thinking the man doesn't get as much as some people would think.


Happy birthday for your lil un tomorrow!

CTC wasnt around, neither was working tax credit. There used to be family credit and family allowance which was paid at a static rate, without supporting anyone actually trying to get back into work. The new system works well imo.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

nic101 said:


> BBm yeah it is catch 22...
> 
> im notgoing to repeat my thoughts again but i do honesly think they should scrap the Child tax credits *not* working tax credits.
> 
> ...


Trust me everything changes when you have children even things you dont want to change


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

right off to do some housework and finish preparing dinner before picking up my daughter. Will pop back later with the results!


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Ok Child benefit - Payable to every child born, you get less for each additional child you have
> 
> Working tax credits - to cover up to 80% of the cost of childcare for working parents
> 
> ...


:thumbup: thanks I get it more now!

I think its good nursery costs are more affordable this way as they aren't cheap. Something like x amount of hours per week at nursery can be covered by gvmnt funding, can't they? Lady I know and her OH have a farm and do well for themselves and have a little boy, but they are just as grateful for the nursery hours they don't have to pay for as those who struggle to afford them, they really appreciate it 

My Grandma is someone who disagreed heavily with any child benefit/type of tax credit but to be fair I think a lot of people from her generation can have that kind of orthodox view. Up to £60,000 on earnings is very generous as well. Even if taxpayers money didn't go on supporting those with lower incomes and who struggle a little financially, I still think the buggers would tax us the same amount, at least its going for something more worthwhile than other things.

My Mum earns a very good salary but has always taken child benefit/tax credits as far as I know. At the end of the day she pays something like £12,000 per year in tax so I don't see much wrong with her having a bit back. I know for the few who have tonnes of kids and do their best not to work it isn't like that, but I like to think there are less people like that about, and more who do work and genuinely need a bit of support.


----------



## Milly22 (Sep 15, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> Happy birthday for your lil un tomorrow!
> 
> CTC wasnt around, neither was working tax credit. There used to be family credit and family allowance which was paid at a static rate, without supporting anyone actually trying to get back into work. The new system works well imo.


Thank you. I didn't think they were around back in them days!


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I can remember when I was a child there were no benefits at all my dad lost his job my mum had to go to work and it was awful dont think my mum earnt much but I did"nt understand why they argued all the time,our water was cut off because the bill had"nt been paid and mum used to get stuff from the milkman to feed us but then had to pay for it at the end of the week which started all over again the next week,I would hate any kids to have the childhood I had, a little help sometimes goes along way,there will always be people that should"nt get so much but why should others suffer because of them


----------



## Milly22 (Sep 15, 2008)

My mum could make one tin of soup go between 3 of us! Still to this day she waters it down. I refused to eat my dad watered down custard the other day. yuck!


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Some people really do make stupid comments aye 

I voted number 3, I have no clue about benefits  Am I right?


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

Daynna said:


> Trust me everything changes when you have children even things you dont want to change


unlikely i will ever have kids - i like life as it is lol.



sequeena said:


> Some people really do make stupid comments aye
> 
> I voted number 3, I have no clue about benefits  Am I right?


guess thats aimed at me then


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

OK my personal take on it is this.

Scrap the £250 it was a gimmick.

Leave Working tax credits (the one that simply pays for childcare costs) but up the threshold to 30K as i think it would encourage more people back into work. Without question this benefit gets people who want to work back to work. Sorry but *noone *is going to work for nothing. Given 2 choices 1) Earn no money but stay at home and look after my kids or 2) Go to work and then hand all my dosh to someone else so they can look after my kids, you cannot have a go at people for chosing option 1).

Reduce the earnings for child tax credits down to 40K.

Remove child benefit for anyone earning more than 80K.

*BUT *i also want to see the defecit reduced by making the banks pay back the bail out instead of continuing to take obscene bonuses and i want a fairer tax system on businesses where the "Big Boys" aren't allowed to write all their profits off as "Investment Capital" so they sidestep the tax :thumbup:

If there are sacrifices to be made we ALL need to be making them (excluding from that the sick, elderly and poor)

Yes people will fiddle benefits, always have always will but you cannot run a fair society by focussing on that sector of society.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

This is where I'm a bit more with the Tories in that everyone should get something. I think Child Benefit and Child Tax credits should be available to every single person with kids no matter what they earn, just on a sliding scale where the values could be as wide as anything.

The Tories said with EMA they think every single student should get something if its to stay in place, and I agree with that which is where I side with them on the idea of everyone should get something. Its probably the one thing they came out with that I agreed with, to be honest. But I think everyone should be entitled to something, especially seeing as those on higher incomes pay so much more tax anyway.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> This is where I'm a bit more with the Tories in that everyone should get something. I think Child Benefit and Child Tax credits should be available to every single person with kids no matter what they earn, just on a sliding scale where the values could be as wide as anything.
> 
> The Tories said with EMA they think every single student should get something if its to stay in place, and I agree with that which is where I side with them on the idea of everyone should get something. Its probably the one thing they came out with that I agreed with, to be honest. But I think everyone should be entitled to something, especially seeing as those on higher incomes pay so much more tax anyway.


But the problem at the moment is we have a real financial crisis in this country. There is no "fat" therefore what there is needs to be targeted at those most in need IMO 

It is difficult because i would hate to see people penalised who have saved hard and then hit hard times but my social conscience still sais you give to those who have the least.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

nic101 said:


> guess thats aimed at me then


You guess right :thumbup:


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

sequeena said:


> You guess right :thumbup:


grow up and contribute something helpful :thumbup:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

nic101 said:


> grow up and contribute something helpful :thumbup:


Hur hur :thumbup:


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> But the problem at the moment is we have a real financial crisis in this country. There is no "fat" therefore what there is needs to be targeted at those most in need IMO
> 
> It is difficult because i would hate to see people penalised who have saved hard and then hit hard times but my social conscience still sais you give to those who have the least.


I think EMA should be looked at more carefully, because 75% of people at my school who get it (most on the £30 a week) lie to get it, and if parental earnings were actually checked like for student finance, even if they just matched the records up, they would save over £2700 a week from my school alone, and that's only about 120 people in the entire sixth form, many schools here have more. Bearing in mind they also get £150 each per pupil if they do well in their exams in January, June, then the following January and June too. I think we are at school about 40 ish weeks a year altogether so that means a saving of £135,000 roughly per year, just if spent the time to ask for genuine tax records and didn't go on what people state.

I don't really see why they are stopping the 1% increase of NI which I would have thought wasn't a big difference. Plus, if they cap child benefit and child tax credits now, I think it would be very unlikely to be reintroduced.

I could say why bother upping the non taxed income to £10,000, why can't it wait until we are out of this crisis and then up it when we can afford it etc. I just don't see that they are that actively trying their best to scrimp and save in this country and I don't think they will try as hard as they could, hence I don't think this would make much difference overall. Its not the main reason behind the problems we have, and so I don't see why it needs to be changed right now.

Of course you have to give to those who have the least first, but I just don't think its fair those who work their socks off for what they get, should be stripped of the little they do get for their kids, when they are also the ones likely to see the biggest income tax increase if there is one. Not sure how the tax credits work, but child benefit is standard for every family with kids, so I don't think its fair to strip the higher earners of it when they are going to lose more money from income tax, I suspect.

I just think everyone should be able to have something no matter how small, like they do with the child benefit. There are a *lot* of instances where I have missed out because my Mum earns £1000 too much. What they don't take into account, is that she has three kids and is a single parent. The student loan company, scholarships available etc don't take any of that into account :nonod: Damn being in the awkward place, my lot always get stuck here :laugh: It just feels so unfair to miss out by such a tiny amount, and it feels unfair that my friends take £30 a week but I can't have it because my Mum and me wouldn't lie to get it. I just feel from that, how cr*p it is being the one who just misses out, which is why its always a bit iffy where the caps are placed, I think?


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

Some people will take advantage of the system, with any benefits. I know someone who live abroard and claims Incapasity benefit and DLA. Do I blame them as an individual... no because the government allow the loop holes. So because a few people who abuse the system should we stop DLA, and prevent those who need and use the money wisely from recieving financial help??? 
Unfortunatly nothing in life is black and white.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> I think EMA should be looked at more carefully, because 75% of people at my school who get it (most on the £30 a week) lie to get it, and if parental earnings were actually checked like for student finance, even if they just matched the records up, they would save over £2700 a week from my school alone, and that's only about 120 people in the entire sixth form, many schools here have more. Bearing in mind they also get £150 each per pupil if they do well in their exams in January, June, then the following January and June too. I think we are at school about 40 ish weeks a year altogether so that means a saving of £135,000 roughly per year, just if spent the time to ask for genuine tax records and didn't go on what people state.


They don't check?  I had the £30 anyway but my friend just missed it and she struggled through college. If only she'd known!


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

sequeena said:


> They don't check?  I had the £30 anyway but my friend just missed it and she struggled through college. If only she'd known!


