Child Benefit

[Barrie Yates]

Originally Posted by Rowlf

Well I am glad I did not see the programme Margaret because it would have sent my blood pressure through the roof. As for Neil saying Family allowance or like has been around since 1909 . I was an only child and left school in 1960 and my mother was never given any money and she always paid a full stamp. I think there may have been payments for a second child but definitely not for a first.

You are correct. Our first child was born in '59 and we did not receive Child Allowance until the second one came along. We received allowance for him and also for the third, which I believe was the maximum number. Came in very useful for a junior rank in the RAF. Bearing in mind that when I went from Junior Assistant Works Engineer in Burnley to Aircraftsman 2nd Class in the RAF I suffered what was then a substantial reduction in pay - and stayed as such for almost 18 months whilst I went through recruit and trade training. No regrets though as that period of hardship certainly bore fruit for us, but will always remember the Child Allowance and our gratitude for it.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by gpick24

You aren't explaining poorly just answering a question I didn't ask.
This is the bit that I find wrong -



Should they really be entitled to child benefit when they are on so much money?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's why I think it's wrong and they should look at the combined income of both parents if they are going to look at income at all.

[Less]

A WARNING, mainly to those of you that claim you don't watch much television, whenever you watch a documentary they will always show the absolute extremes!

95% and possibly more of what they depict aren't that bad, they have to show the worse to justify their own stupidly extreme wages.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, Less. I know there is a bias when programs are made(and after all it was a BBC program and they usually never miss a chance to lambast Tory policies)..otherwise no one would bother watching. At least the interviewer asked some pertinent questions.
It was not all about child benefit, but about the capping of benefit claims.

It still doesn't make it fair for those claiming money from the state at a rate which would require them to be earning something in the region of £24,000 per year to have the same amount of disposable income...that is where the injustice lies.

[gpick24]

So the more money you earn, the more you put into the system, the more you should be able to claim benefits.
The less money you earn, the less you put into the system, less benefits you should be entitled to.
Seems a backward way of working to me, rich getting richer, poor getting poorer.

[Margaret Pilkington]

No, it isn't the right way(and it was always so... The rich get richer and the poor are always going to be with us), but neither is it right for some families to be working full time and bringing in less money than those who are sitting on their behinds(having children they cannot afford to feed and support)and getting more money in handouts than those pulling their tripes out to make sure they can feed their children.

No one ever promised that life would be fair.
In life it is a bit like playing a trombone...the tune you get is dependent on the effort you exert...it is no good expecting a fancy house, a nice car, fags and beer and fancy holidays if you are not prepared to stir your stumps and make it happen.
Being an adult means you have choices, but all of them come with consequences and responsibilities.
You cannot abdicate these and expect the rest of society to pick up the bill.

[gpick24]

That isn`t what i`m saying Margaret, what i`m saying is if cuts are to be made to child benefit it should start with the people who claim it but don`t need to, people who an extra £20 a week is nothing but claim it anyway rather than those who rely on it, and I`m not talking about those who abuse the system, I`m talking of those on low income who an extra £20 a week makes a real difference to their lives.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, I know what you are saying, but I think it could be delivered in a better way. Perhaps it would be more use to give free child care places rather than money.

Child care is expensive and if parents received that instead of money then it would incentivise working and would free up some of their current cash to make life better for them.
If the political will is not there to determine where the need is greatest, then it will not change.
If the benefit were means tested, it still would not necessarily reach those in most need as they may not apply for it because of te scrutiny it would direct to their financial affairs.

[gpick24]

I think you can already get help with child care, my daughter goes back to work this week after having a baby (first one so not at skank level yet), and she has mentioned it.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, there has been 15 hrs child care free for 3&4 year olds...this has been doubled to 30 hrs.This is Ok as far as it goes, but I was thinking that there is precious little child care for children after school at reasonable cost. And other than after school clubs there is nothing for older children. In most cases grandparents step in and fill the bill. This is usually( well from my experience) at no cost to parents.
If we want parents to benefit society by working, then either employers need to be offering working hours that are more flexible(and I know in reality this is not always possible) or there needs to be more support for families.

Congratulations on becoming one of those 'G' things.(a grandparent)

Skanks are those in society who do not recognise their responsibilities( only their rights)and usually do not work...so your daughter does not fit the criteria and I would think that she never will.

[gpick24]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Congratulations on becoming one of those 'G' things.(a grandparent)

Thanks, but i`m one of those a few times over now (if you count step children, which I do).

[Barrie Yates]

How did we manage in the '50s/'60s without free childcare? Child allowance for 2nd and 3rd child and that was it. Husbands worked during the day and wives worked evenings, or paid for a child minder and worked during the day, or the husband did his day job and then went and worked evenings. Perhaps we had a different mindset then

[Margaret Pilkington]

I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Work was seen as honourable and no-one wanted to be on the 'nash' or the parish...it was seen as a failure and folk were embarrassed.
What couldn't be afforded was not bought.
My parents had a strong aversion to going into debt for anything.
We didn't often get new clothes.
The only time I remember being fully kitted out was with school uniform and this was bought at the Co-op with the summer 'divi' and the rebate from the gas meter.

[gpick24]

Done similar myself, evenings at hollands pies Monday-Friday on agency then my regular weekend nightshifts taking half a days holiday on friday so that I didn`t miss the shift at Hollands. Friday was a killer 4-11.30 then cycle over to Blackburn for 2nd half of my shift for my regular job 1-7. Did that for about 6 months to catch up after a while on sick (Broken Leg).

[Less]

Originally Posted by gpick24

Did that for about 6 months to catch up after a while on sick (Broken Leg).

Wow! self service physio eh?

Riding a bike after breaking a leg, these days you could have had two years off on full benefits instead.