No they don't 

Parents have to declare how much money they earn and in some cases post off some forms but there are ways around it. The way my lot do it is they pretend their parents are divorced and only use the lower earning one's income. Most of my friend's Mums only work part time and so get under the £20,000, even though some of their Dad's earn over £60,000 

I mean even with university people do it. My Mum earns £50,000 and my Dad £35,000. So I could use his income, pretend I live with him and get £1900 extra that I wouldn't have to pay back. But I wouldn't do it because I don't live with my Dad, I live with my Mum and I don't think I could cheat the system like that  Damn morals 

ETA: as an EMA example..! My ex boyfriend's parents were very well off. Holiday apartment, nice cars, own lots of businesses etc. They had £49,000 per year coming in from the rent of two properties alone, let alone the business they got from the two business they ran (which I worked in one of). Altogether they brought in over £130,000 per year. They diddled tax as well, but my ex got the full £30 a week because they lied. Its too easy to do and it makes me jealous that I'm poor :lol:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> No they don't
> 
> Parents have to declare how much money they earn and in some cases post off some forms but there are ways around it. The way my lot do it is they pretend their parents are divorced and only use the lower earning one's income. Most of my friend's Mums only work part time and so get under the £20,000, even though some of their Dad's earn over £60,000


 That's quite sad really. I know when earning more money you usually have more outgoings (expensive mortgage/car etc) but surely they weren't THAT bad off??

Out of interest was any of the EMA going on their college work?


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2010)

If they get rid of my "CHILD TAX CREDIT" i will not be able to go to work and then will be unemployed!! So how is that going to help me?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Muriel May said:


> If they get rid of my "CHILD TAX CREDIT" i will not be able to go to work and then will be unemployed!! So how is that going to help me?


That's the crux of it for lots of people so how does that benefit our economy if you have to give up working


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2010)

RAINYBOW said:


> That's the crux of it for lots of people so how does that benefit our economy if you have to give up working


Yeh it doesnt even make sense, the unemployment is sky high at the moment and it will just get worse!!

I really hope they dont stop this.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I think the NHS might actually be safe, you know. I hope everything else like the benefits people need to afford childcare are safe too, I wish they would just tell us


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Muriel May said:


> Yeh it doesnt even make sense, the unemployment is sky high at the moment and it will just get worse!!
> 
> I really hope they dont stop this.


Personally i think you will be ok if your earnings are low. They are talking about including the zero tax on earnings under 10K the Lib Dems wanted which will be a big help.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I think they should cut back on some child benefits.Make the fathers that don't pay, pay for their ofspring.*


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

You might find this useful as a guide. 

BBC News - At-a-glance: Cameron coalition's policy plans


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

mellowma said:


> My mum could make one tin of soup go between 3 of us! Still to this day she waters it down. I refused to eat my dad watered down custard the other day. yuck!


That brought back memories and made me laugh. My dad used to do the same with custard, and he watered down tomato sauce, either with just water, or else vinegar, which turned the sauce into pink vinegar basically. I just hope we don't go back to those hard times again with a Tory government in charge.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> So now we are saying only the rich can have the "luxury" of children
> 
> So if my OH loses is job who shall i hand my kids back to then


Oh yes, because obviously having money means you are a much better parent, us poor people can't provide all the material possessions that guarantee your children lifelong happiness



nic101 said:


> its called debating. Its not called 'insulting people'
> 
> *give me a good argument on why people should get child tax credits...? Do people have a right to have kids and expect tax payers to cough up money? (whether they are paying or not)*
> 
> dont insult me just because you cant come up with a good argument.


Because this country is really expensive to live in


----------



## Sarah+Hammies (Jul 20, 2009)

Lulu's owner said:


> That brought back memories and made me laugh. My dad used to do the same with custard, and he watered down tomato sauce, either with just water, or else vinegar, which turned the sauce into pink vinegar basically. I just hope we don't go back to those hard times again with a Tory government in charge.


I remember my dad doing that with the tomato sauce!  who knows what else he used to water down!! :confused1:

The benefits system in this country is ridiculous!! My son is disabled and used to get DLA but now his condition is deteriorating they've stopped his money completely :confused1: no money = no car = he has to struggle walking to school in a lot of pain, either that or i have to carry him and hes not light!! and as for the numerous hospital/physiotherapy/developmental checks he has, it costs me a fortune just to get him the care he needs let alone my other 2 children (one of whom has recurrent seizures and also requires a lot of follow up care)

We were financially stable when we had our 3 kids but since then OH has lost his well paid job and has had to settle for minimum wage. Circumstances change, its silly to think that things will stay the same forever and to judge others by their circumstances right now is a bit closed minded.

Child tax credits i would be lost without! my hubby works and i am just about to start my nursing degree so that i can get a decent job to help support my family but whilst im doing my degree i will be living on a rather small bursary as well as my hubby's wages which is next to nothing.

What would i do without child tax credits? most probably stay at home with the kids as i wouldnt be able to afford childcare to go out to work. 
Tax credits are there as a leg up for people who are trying to better themselves and unfortunately some people take the p***

Id really rather not be labelled as a leech just because im trying to better myself and i find some of the comments on this thread to be quite harsh.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

sue&harvey said:


> Some people will take advantage of the system, with any benefits. I know someone who live abroard and claims Incapasity benefit and DLA.


That is legal if you live in/move to certain EU countries.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

OK

Time for the results.

His income is £1320 a month, his essential outgoings are £1310 a month, which leaves him a measly £10 a month for incidentals.

He doesnt live an extravagant lifestyle, doesnt waste money by peeing it up the wall, and budgets for everything (just like the rest of us poor people do). His parents pay for christmas and birthdays as he simply cannot afford to. He will be better off when he finds a job because working tax credits will help and will help with the childcare costs. His income would certainly be more than at present because of their help!



hope that maybe helps a few people rethink. Its not all about funding someones lifestyle to smoke drink take drugs and live a life of luxury.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

Nonnie said:


> That is legal if you live in/move to certain EU countries.


Sadly true, I just found it difficult seeing them go to the ATM and draw out more than I earnt in a month, while they also had Cash in hand work too. There are people who really need these funds to attend clincal appointments etc as Sarah+hammies said. if there is a way round people will find it, and ruins for those who rely on financial support.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Sarah+Hammies said:


> I remember my dad doing that with the tomato sauce!  who knows what else he used to water down!! :confused1:
> 
> The benefits system in this country is ridiculous!! My son is disabled and used to get DLA but now his condition is deteriorating they've stopped his money completely :confused1: no money = no car = he has to struggle walking to school in a lot of pain, either that or i have to carry him and hes not light!! and as for the numerous hospital/physiotherapy/developmental checks he has, it costs me a fortune just to get him the care he needs let alone my other 2 children (one of whom has recurrent seizures and also requires a lot of follow up care)
> 
> ...


very very well said. As a single mum of 2 with a disabled child (and having just gone through the absoloute nightmare of reapplying for his DLA) i know exactly where your coming from.

Stopping the tax credits will mean i cannot study and will either be forced to take a minimum wage job for zero gain and still having to take handouts, or to sit at home on my backside living off state handouts. Not much pride in either.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> OK
> 
> Time for the results.
> 
> ...


Excellent post, people can be quick to judge, we are on benefits since hubby lost his job & the newspaper I have read stories are utter tosh, or the people involved are on a serious scam. We don't have a car, television or Sky or anything else like these people have (all the money we get goes on food, bills, children & animals) so I don't know where the papers are getting their figures from


----------



## Sarah+Hammies (Jul 20, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> Excellent post, people can be quick to judge, we are on benefits since hubby lost his job & the newspaper I have read stories are utter tosh, or the people involved are on a serious scam. We don't have a car, television or Sky or anything else like these people have (all the money we get goes on food, bills, children & animals) so I don't know where the papers are getting their figures from


Exactly!! I know a fair few people who need the extra money to scrape by and not one of them wastes the money they get on **** and booze or other luxuries like sky+hd and it would appear that some people are way to quick to judge everyone by what they perceive to be the "norm"


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> OK
> 
> Time for the results.
> 
> ...


:thumbup: We all know there are spongers out there, I really don't think this thread is aimed at those scumbags.

The majority of people on benefits are good, honest people either living through rough times or are ill and need the help to SURVIVE.

I'd love to meet the person who tried to dictate to me if and when I can have kids  You'll get my foot right up your jacksey and if anyone is insulted by that then you probably deserve it


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> Because this country is really expensive to live in


what happened all those years ago when there were no benefits (or very little)

what did people do then?



billyboysmammy said:


> OK
> 
> Time for the results.
> 
> ...


i actually think thats a hell of a lot of money to live on.

even with kids. people with mortgages who work earn less than that.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

nic101 said:


> what happened all those years ago when there were no benefits (or very little)
> 
> what did people do then?


The cost of basic, proper, wholesome food has gone through the roof, people don't have allotments or gardens like they used to to grow their own food or raise chickens & other livestock, a hell of a lot of people starved to death or died of disease then, even as early as my dad's era (he was born during the war), if the safety net is taken away from those who need it most we will return to those times


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Makes you wonder how us "oldies" managed.*


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Makes you wonder how us "oldies" managed.*


My nan used to say this


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Makes you wonder how us "oldies" managed.*


Because they had to i suppose, after all they didnt have a lot of choice.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> Because they had to i suppose, after all they didnt have a lot of choice.


*Then why give new mums the choice? People keep saying how hard done by they are.pmsl i wish i had, had my kids in this society.:lol:*


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> My nan used to say this


Ime 48 and dont class myself as an "oldie" but when i stayed at home with my children we got nothing and didnt expect to it was something we never thought about because there wasnt anything. we planned our mortgage knowing one day i would finish work. When i think of my nan, life must have been so hard and i wouldnt like to think we would be back in those times with such hardship, but i do think for the not so genuine ones a "day in the life" would do them good.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Then why give new mums the choice? People keep saying how hard done by they are.pmsl i wish i had, had my kids in this society.:lol:*


TBH I don't feel hard done by, I'm thankful for what we have & if anything I feel guilty about having so much


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Then why give new mums the choice? People keep saying how hard done by they are.pmsl i wish i had, had my kids in this society.:lol:*


I agree. . . . . . . . . its an easy life now in comparison


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Well I don't think I've got an easy life


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> Well I don't think I've got an easy life


Why is that and i dont mean that funny at all ime just wondering why out of interest.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Makes you wonder how us "oldies" managed.*


Changing family fortunes: How Britain's household budgets have altered over past 50 years | Mail Online

*Please read this really interesting read, maybe some of this why families need help now, things are far more expensive so its hard to compair to how oldies managed*

It shows that the real-term spend has risen from £14.30 a week - £243 at modern values - to £456.

Council tax is now the fourth highest item of expenditure on the family budget.
By comparison, the rates - the local property tax paid in the Fifties - did not figure in the top 50 items on the budget.
The cost of transport has also soared.
It took up 8 per cent of family spending in 1957. Now the share is 16 per cent - four times as much in real terms.

When Harold Macmillan told the British people that they had never had it so good, he knew what he was talking about. With rationing only recently ended families might not have had that much in 1957, but they certainly knew how to enjoy what they had.

A comparative study of spending habits then and now shows that although, 50 years on, we earn more, own more and have the world at our feet thanks to cheap air travel, our lives are not nearly as much fun. Burdened by big mortgages, council tax and endless bills, today's families have to work harder in order to enjoy the simplest things of life.

Once 1950s families had paid the rent, they concentrated on spending their income on smoking, drinking and having tea out at the local café. Cigarettes were a mainstay of the weekly shop - the second most important item on the list, accounting for almost 6 per cent of weekly spending despite being a fraction of the price that they are today.

Eating out was also popular. "Meals away from home" were the third biggest item of weekly spending, accounting for a greater slice of household spending than they do today.

And 1950s families were no strangers to alcohol. Beer and cider ranked tenth on the household spending list. Once spirits were added, families were spending 3 per cent of their money on alcohol, a greater proportion than we do today.

The findings are part of the Office for National Statistics' Family Spendingreport, a one-off study to celebrate 50 years of the Family Expenditure Survey, which was introduced by the Government to chart changes in consumption after the end of rationing in 1954.

It shows that, despite our illusion that we live our lives in far more luxury than our grandparents, the harsh reality is that today's families are ground down by big mortgages and high rents, which now eat up a fifth of the weekly household budget, compared with just 8.7 per cent 50 years ago.

Once insurance, maintenance and water are added in, housing accounts for one quarter of all our spending.

But the dominance of factory farming, supermarket price wars and cheap food has also had a major impact on the home. In 1957, 30 per cent of spending each week went on food compared with just 15 per cent today.

Basics such as milk and chicken featured in the Top Ten items in 1957. These days, with some chickens costing as little as £5 for two, poultry does not even feature in the Top 50 items of our household expenditure.

Butter, eggs and sugar still enjoyed luxury status and each had their own separate entry in the top 50 of 1957.

But today's essentials - mobile phones and televisions - don't even figure.

We have so many more possessions that household insurance is today a major financial headache. All our spending on new technology also means bigger phone bills, mobile phone bills, car insurance and satellite and cable rental, which all feature prominently in 2006's shopping list.

Motoring and travel costs have risen from 8 per cent of the household budget in 1957 to 16 per cent in 2006, largely thanks to rising car ownership; three out of four households now own at least one vehicle.

Even gambling makes an appearance in 2006, with more spent at the bookies, both real and virtual, than on fresh vegetables.

Only when these bills are out of the way can today's families begin to plan their foreign holidays, which rank at 37 on the list of Top 50 items.

And the report shows that, because of our increased wealth, we are now much more divided than in the 1950s when few families had very much at all.

Nearly every household in the richest tenth of the population now has a computer and internet connection compared with just 21 per cent among the poorest.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> I agree. . . . . . . . . its an easy life now in comparison


I agree life is easier in many ways now but that goes for all "classes" in the system and in other ways the massive increase in the cost of living makes living harder for the less well off.

Why is it we are happy for the rich to get richer but the poor should be "grateful" for an improvement to their life or worse shoved back into poverty.

We are meant to be a progressive society.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Then why give new mums the choice? People keep saying how hard done by they are.pmsl i wish i had, had my kids in this society.:lol:*


I wish I had the society you had, I wish I COULD afford to be at home to take care of my children I would much rather be at home with them than be at work!!!!!


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Changing family fortunes: How Britain's household budgets have altered over past 50 years | Mail Online
> 
> Please read this really interesting read
> 
> ...


Thanks i was just trying to find something like that to show the difference.

There are also "social" differences that need to be considered too.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2010)

ClaireLouise said:


> I wish I had the society you had, I wish I COULD afford to be at home to take care of my children I would much rather be at home with them than be at work!!!!!


yeh hun i agree with you  x


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

I'll be honest me and my OH survive on less than that (ranges between £1100 and £1240 - it depends on if he works a Saturday night which he gets paid more for) but I do not feel as though these people should get less. They have CHILDREN. I don't and that's ok by me.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Thanks i was just trying to find something like that to show the difference.
> 
> There are also "social" differences that need to be considered too.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3267264.ece

I also found this

When Harold Macmillan told the British people that they had never had it so good, he knew what he was talking about. With rationing only recently ended families might not have had that much in 1957, but they certainly knew how to enjoy what they had.

A comparative study of spending habits then and now shows that although, 50 years on, we earn more, own more and have the world at our feet thanks to cheap air travel, our lives are not nearly as much fun. Burdened by big mortgages, council tax and endless bills, today's families have to work harder in order to enjoy the simplest things of life.

Once 1950s families had paid the rent, they concentrated on spending their income on smoking, drinking and having tea out at the local café. Cigarettes were a mainstay of the weekly shop - the second most important item on the list, accounting for almost 6 per cent of weekly spending despite being a fraction of the price that they are today.

Eating out was also popular. "Meals away from home" were the third biggest item of weekly spending, accounting for a greater slice of household spending than they do today.

And 1950s families were no strangers to alcohol. Beer and cider ranked tenth on the household spending list. Once spirits were added, families were spending 3 per cent of their money on alcohol, a greater proportion than we do today.

The findings are part of the Office for National Statistics' Family Spendingreport, a one-off study to celebrate 50 years of the Family Expenditure Survey, which was introduced by the Government to chart changes in consumption after the end of rationing in 1954.

It shows that, despite our illusion that we live our lives in far more luxury than our grandparents, the harsh reality is that today's families are ground down by big mortgages and high rents, which now eat up a fifth of the weekly household budget, compared with just 8.7 per cent 50 years ago.

Once insurance, maintenance and water are added in, housing accounts for one quarter of all our spending.

But the dominance of factory farming, supermarket price wars and cheap food has also had a major impact on the home. In 1957, 30 per cent of spending each week went on food compared with just 15 per cent today.

Basics such as milk and chicken featured in the Top Ten items in 1957. These days, with some chickens costing as little as £5 for two, poultry does not even feature in the Top 50 items of our household expenditure.

Butter, eggs and sugar still enjoyed luxury status and each had their own separate entry in the top 50 of 1957.

But today's essentials - mobile phones and televisions - don't even figure.

We have so many more possessions that household insurance is today a major financial headache. All our spending on new technology also means bigger phone bills, mobile phone bills, car insurance and satellite and cable rental, which all feature prominently in 2006's shopping list.

Motoring and travel costs have risen from 8 per cent of the household budget in 1957 to 16 per cent in 2006, largely thanks to rising car ownership; three out of four households now own at least one vehicle.

Even gambling makes an appearance in 2006, with more spent at the bookies, both real and virtual, than on fresh vegetables.

Only when these bills are out of the way can today's families begin to plan their foreign holidays, which rank at 37 on the list of Top 50 items.

And the report shows that, because of our increased wealth, we are now much more divided than in the 1950s when few families had very much at all.

Nearly every household in the richest tenth of the population now has a computer and internet connection compared with just 21 per cent among the poorest.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> His income is £1320 a month, his essential outgoings are £1310 a month, which leaves him a measly £10 a month for incidentals.
> 
> He doesnt live an extravagant lifestyle, doesnt waste money by peeing it up the wall, and budgets for everything (just like the rest of us poor people do). His parents pay for christmas and birthdays as he simply cannot afford to. He will be better off when he finds a job because working tax credits will help and will help with the childcare costs. His income would certainly be more than at present because of their help!


But benefits are intended to be enough to survive on when circumstances happen beyond our control - to put a roof over our heads and food on the table, not provide a good lifestyle. From your figures he does have enough to live on. And just for the record, I too have raised 2 children on my own on a below average salary. Not easy, no holidays, no extravagant xmas pressies, exhaustion from working hours around children as I couldn't afford childcare, had no family living near, so had to rely on favours from friends that I could repay in other ways. It's not easy - no one said life was, but I don't see why people should expect benefit to pay for anything but the necessities.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Muriel May said:


> yeh hun i agree with you  x


I can see why people would love to stay at home with their children, i would never have liked to have gone to work and left mine, when i had my first and finished work it was in 1987 there was nothing to claim so it does make me wonder how we managed then with all this talk of "having" to work and rely on tax credits, ok so the cost of living wasnt as expensive but the wages was far less than they are now.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> I can see why people would love to stay at home with their children, i would never have liked to have gone to work and left mine, when i had my first and finished work it was in 1987 there was nothing to claim so it does make me wonder how we managed then with all this talk of "having" to work and rely on tax credits, ok so the cost of living wasnt as expensive but the wages was far less than they are now.


Look at the percentages in the link, wages cover far less now days.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Then we spent it on ****, booze and food. Now it all goes on the mortgage - Times Online
> 
> I also found this
> 
> ...


I would say that was pretty accurate. Most of our money goes on the cost of living and i wouldn't say we have a "lavish" life at all. No luxury holidays, sky TV or designer clothes in this household. There ain't much left in the pot for luxuries at the end of the month and we are on well above the national "average" wage.

It does feel sometimes like life is tough when you are working hard just to "get by". I don't feel bitter but then i get to stay at home with my kids so i feel like that is the "sacrifice" and i can live with that. I would really struggle to not be bitter if i couldn't say that.


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Because they had to i suppose, after all they didnt have a lot of choice.


exactly - people these days have too much money thrown at them - why should hey work when they have benefits to live on?



JANICE199 said:


> *Then why give new mums the choice? People keep saying how hard done by they are.pmsl i wish i had, had my kids in this society.:lol:*


agreeed  (except the kids bit...) :lol:



rocco33 said:


> But benefits are intended to be enough to survive on when circumstances happen beyond our control - to put a roof over our heads and food on the table, not provide a good lifestyle. From your figures he does have enough to live on. And just for the record, I too have raised 2 children on my own on a below average salary. Not easy, no holidays, no extravagant xmas pressies, exhaustion from working hours around children as I couldn't afford childcare, had no family living near, so had to rely on favours from friends that I could repay in other ways. It's not easy - no one said life was, but I don't see why people should expect benefit to pay for anything but the necessities.


yep - and people are tkaing the p155 - they stay at home because they can....and tbh the government are stupid enough to give them money then they are gona take it - its not like your gona turn down over £1200 a monh!!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I would say that was pretty accurate. Most of our money goes on the cost of living and i wouldn't say we have a "lavish" life at all. No luxury holidays, sky TV or designer clothes in this household. There ain't much left in the pot for luxuries at the end of the month and we are on well above the national "average" wage.
> 
> It does feel sometimes like life is tough when you are working hard just to "get by". I don't feel bitter but then i get to stay at home with my kids so i feel like that is the "sacrifice" and i can live with that. I would really struggle to not be bitter if i couldn't say that.


we are the same here, we pay the bills and have very little left. My kids were always looked after by family while I worked untill recently and dont agree that people should make me feel bad by referring to claiming the childcare element we recieve(which is all we get) as a hand out that makes things easy as it does not make things easy I still have to leave the kids which I would rather not do. It allows me to go to work where I proved a worth while service to the community so who begrudges me a percentage of my child care paid? lol


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> we are the same here, we pay the bills and have very little left. My kids were always looked after by family while I worked untill recently and dont agree that people should make me feel bad by referring to claiming the childcare element we recieve(which is all we get) as a hand out that makes things easy as it does not make things easy I still have to leave the kids which I would rather not do. It allows me to go to work where I proved a worth while service to the community so who begrudges me a percentage of my child care paid? lol


You work in the care sector don't you Claire ?? Bet they won't begrudge you it when you are there caring for them instead of stuck at home on benefits


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

nic101 said:


> exactly - people these days have too much money thrown at them - why should hey work when they have benefits to live on?
> 
> agreeed  (except the kids bit...) :lol:
> 
> yep - and people are tkaing the p155 - they stay at home because they can....and tbh the government are stupid enough to give them money then they are gona take it - its not like your gona turn down over £1200 a monh!!


I would love to come back and have this debate with you if you ever do have kids.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Look at the percentages in the link, wages cover far less now days.


Yes ive just looked and i can see that, but the tax credits or child tax sorry dont know which one applies is supposed to be enough to get by and i know some young people that say they more than get by, so depends on how you spend it i suppose, well 23 yrs ago when i finished to have my first child we and many,many more at the time didnt just get by we struggled, but that was life as a young family, it was the norm and everyone just got on with it, the generation before me would thnk we had it easy, and the generation before them would say the same, it just seems with each generation they have more and the one after them will want that bit more. Thats life but some and i dont mean everyone seem to think its someone elses responsibility for them to have that little bit more.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> You work in the care sector don't you Claire ?? Bet they won't begrudge you it when you are there caring for them instead of stuck at home on benefits


Yeah I work with the District Nursing Service   I think somepeople are on there high horse too much sometimes, its easy for people to say they should cut certains things but its always things that dont affect them, let raise the tax on **** and booze to help close some of the counties debt    that would suit me and not effect kids


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

nic101 said:


> exactly - people these days have too much money thrown at them - why should hey work when they have benefits to live on?
> 
> yep - and people are tkaing the p155 - they stay at home because they can....and tbh the government are stupid enough to give them money then they are gona take it - its not like your gona turn down over £1200 a monh!!


Well, if you are ever in the position where life treats you like dirt & you have to feed & provide a home for your children I take it you wont be 'taking the p155' & asking for help


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> But benefits are intended to be enough to survive on when circumstances happen beyond our control - to put a roof over our heads and food on the table, not provide a good lifestyle. From your figures he does have enough to live on. And just for the record, I too have raised 2 children on my own on a below average salary. Not easy, no holidays, no extravagant xmas pressies, exhaustion from working hours around children as I couldn't afford childcare, had no family living near, so had to rely on favours from friends that I could repay in other ways. It's not easy - no one said life was, but I don't see why people should expect benefit to pay for anything but the necessities.


Not once have i said they should! 

My point was that alot of people seem to be under the assumption that the benefits of today provide that lavish lifestyle, as portrayed by the media. They most certainly do not. They provide enough to live on, end of!


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> Well, if you are ever in the position where life treats you like dirt & you have to feed & provide a home for your children I take it you wont be 'taking the p155' & asking for help


Yeh i would love for you to say all this when you have kids to feed and clothes to buy for them etc.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> I wish I had the society you had, I wish I COULD afford to be at home to take care of my children I would much rather be at home with them than be at work!!!!!


*Trust me Claire you wouldn't have wanted things the way they were.As my father use to say, "you made your bed now you lay in it"..Theew was no easy way out,unlike today.*


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Trust me Claire you wouldn't have wanted things the way they were.As my father use to say, "you made your bed now you lay in it"..Theew was no easy way out,unlike today.*


Is raising children ever easy though? There are new dangers for us parents to worry about & I think its very hard to raise children nowadays


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Why is that and i dont mean that funny at all ime just wondering why out of interest.


Basically because I don't get anything from anyone except my employers and if I can't afford something I don't get it. Same goes for Rupert, if I can't afford his food he wont have food. I wouldn't expect anything either and I know when my Dad walked out, the little my Mum got in child benefit and things didn't really cushion the blow. Sure I don't have kids yet, but I know for my Mum the few benefits available didn't help her out and she ended up more in trouble than when they lost all their savings in the late 80's early 90's.

You will all probably say I don't know what a hard day's work is or I still have it incredibly easy etc. The only money I have ever received I haven't used anyway, some would say I was entitled to that money anyway and that I should use it. But either way everything I have is what I've worked for except my bedroom in my Mum's house, which she currently lets me have rent free as I'm still in school


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Can I just say I dont think anyone here that is saying the benefit system is right, 
SOME People _do_ claim benefits thats shouldnt, 
SOME People _do_ have children so they dont have to work,
SOME people know _exactly _what they are doing and get everything they can, I just think its unfair that somepeople class everyone who claims any kind of benefits all the same. Some people work damn hard and do deserve a little assistance. It benefits everyone involved in the long run that families are supported and not left intil its a crisis situation then it would cost the state twice as much.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Trust me Claire you wouldn't have wanted things the way they were.As my father use to say, "you made your bed now you lay in it"..Theew was no easy way out,unlike today.*


What do you think really helps people though and makes it magically better? For most, I didn't think child benefit + child tax credits amounted to much? I also genuinely believe there are less 'good' people in the world and that does make it somewhat more difficult to live the life we would like to lead. I know I wont live the one I would have liked to.


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

I think also in todays society people are expected to HAVE more like your family should have more then one car, you should take long vacations, etc.

My parents divorced 8 years ago I think :confused1: 

My mom has slept on a pull out couch for the last 8 years so my brother and I can have a room to ourselves. I do share my closet with my mom but its a huge semi walk in closet.

When my parents first divorced we lived in a tiny two bed room apartment, with black mold in the cealing, and black mold covering the cieling in the bathroom (my mom would have to routinly scape it off), our roof was collasping, the windows werent fitted properly so in the winter time youd wake up to a snow covered floor. My brother bedroom window had two glass plates and the one on the outside was broken. Our rather large deck was rotting. I have no idea how my mom did it. Some weeks we would be scraping by with food.

As soon as I was 16 I got my first job. I then took on the responsiblity to buy everything for myself sometimes including food. I buy my own clothes, shoes, outdoor activities I took part in, class trips, school supplies, food, activites with friends, walk to and from work, did my homework on my own, did my own laundry, when I turned 18 and was still in school I was able to sign myself in and out of school if I was sick, make my own appointmets and took care of my school courses (which I royaly screwed up). I would even carry all my hockey equipment across town at times so I could play 

Im sure my mom wishes I didnt have to do all that on my own which is probably why she babies my brother.

I didnt get to take a vacation until I was 19, paid for out of my own pocket and travel nearly half way across Canada and through several french areas and I cant speak a bloomin word of french! Meanwhile all my friends had gone to all sorts of places, their families have several cars (while when my mom first got divorced she drove a car that she needed to carry and battery recharger with incase it died) we still only have one car (a focus). Some of my friends dont have to worry about doing stuff around the house to make everyday life work so are then able to focus completly on their schoo work (uni, college) so get great marks, were I got bad marks because I wasnt able to kick back and work on it.

If I had my choice we wouldnt even have cable, I maybe watch 4 hours per week if that, my mom doesnt watch tv she just knows how to turn it on, my brother is in love with cable. I dont have a cell phone either.

I do spend money on games tho one of my guilty pleasures in life.

I was surprised to get my income tax back as 1000$ :eek6: :eek6: thought they made a mistake.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Can I just say I dont think anyone here that is saying the benefit system is right,
> SOME People _do_ claim benefits thats shouldnt,
> SOME People _do_ have children so they dont have to work,
> SOME people know _exactly _what they are doing and get everything they can, I just think its unfair that somepeople class everyone who claims any kind of benefits all the same. Some people work damn hard and do deserve a little assistance. It benefits everyone involved in the long run that families are supported and not left intil its a crisis situation then it would cost the state twice as much.


Agreed!

There will always be member of society who just take take take.

But there are many many more who do not like being on benefits and are doing things to enable them out of the trap. Just like there are many who are already working and just getting that bit of support while their income doesnt match what has to go out.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> Is raising children ever easy though? There are new dangers for us parents to worry about & I think its very hard to raise children nowadays


*No it isn't easy.So what do new parents have to worry about that us oldies didn't?*


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Trust me Claire you wouldn't have wanted things the way they were.As my father use to say, "you made your bed now you lay in it"..Theew was no easy way out,unlike today.*


I would!!!, I would love to be at home with the kids trust me, I would care if we didnt have much money(wouldnt be much less than now anyways) we would get by and I would not miss important things with the kids which I have.
I think you underestimate how hard it is to work and have two children under 4 years old. Im not saying it to make people sorry for me, I agree I made my bed and I should lie in it, BUT can I just say I *pay* into the system so why can I have some tax assistance to help with child care???


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *No it isn't easy.So what do new parents have to worry about that us oldies didn't?*


Being a full time employee and STILL being a full time mum!!!!!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *No it isn't easy.So what do new parents have to worry about that us oldies didn't?*


I personally worry about the people they are exposed to on the internet, the fact that children are being sexualised by the media, the culture of celebrity worship & their overall future


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

I ment to also add we know live in goverment housing which is awesome compared to that fire hazard apartment 

My mom pays full rent each month and the people around here are lovely and help each other out if needs be. 

My dad is on long term disability and will be for the rest of his life unless they come up with a cure for his illness. He gets goverment checks and what not. Hes been ill for nearly 22 years now. My dad was a hard worker when he was young but after he got ill he could no longer work. My dad does have his own property but is gonna have to claim bank rupcety soon.

Everyone who see my dad always thinks he some lazy good for nothin bum, my one friend asked me last week why my dad never had a job, apparently in our ten years of friendship she didnt realise he was ill :confused1:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> I would!!!, I would love to be at home with the kids trust me, I would care if we didnt have much money(wouldnt be much less than now anyways) we would get by and I would not miss important things with the kids which I have.
> I think you underestimate how hard it is to work and have two children under 4 years old. Im not saying it to make people sorry for me, I agree I made my bed and I should lie in it, BUT can I just say I *pay* into the system so why can I have some tax assistance to help with child care???


*No Claire you are wrong.When we had kids we knew there would be no handouts,plus if you were an unmarried mother there was shame unlike today.These are the things that made us oldies as strong as we are.
Can i just add as boring as it might be.My father raised 9 kids on his own and kept a full time job as a ship wright.Now put yourself in my place, what would you be thinking?*


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Can I just say I dont think anyone here that is saying the benefit system is right,
> SOME People _do_ claim benefits thats shouldnt,
> SOME People _do_ have children so they dont have to work,
> SOME people know _exactly _what they are doing and get everything they can, I just think its unfair that somepeople class everyone who claims any kind of benefits all the same. Some people work damn hard and do deserve a little assistance. It benefits everyone involved in the long run that families are supported and not left intil its a crisis situation then it would cost the state twice as much.


Well said! :thumbup:


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Can I just say I dont think anyone here that is saying the benefit system is right,
> SOME People _do_ claim benefits thats shouldnt,
> SOME People _do_ have children so they dont have to work,
> SOME people know _exactly _what they are doing and get everything they can, I just think its unfair that somepeople class everyone who claims any kind of benefits all the same. Some people work damn hard and do deserve a little assistance. It benefits everyone involved in the long run that families are supported and not left intil its a crisis situation then it would cost the state twice as much.


I agree Claire - its the same old story of those abusing the system spoiling it for the rest of the people who do deserve assistance

I take my hat off to working parents they are not just taking the easy way out as so many others do by claiming all benefits and not working or ever wanting to - they are contributing to society and also very importantly showing their children the right way and being good role models.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2010)

I would hate to think that us that claim certain benefits like tax credits are all tarred with the same brush that we are spongers, as that is far from the case. 

Some of us are hard working citizens that go out to work and earn our own money but just get a helping hand with our chidcare.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I know someone that was offered more hours at where she works, i was pleased and said so oh no i didnt take it she said because it would take me over my 15 hours and ide lose some of my benefits, thats what annoys me the attitude of why work extra hours when i can get it else where for sitting at home. Ime not saying abolish the system but it certainly need seriously looking at.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Miss.PuddyCat said:


> I ment to also add we know live in goverment housing which is awesome compared to that fire hazard apartment
> 
> My mom pays full rent each month and the people around here are lovely and help each other out if needs be.
> 
> ...


Like my mum  After her first major stroke at 18 I *think* she went back to work for a while. I honestly cannot be sure but I know she hasn't worked for at least 30 years. She's not had seven or more strokes and is paralysed down the right side of her body.

She sadly did not have the oppurtunity of a good education either as my gran also suffered with the same illness and she had to stay home to look after her (my mum was born in 1956 so we're talking late 60s early 70s here).

The only difference with our parents is you can clearly tell my mum is disabled. She cannot walk properly, she cannot use her right hand (it's curled into a fist), she cannot speak properly and she does not have the greatest memory going.

My mum doesn't go on holiday, she doesn't have many 'luxuries' ie things us 'normal' people take for granted and her only pleasure is her animals. I am not going to deny an ill woman that, no matter what any other callous person says.

I have no doubt I will lose her within 20 years and I would give anything to make her better.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *No Claire you are wrong.When we had kids we knew there would be no handouts,plus if you were an unmarried mother there was shame unlike today.These are the things that made us oldies as strong as we are.
> Can i just add as boring as it might be.My father raised 9 kids on his own and kept a full time job as a ship wright.Now put yourself in my place, what would you be thinking?*


Im not *Wrong* Janice you just dont agree with me  
I think you refuse to see anyones elses point of view, I gave you the info on spending ect that give you an idea how things have changed cost wise. Im not saying things were easy for anyone years ago but what I am saying is that while they are easier now its not massively so. 
While your hubby paid his taxes ect we pay 2 lots of tax so a much higher amount to the system so I dont think we are being unreasonable by recieving a small amount back off our child care!!!!


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> I know someone that was offered more hours at where she works, i was pleased and said so oh no i didnt take it she said because it would take me over my 15 hours and ide lose some of my benefits, thats what annoys me the attitude of why work extra hours when i can get it else where for sitting at home. Ime not saying abolish the system but it certainly need seriously looking at.


I know some are like that, but my mind doesn't work like that at all. I take all I can get and was working too many hours by law the last two years because I needed the money for things. Well not strictly need but I knew it would benefit me. I worked myself stupid and invested some of what I earnt which enabled me to manage well through this winter and put some money into an ISA. Even if in a few years I get £5 more a week by working than on benefits, I would still rather work just for that £5 and to know I was actually doing something for it. When I grew up I learnt how important money was and I don't for one minute expect anyone to bail me out, if I have nothing its my own doing and I need to get my arse in gear to fix it. For those incapable of doing so I think its good to have a system in place to help.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Im not *Wrong* Janice you just dont agree with me
> I think you refuse to see anyones elses point of view, I gave you the info on spending ect that give you an idea how things have changed cost wise. Im not saying things were easy for anyone years ago but what I am saying is that while they are easier now its not massively so.
> While your hubby paid his taxes ect we pay 2 lots of tax so a much higher amount to the system so I dont think we are being unreasonable by recieving a small amount back off our child care!!!!


*lol ok we dont agree claire.: I don't refuse to see anyones point of view.But i will never agree that people today have it worse than the older generation.But at least we didn't expect anything and were content with our lot.*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Muriel May said:


> I would hate to think that us that claim certain benefits like tax credits are all tarred with the same brush that we are spongers, as that is far from the case.
> 
> Some of us are hard working citizens that go out to work and earn our own money but just get a helping hand with our chidcare.


U go girl :thumbup: xxxx


----------



## Mum2Alfie (Jan 4, 2010)

We are in an economical crisis, 2.5 million people are unemployed, possibly 45% of them out of choice, 55% unemployed due to what you would call rich people who sold things to people they couldnt afford, took credit out well above their limits and generally put the country in this state. Me and my OH work between us, we work 58 a week between us and we earn £250 a week with out the £90 we receive from child tax/working tax credits we would have no luxuries to share with our son or with each other, we get 0 housing/council tax benefit. I work for H samuals who make millions of pounds from their staff and OH works for a man who employs 20 people all on low wages and he makes half a million pond profit per year. So what, are we the "bad people" cause we need a little help to get by??? 

Every job in society is required for society to work, we all deserve a decent life where we shouldnt have to struggle to get by! 

Before my Oh had his accident, he was working and earning enough where we didnt ask for anything. Due to the rubbish people he was working for and that he had no insurance we had to ask for help from the state. But as soon as he was able he went straight back to work, but due to his injuries he couldnt take a job that paid as much as the last one he had. Why shouldnt we have a wage top up as he contributes the same amount of time but for a much smaller wage?

Nic....its not the tax credits thats the problem, that is a bonus to going to work and having to put up with a bad wage, the problem is the people who DONT work altogether because they "cant be bothered" and cause they get more money for not!! I am quite shocked to read what you wrote and it insulted both me and my husband tbh! If we were a lazy family, had 6 kids and wouldnt support them ourselves then yeah I agree! But you are tarring everyone who is not well off with a very mucky brush and there was no need for it and certainly not true!!!


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol ok we dont agree claire.: I don't refuse to see anyones point of view.But i will never agree that people today have it worse than the older generation.But at least we didn't expect anything and were content with our lot.*


I think I'm on your ignore list anyway, but not all of us do expect anything. I don't like the way people sit and say they have the right to this and that but its just society and we have to live with it unfortunately. Claire is one of the few who in her post that you quoted actually said she did think things were a tiny bit easier, not harder. Its not great for us being told things are incredibly easy though when some of us struggle to afford every day living costs. My brother is in a right mess but works 6 days a week for the NHS, he's still in serious financial trouble but he isn't getting bailed out. He accepts he just has to work at it and go without until things are better.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol ok we dont agree claire.: I don't refuse to see anyones point of view.But i will never agree that people today have it worse than the older generation.But at least we didn't expect anything and were content with our lot.*


Please read my last post, I never said the previous generations had it easier BUT i did say life isnt as rosie for families now as some people are trying to say. I dont think any families years ago had to pay a £1600 gas/electric bill for 6 months useage


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

sequeena said:


> Like my mum  After her first major stroke at 18 I *think* she went back to work for a while. I honestly cannot be sure but I know she hasn't worked for at least 30 years. She's not had seven or more strokes and is paralysed down the right side of her body.
> 
> She sadly did not have the oppurtunity of a good education either as my gran also suffered with the same illness and she had to stay home to look after her (my mum was born in 1956 so we're talking late 60s early 70s here).
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear about your Seq. Yeh my dad illness is not noticable unless you live with him. Im not sure what his illness is called but he is on constant medicane and it effects his daily life. Not to mention the accident were my dad fell from a two story roof, shattered his pelvis and compound fractured his arm as well as a concussion. They said he would never walk again. I think two months after the accident my dad was walking with a cane and driving.

My dad has done small jobs on the side for people like trimming bushes, building small decks and painting houses but its not something he can keep up with.

I understand wanting to make it better, I wish I could snap my fingers and make his debt go away, fix up his small shack, get him some chickens, a dog and a cat. Fix up his small tractor so he can scoot around on it. My mom in a few years is gonna have to go in for an opt on her knees 

I doubt Ill be moving out of home, its to expensive to live on your own. My mom and I are in the talks of once I get my good paying job to halves on a nice house in the country.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

HarryHamster2 said:


> We are in an economical crisis, 2.5 million people are unemployed, possibly 45% of them out of choice, 55% unemployed due to what you would call* rich people who sold things to people they couldnt afford, took credit out well above their limits and generally put the country in this state*. Me and my OH work between us, we work 58 a week between us and we earn £250 a week with out the £90 we receive from child tax/working tax credits we would have no luxuries to share with our son or with each other, we get 0 housing/council tax benefit. I work for H samuals who make millions of pounds from their staff and OH works for a man who employs 20 people all on low wages and he makes half a million pond profit per year. So what, are we the "bad people" cause we need a little help to get by???
> 
> Every job in society is required for society to work, we all deserve a decent life where we shouldnt have to struggle to get by!


These people who have taken out all this credit & then get out of paying it back are no better than thieves IMO, & no I'm not on about those who have taken out mortgages & then lost their jobs but the ones who live a champagne lifestyle on a Coca Cola budget. I may be just a lowly peasant on benefits but at least I'm not in debt


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Please read my last post, I never said the previous generations had it easier BUT i did say life isnt as rosie for families now as some people are trying to say. I dont think any families years ago had to pay a £1600 gas/electric bill for 6 months useage


Also many years ago kids were left with whoever would have them, in the streets playing e.t.c my dad (whos in his 50's) used to bugger off all day, my nan would work while he and the second eldest looked after the youngest. 
not something you can do now is it?

families were closer knitted, Im not sure when paid child care came into the country but i know my parents didnt pay for me or my sisters to be looked after, neither were they paid for as children.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Tbo I dont think either had it worse or better - its just different - times have changed in society and there are pros and cons on both sides - i think back in the day people lived a more simple life because there simply wasnt the technology and advancement in things that there are now - hence why now in this day and age more families have both parents working rather than just one.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Daynna said:


> Also many years ago kids were left with whoever would have them, in the streets playing e.t.c my dad (whos in his 50's) used to bugger off all day, my nan would work while he and the second eldest looked after the youngest.
> not something you can do now is it?
> 
> _families were closer knitted, Im not sure when paid child care came into the country but i know my parents didnt pay for me or my sisters to be looked after, neither were they paid for as children_.


My family is close knit and my mum looked after my children while I worked up until just after christmas, I never claimed anything nor paided her anything, I would still being doing this if it was possible. I have no one else I trust with the kids Childcare is the only option. Im glad we get assistance otherwise I couldnt afford good childcare.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suzy93074 said:


> Tbo I dont think either had it worse or better - its just different - times have changed in society and there are pros and cons on both sides - i think back in the day people lived a more simple life because there simply wasnt the technology and advancement in things that there are now - hence why now in this day and age more families have both parents working rather than just one.


*Now that i can see Suzy.I had no handouts and no support when raising my kids.*


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Miss.PuddyCat said:


> Sorry to hear about your Seq. Yeh my dad illness is not noticable unless you live with him. Im not sure what his illness is called but he is on constant medicane and it effects his daily life. Not to mention the accident were my dad fell from a two story roof, shattered his pelvis and compound fractured his arm as well as a concussion. They said he would never walk again. I think two months after the accident my dad was walking with a cane and driving.
> 
> My dad has done small jobs on the side for people like trimming bushes, building small decks and painting houses but its not something he can keep up with.
> 
> ...


Oh my gosh that is so sad  It goes to show the determination though. My mum should be dead, she should have died after every stroke and she should not be walking or talking but she is :thumbup:

It's so sad what has happened but it's no-one's fault  and sadly in this world you have to work to get what you want which is right BUT when you can't work it doesn't mean you can't still hope and dream for that house you've always wanted 

It is expensive to live on your own, don't I know it :lol:


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Now that i can see Suzy.I had no handouts and no support when raising my kids.*


except "married mans allowance" and one taxable wage????


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Just wanted to add, when someone said earlier about money they spend at the time
its the 'Health in Pregnancy' Bonus
£190 for ppl who work
£500 for those who don't





Peace


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Now that i can see Suzy.I had no handouts and no support when raising my kids.*


Was there benefits you could claim back then though Jan?? im not sure what was available - but life didnt demand as much money as it does nowadays - with advancement comes more money to pay out - IF you were to have a child now in this age though Jan would it be different for u ??


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

babycham2002 said:


> Just wanted to add, when someone said earlier about money they spend at the time
> its the 'Health in Pregnancy' Bonus
> £190 for ppl who work
> £500 for those who don't
> ...


Actually the £190 is for everyone working or not, Its a healhthy eating grant for pregnant mothers 
£500 is for No workers AND low income families on higher family tax credit which is more then £545 a year (not inculding the baby element) so depending on your wages and how many children you have depending on if you can get it 

(cant you tell i've helped people out with this before lol)


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> Was there benefits you could claim back then though Jan?? im not sure what was available - but life didnt demand as much money as it does nowadays - with advancement comes more money to pay out - IF you were to have a child now in this age though Jan would it be different for u ??


yes there were. The first government funded benefits for lone parents were issued in 1916 (for military widows), and in 1921 for the general population. Unemployment payments began to be made in the 1940's, coinciding with the advent of the NHS and pensions.

The fact of the matter was that there were things you could have claimed, and if you were in need of them then you would have claimed them.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suzy93074 said:


> Was there benefits you could claim back then though Jan?? im not sure what was available - but life didnt demand as much money as it does nowadays - with advancement comes more money to pay out - IF you were to have a child now in this age though Jan would it be different for u ??


*Yes suzy i do believe it would be much easier now.The only beefit was family allowance nothing else.But looking back as we do, i wouldn't have changed it because its made me part of what i am.
If my father raised 9 kids with no help whatsoever and held down a full time job,what better roll model could anyone ask for?:thumbup:*


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Now that i can see Suzy.I had no handouts and no support when raising my kids.*


OH and just a thought if you were bringing up a family now would you refuse all benefits and if you had to work refuse the child care element on principle its a hand out?????


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> yes there were. The first government funded benefits for lone parents were issued in 1916 (for military widows), and in 1921 for the general population. Unemployment payments began to be made in the 1940's, coinciding with the advent of the NHS and pensions.
> 
> The fact of the matter was that there were things you could have claimed, and if you were in need of them then you would have claimed them.


Ok thanks for that - If you were married though and your partner worked were u entitled to help? and what about child allowance?? I remember my mum had that when we were younger - even though my dad worked and she did too when we were a certain age


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Guess what family allowance was called before it became family allowance....

childrens tax allowance.....


sound familiar?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> OH and just a thought if you were bringing up a family now would you refuse all benefits and if you had to work refuse the child care element on principle its a hand out?????


*Hand on heart i cannot answer that question honestly.I come from a different era.if i said otherwise i'd be fooling myself and others.BUT! i do believe we have become a soft country and i would prefer the old way of doing things.
Don't get me wrong,i am not against the benefit system as such, i just think its now taken for granted.*


----------



## Mum2Alfie (Jan 4, 2010)

nic101 said:


> Im currently 7k in debt - i will be 18k in debt in 2 years time. i live off nothing per month - i couldnt support a child.
> 
> mabey people do need a leg up i do see that (vicious circle though remove benefits - stay on low paid job - keep benefits have an opportunity to do better etc)....
> 
> What if child tax credits were removed.? Without being rude (and not aimed at quoted poster) what then? whos job is that to find whats happens next...?


I tell you what Nic, Good luck with EVER being able to afford kids! If you really sit down and add up how much they really cost you would NEVER have them! Trust me, I know plenty of people who thought they would wait until they could "afford them" and never had any!! Then regretted it extremly!

I am so glad that you feel that people who have children should suffer because they have children! I hope to god that it never gets to that point where they take away that little amount of money away from people who need it! It would be the worst thing possible for this country and the children who are here already! How dare you say that children should suffer because we arent all univeristy boffs and arent rich! Not everyone is as clever as you! I went to college, but never went to uni, I was never clever enough! But that has NOTHING to do with my parents not being able to afford me!!!

How can you say people who are rich are the ONLY ones that can have children???? Its people like us who work in tescos, who sorts your car out when it breaks down, who heals you when you go to hospital, who sells your newspapers to you in the mornings, I could go on a hell of alot more! They work damn harder than any toff sitting in an office typing away on their computer!!! Who are you to say thats these hard working, low paid....by no fault of their own, are not deserving enough to have thier genes, their names their lives enriched my loving children!!! 

And breathe!!!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> Guess what family allowance was called before it became family allowance....
> 
> childrens tax allowance.....
> 
> sound familiar?


*lmao was it? god i must be loosing my memory.*


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

nic101 said:


> he probably gets the highest?
> 
> personally i want to see all child tax credits scraped. kids are a priveledge not a right... cant afford it dont have them. condoms are free at the health clinic.


I must say I agree with you.



RAINYBOW said:


> I think you have already posted this once.
> 
> What a sorry state we will all be in in our old age if everyone thought like that.
> 
> ...





billyboysmammy said:


> yes there were. The first government funded benefits for lone parents were issued in 1916 (for military widows), and in 1921 for the general population. Unemployment payments began to be made in the 1940's, coinciding with the advent of the NHS and pensions.
> 
> The fact of the matter was that there were things you could have claimed, and if you were in need of them then you would have claimed them.




I don't see why we should pay tax on a small pension, to pay for other peoples children, if you can't look after them yourself you should not have them.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Yes suzy i do believe it would be much easier now.The only beefit was family allowance nothing else.But looking back as we do, i wouldn't have changed it because its made me part of what i am.
> If my father raised 9 kids with no help whatsoever and held down a full time job,what better roll model could anyone ask for?:thumbup:*


Yeah I see you point.

But having nine kids is not something that is the norm in this day and age - back then people did have large families - a lot of the time those older children looked after the younger so the parent could go out to work and the children had to help the mother at home etc -plus children were put to work at much earlier ages and not really encouraged to get an education - thats help really - and not from necessarily the right source


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Happy Paws said:


> I must say I agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why we should pay tax on a small pension, to pay for other peoples children, _if you can't look after them yourself you should not have them._


Personally I think you should get off your high horse, things are not that simple, we all pay into a system where kids, the vunerable and elderly are protected. What about the elderly who have no money but have hours and hours of care? do they not deserve assistance or should they have not got old if they couldnt have afforded it....... we often need assistance as some points in our life be it when we are raising our children or failing in old age..... Elderly care is just an expample but all tax payers contribute towards things we dont use and we shouldnt begrudge other people using these services.

if that all makes sense???


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suzy93074 said:


> Yeah I see you point.
> 
> But having nine kids is not something that is the norm in this day and age - back then people did have large families - a lot of the time those older children looked after the younger so the parent could go out to work and the children had to help the mother at home etc -plus children were put to work at much earlier ages and not really encouraged to get an education - thats help really - and not from necessarily the right source


*lol the thought of me having 9 kids to look after,well no thanks comes to mind.I have to say in my fathers favour,he would not let ANY of us have paper rounds,work in the fields in the summertime, or earn money any other way until we left school.Yes my oldest sister who was riddled with artheritus (sp) from the age of nine, was to me my mum.She was 16 when she took my mums place.
Perhaps this is why i think as i do.*


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Personally I think you should get off your high horse, things are not that simple, we all pay into a system where kids, the vunerable and elderly are protected. What about the elderly who have no money but have hours and hours of care? do they not deserve assistance or should they have not got old if they couldnt have afforded it....... we often need assistance as some points in our life be it when we are raising our children or failing in old age..... Elderly care is just an expample but all tax payers contribute towards things we dont use and we shouldnt begrudge other people using these services.
> 
> if that all makes sense???


makes perfect sense and i agree.


----------



## Mum2Alfie (Jan 4, 2010)

I love the way people ignore my posts! :glare: What is it??? Do I talk alot of rubbish......or do I talk so much sense that people cant answer back!!!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol the thought of me having 9 kids to look after,well no thanks comes to mind.I have to say in my fathers favour,he would not let ANY of us have paper rounds,work in the fields in the summertime, or earn money any other way until we left school.Yes my oldest sister who was riddled with artheritus (sp) from the age of nine, was to me my mum.She was 16 when she took my mums place.
> Perhaps this is why i think as i do.*


Yep I see what u saying but a lot of families back then did put their children to work so its swings and roundabouts really


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

HarryHamster2 said:


> I love the way people ignore my posts! :glare: What is it??? Do I talk alot of rubbish......or do I talk so much sense that people cant answer back!!!


Sorry I didnt see your post


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> Personally I think you should get off your high horse, things are not that simple, we all pay into a system where kids, the vunerable and elderly are protected. What about the elderly who have no money but have hours and hours of care? do they not deserve assistance or should they have not got old if they couldnt have afforded it....... we often need assistance as some points in our life be it when we are raising our children or failing in old age..... Elderly care is just an expample but all tax payers contribute towards things we dont use and we shouldnt begrudge other people using these services.
> 
> if that all makes sense???


Yes it does Claire :thumbup:


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

HarryHamster2 said:


> How can you say people who are rich are the ONLY ones that can have children???? Its people like us who work in tescos, who sorts your car out when it breaks down, who heals you when you go to hospital, who sells your newspapers to you in the mornings, I could go on a hell of alot more! They work damn harder than any toff sitting in an office typing away on their computer!!! Who are you to say thats these hard working, low paid....by no fault of their own, are not deserving enough to have thier genes, their names their lives enriched my loving children!!!
> 
> And breathe!!!


you are so right


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Please read my last post, I never said the previous generations had it easier BUT i did say life isnt as rosie for families now as some people are trying to say. I dont think any families years ago had to pay a £1600 gas/electric bill for 6 months useage


I'm not disagreeing with you in principle about the situation today, but I don't think you realise how expensive fuel was in real terms in the seventies, for example. I remember being on benefits then and only being able to afford to put the gas fire in the living room on one bar, not being able to heat any other room, plus not being able to afford to use the oven more than once in a blue moon.

Life was hard for poor people then and it is now, too, but in different ways. When I was a kid in the sixties it was more practical hardships, holes in shoes, handmedown clothes, going hungry, no phone, no car, no washing machine, never, ever eating out, no holidays, even affording bus fare being an occasional luxury. That was bad in its own way, but nowadays I think poverty is more subtle. You need money to have a social life today, whereas social life centred around family in my youth, for good or ill. It matters to children if they haven't got what their friends have. When I was young there was free healthcare, good social housing, good state education and so on, but that sadly all seems to be gradually vanishing. Everything's more privatised now.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

HarryHamster2 said:


> I love the way people ignore my posts! :glare: What is it??? Do I talk alot of rubbish......or do I talk so much sense that people cant answer back!!!


I read it and agree :thumbup:


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Lulu's owner said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you in principle about the situation today, but I don't think you realise how expensive fuel was in real terms in the seventies, for example. I remember being on benefits then and only being able to afford to put the gas fire in the living room on one bar, not being able to heat any other room, plus not being able to afford to use the oven more than once in a blue moon.
> 
> Life was hard for poor people then and it is now, too, but in different ways. When I was a kid in the sixties it was more practical hardships, holes in shoes, handmedown clothes, going hungry, no phone, no car, no washing machine, never, ever eating out, no holidays, even affording bus fare being an occasional luxury. That was bad in its own way, but nowadays I think poverty is more subtle. You need money to have a social life today, whereas social life centred around family in my youth, for good or ill. It matters to children if they haven't got what their friends have. When I was young there was free healthcare, good social housing, good state education and so on, but that sadly all seems to be gradually vanishing. Everything's more privatised now.


I did look things up in real terms at the begining of the thread, It still indicates in real terms the cost of living is much higher now and there is much less money left for luxuries than there was years ago

And I totally agree about your point on privatising


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> I did look things up in real terms at the begining of the thread, It still indicates in real terms the cost of living is much higher now and there is much less money left for luxuries than there was years ago


There's no substitute for actually being there, you know! Fuel was very, very dear in the late seventies, as dear in real terms as it is today. The definition of what constitutes the cost of living varies over time and, as people have pointed out, there were fewer luxuries available in the past. Colour television was the height of luxury in the seventies. Fuel become very expensive because of the oil shocks of the seventies. It did become cheaper again in the eighties because of North Sea oil and has gone back to being very expensive again in part because of being sold off and owned by foreign interests now.

I think in many ways we are now going back to the seventies, high inflation, reduced standard of living, government cutbacks etc etc. It all seems eerily familiar.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I think in many ways we are now going back to the seventies, high inflation, reduced standard of living, government cutbacks etc etc. It all seems eerily familiar


.

Power cuts, the 3 day week, rubbish left in the streets uncollected, strikes, the winter of discontent!


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> .
> 
> Power cuts, the 3 day week, rubbish left in the streets uncollected, strikes!


Spot on! The power cuts will be more devastating of course because we depend on electricity so much more today. I remember shopping by candlelight in Morrisons, couldn't see that happening today with computerised tills and so on.


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

Happy Paws said:


> I must say I agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why we should pay tax on a small pension, to pay for other peoples children, if you can't look after them yourself you should not have them.


I don't see why we should have to pay for the old? I don't see why we should have to pay for the disabled! what about cutting the NHS for smokers drinking obese people?????? - see where i'm going with this?-
Damn! I'm fed up with paying tax full stop!!!!!! Hmmm Do I quit my job and claim dole? seems to work for other people!!!!!!! I work, so does my husband, we claim ftc, and wtc.... If we werent entitled to claim then i'm sorry, but we would be on the dole! raping yet more money off the honest tax payer! at least we both pay tax and NI.

Your forgetting that people who claim ftc and wtx also pay tax and NI... That means were paying back into the system...... If you want to bitch about paying anyones benefits then bitch at the lazy gits too idle for work claiming dole, claiming rent and ct.... We get nothing like that!!!! Just a ponderable for ya...


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

MissShelley said:


> I don't see why we should have to pay for the old? I don't see why we should have to pay for the disabled! what about cutting the NHS for smokers drinking obese people?????? - see where i'm going with this?-
> Damn! I'm fed up with paying tax full stop!!!!!! Hmmm Do I quit my job and claim dole? seems to work for other people!!!!!!! I work, so does my husband, we claim ftc, and wtc.... If we werent entitled to claim then i'm sorry, but we would be on the dole! raping yet more money off the honest tax payer! at least we both pay tax and NI.
> 
> Your forgetting that people who claim ftc and wtx also pay tax and NI... That means were paying back into the system...... If you want to bitch about paying anyones benefits then bitch at the lazy gits too idle for work claiming dole, claiming rent and ct.... We get nothing like that!!!! Just a ponderable for ya...


I was about to let rip at your comment about paying for the disabled ... and then I got to the end of your post :thumbup:


----------



## Lulu's owner (May 1, 2009)

MissShelley said:


> I don't see why we should have to pay for the old? I don't see why we should have to pay for the disabled! what about cutting the NHS for smokers drinking obese people?????? - see where i'm going with this?-
> Damn! I'm fed up with paying tax full stop!!!!!! Hmmm Do I quit my job and claim dole? seems to work for other people!!!!!!! I work, so does my husband, we claim ftc, and wtc.... If we werent entitled to claim then i'm sorry, but we would be on the dole! raping yet more money off the honest tax payer! at least we both pay tax and NI.
> 
> Your forgetting that people who claim ftc and wtx also pay tax and NI... That means were paying back into the system...... If you want to bitch about paying anyones benefits then bitch at the lazy gits too idle for work claiming dole, claiming rent and ct.... We get nothing like that!!!! Just a ponderable for ya...


Agreed. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society." (Wendell Holmes)


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

sequeena said:


> Oh my gosh that is so sad  It goes to show the determination though. My mum should be dead, she should have died after every stroke and she should not be walking or talking but she is :thumbup:
> 
> It's so sad what has happened but it's no-one's fault  and sadly in this world you have to work to get what you want which is right BUT when you can't work it doesn't mean you can't still hope and dream for that house you've always wanted
> 
> It is expensive to live on your own, don't I know it :lol:


He is determined but I think it also made him into a grumpy old man faster  He is currently sleeping on my bed snoring gahh its my bed, told me Im a horrible daughter for making him sleep on the floor on a blow up bed right what about that time we slept in a shack that had three walls and I woke up coming face to face with a chipmunk! :scared:

My mom says like father like daughter to lol

Its great your moms a fighter Seq, it can give you inspiration not to give up on your own problems, doubts, etc .

I think thats why my dad is in soo much debt is because he is trying to build the home of his dreams that my brother and I can come and stay at :frown: I hate to think hes gone to that much trouble for me and my brother.

on the other hand saying that my dad is horrible with money :glare: wouldnt trust him with any of my money. Yeh you have to work hard for everything which as kind of gotten me into the routin of buying good quility stuff so it lasts longer, checking the stitching on clothing before I buy it, take good care of shoes (polish and water proof).

I have alot of dreams and I know one day theyll become real


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

I have no idea about this subject! I don't live in the UK! But over here we have ''family allowance'' which is £14 something a week. Given to ALL people with children....whether you work of not.

Who mentioned petrol? Here it is .98p roughly a litre.....is that good or bad?


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> I have no idea about this subject! I don't live in the UK! But over here we have ''family allowance'' which is £14 something a week. Given to ALL people with children....whether you work of not.
> 
> Who mentioned petrol? Here it is .98p roughly a litre.....is that good or bad?


Jesus!!! That is really cheap for petrol! I'm not sure what the price is now, think it's about £1.30 by me.


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> Well, if you are ever in the position where life treats you like dirt & you have to feed & provide a home for your children I take it you wont be 'taking the p155' & asking for help


if the helps there im blaming no-one for taking it.... if its there - take it.

im saying now it should be stopped.



RAINYBOW said:


> I would love to come back and have this debate with you if you ever do have kids.


haha unlikely (i wil have kids);


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

i went for £1380. 

i would hope he gets a bit more than that to treat children, clothes etc. 
but im not so sure, it seems to be a case of who you know sometimes with money.


----------



## Mum2Alfie (Jan 4, 2010)

Have we had the answer to this yet?


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

HarryHamster2 said:


> Have we had the answer to this yet?


i was just wondering that too, after i posted my guess....


----------



## Taz Devil (Apr 29, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> So if my OH loses is job who shall i hand my kids back to then


I whole heartedly agree.

Both myself and my partner have worked since leaving school. My partner was made redundant about 4 years ago after the company she worked at went into liquidation, my mother (who used to pick my son up from school) fell ill and was unable to carry on picking up my son from school, this meant that the only jobs my partner can take are those that allow her to fit collecting my son up from school. She's currently working for a well known pound shop who are good with the times she can work. I work 8:30am - 6pm, she works 9:30am till 2:30pm. I'm an hour away from home so start out at 6:30am and don't arrive home till around 7pm making it difficult to even think about taking on a second job.

And then there are those that have no intention of working and pop out kids every time they want an increase in income.


----------



## MichelleA (Aug 27, 2009)

tax credits im all for - people who work get wages topped up.... brilliant (i dont get it i work but im too young)[/QUOTE]

you have to have kids to get this benefit


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

OH has just put his pennys worth in, he agrees some benifits etc are needed, some people loose jobs etc etc due to redundancy, and they NEED and DESERVE the help.

its the benifit bums that annoy him, and he thinks they should do voulentry work of some sort, cleaning streets etc. Not to the extent of criminals dont have to wear a jacket saying 'im a bum' but they should do something to help towards their money too.

quite a good thought from him i thought.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

MichelleA said:


> tax credits im all for - people who work get wages topped up.... brilliant (i dont get it i work but im too young)


 you have to have kids to get this benefit[/QUOTE]

No you dont Working tax is open to anyone over 25yrs old and and working over 30hrs a week.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Hiya Guys i posted the answer earlier in the thread... it got buried!

He gets :£1320


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

vickie1985 said:


> OH has just put his pennys worth in, he agrees some benifits etc are needed, some people loose jobs etc etc due to redundancy, and they NEED and DESERVE the help.
> 
> its the benifit bums that annoy him, and he thinks they should do voulentry work of some sort, cleaning streets etc. Not to the extent of criminals dont have to wear a jacket saying 'im a bum' but they should do something to help towards their money too.
> 
> quite a good thought from him i thought.


Thats exactly what i think they should be doing something.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Before I started my job I volunteered in my local cancer research shop. Not only did it fill my time it gave me a lot of experience that I could use in my job :thumbup:

I deff agree they should be doing some sort of voluntary work.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

vickie1985 said:


> OH has just put his pennys worth in, he agrees some benifits etc are needed, some people loose jobs etc etc due to redundancy, and they NEED and DESERVE the help.
> 
> its the benifit bums that annoy him, and he thinks they should do voulentry work of some sort, cleaning streets etc. Not to the extent of criminals dont have to wear a jacket saying 'im a bum' but they should do something to help towards their money too.
> 
> quite a good thought from him i thought.


Actually i completely agree with this!

Get the long term unemployed (who are making no real efforts to better themselves and get a job) into voluntary work.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Actually i completely agree with this!
> 
> Get the long term unemployed (who are making no real efforts to better themselves and get a job) into voluntary work.


Agreed  :thumbup:


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

yeah... would be intresting to make people who dont work do voluntary work.... for their dole money (this is more to people who have been claiming long term - eg that idiot who admited he drunk all day and refused to work and had 7?? kids?)

make him do voluntary. he would probably go get a job instead.


----------



## Mum2Alfie (Jan 4, 2010)

billyboysmammy said:


> Actually i completely agree with this!
> 
> Get the long term unemployed (who are making no real efforts to better themselves and get a job) into voluntary work.


I agree with this! :thumbup:


----------



## Cazza1974 (Sep 23, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Actually i completely agree with this!
> 
> Get the long term unemployed (who are making no real efforts to better themselves and get a job) into voluntary work.


I agree :thumbup:


----------

