Absolutely DISGUSTING!!!!

**blackwidow** · 15-02-2010 15:57

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...onth-rent.html

**wokkawifey** · 15-02-2010 16:31

I am quite tempted to leave my husband and move to Westminster now.

Schuh · 15-02-2010 16:35

Absolutely agree with you. I and many more people I know who hold down jobs and pay their taxes would never be able to afford to live in such luxury. (Obvioulsy I'm not working at the moment)

We don't have even one plasma screen TV let alone three. The distribution of wealth in the UK these days sickens me to the core.

Surely it would be cheaper for the government to purpose build complexes for families who have multiple children without being able to pay their own way. Basic bog standard buildings to accomodate large families. Children will have to "double up" in rooms, it never hurt anybody. If you don't like it then don't keep having kids and expecting people to pay for them for you.

obviously there are genuine cases of families who have worked to support themselves but have fallen on hard times, in those incidents then sure, the government should be able to help, however the genuine cases are few and far between and it's become a system that benefits the workshy above everybody else.

**wokkawifey** · 15-02-2010 16:43

In the current climate nobody talks about welfare cuts - only defence or health or education.

And yet the welfare budget is bigger than any of the above budgets. Why is there no focus on welfare cuts!!!

I think we should give clothing vouchers and food vouchers, and less money. The impetus to work will be driven by a need to support your family. I am being simplistic but surely welfare should be in for a massive overhaul.

CK · 15-02-2010 16:50

I can't even begin to start voicing my opinion on this as I will, quite literally, explode with rage :evil: :evil: :evil:

**bodger** · 15-02-2010 17:04

Coupons worked during the war, they can work now. Stop handing out cash so folks can go spending it on Sky Plus and Play Stations. Since when did all that stuff become a necessity anyway?

And if her husband works in Derby is that not where the matrimonial home is? Why does she need to be in bloody Maida Vale? Or is it a case of pick somewhere really Gucci to live and then people like me who've been at work since stupid o'clock and paid a fortune for holiday club this week will stump up the tax to pay for it?!!

**DozyBint** · 15-02-2010 17:09

Here we are people: get cutting!

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...ing_160909.pdf

As you can see, the 2008-2009 public spending was up 7% on the 2007-2008 budget - I can't wait to see the 2009-2010 figures! :x

**blackwidow** · 15-02-2010 19:12

I think we should give clothing vouchers and food vouchers

i think this would be a cracking idea, i bet not so many people would be so quick to jump on the benefit band wagon if this was put in place. i'm someone who has to go to work when the kids are in bed coz its the only time i can do it, don't exactly love doing it but at least i know i'm doing what i can.

**Gonzo** · 15-02-2010 19:34

I had to go back to work full time when my son was 12 weeks old. Then after I left my (ex)husband I worked full time to pay for my son and a roof over our heads etc. I got made redundant 5 times in 5 years and used my savings to pay the mortgage and other bills whilst looking for another job because I would have been literally unable to pay my bills if I had gone the benefit route.

The people who have never paid into the system in their life infuriate me. A lot give single parents a very poor name.

**sluice_dweller** · 15-02-2010 21:30

Right thats it, reading stuff like this makes my blood boil - this country has gone to the dogs - roll on 2013 when I can get the fcuk out of dodge!

**Fally_Fox** · 15-02-2010 21:49

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

My Mum came over from Holland, worked, raised 3 kids almost single handedly and now we all have jobs and work, pay tax etc. whilst my Mum is on disability living allowance... And we can't even get CENTRAL HEATING!!!!!!!!!!

This winter we had ice on the INSIDE of our windows, for god's sake! We have tried and tried to get Warm Front to help, yet all we got were 2 piddly gas wall heaters in the smallest rooms! There's no way we can afford to get it ourselves yet no one will help. The Xmas before last we were without hot water for 3 months and had to shower at a neighbours, wash our hair with a boiled kettle...

What the hell are we doing wrong?!?

**WhiteRose** · 15-02-2010 22:03

I need a glass of something before I explode.

How on earth did we sleepwalk into allowing a government system to get away with this?

Roll on the election.

Schuh · 15-02-2010 23:11

As well as the coupons here's a few more suggestions to the govt to save money. Easy to implement and administer...

Instead of jobseekers allowance, there should be a government interim employment scheme. Get people to collect bins, sweep roads, clean public toilets for their JSA cheque, people will be so pissed off at having to do sh*tty jobs that they'll find themselves a real one! If they don't turn up then no JSA!

Child benefit to be means tested, you earn enough, you don't get. It's simple. Child benefits for the first two children ONLY. You want more you have to be able to support them, if you can't then don't have them. It's not restricting the amount of children people can have. Feel free to have as many as you like, but you feed them, clothe them and financially support them! I don't go to work to support those scroats who cant be arsed. I go to look after my own family!

Prisons should be 10 hours cells, 8 hours working, 3 hours feeding time, 3 hours active recreation, no TV, no playstations, no pool table, exercise or reading of national newspapers or classic literature or to study a course or a degree. Have the mobile phone signals blocked so even if phones are smuggled in they're useless. ANY guard caught fraternising with, turning a blind eye or taking back handers from a prisoner gets sentenced and thrown into jail with them.

All ministers with constituencies outside of London are to reside in a purpose built apartment building in London for the duration of their visit. No second homes, and allocated room akin to a self catering hotel. Comfortable, clean, but no extra cost, check in check out for free. All maintenance costs would surely come to a lot less than allowing for second homes and the furnishing of.....

I'm sure there are a million and one other ways to cut spending, but Labour are looking after their voters. The benefit breeders, and the workshy. The sooner they're out of power the better!

**DozyBint** · 15-02-2010 23:37

Originally Posted by Sammi

Child benefit to be means tested, you earn enough, you don't get. It's simple. Child benefits for the first two children ONLY. You want more you have to be able to support them, if you can't then don't have them.

In that case, get rid of child benefit - why should anyone be supported for having ANY children?

**Gonzo** · 16-02-2010 08:16

Not to be controversial, but, surely starting with the immigants in the UK (and I know it is not just the UK with this problem) by not paying them any form of benefit or providing free health care until they have worked and contributed to the UK economy and tax system for a minimum of 5 years.

I agree with everything else that Sammi has said except Child Benefit allowance. I think you should be able to receive it for your first two children only. I would take away the Health in Pregnancy grant though, and the Sure Start grant because they truly are a mick take. If you can't afford to feed yourself fruit and veg why should you be reproducing unhealthy drains on the NHS?

**blessed_baby_cakes** · 16-02-2010 11:15

Remember the law doesn't see grey, only black or white, so any changes you would like to see have to be thought out to the end result and will all case scenarios in mind.

Beebs

**DozyBint** · 16-02-2010 11:33

Originally Posted by samm1551

I agree with everything else that Sammi has said except Child Benefit allowance. I think you should be able to receive it for your first two children only. I would take away the Health in Pregnancy grant though, and the Sure Start grant because they truly are a mick take. If you can't afford to feed yourself fruit and veg why should you be reproducing unhealthy drains on the NHS?

I agree that the Health in Pregnancy and Sure Start grants should be removed, for the reasons you state - when they were announced I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

One thing that Sammi didn't answer and I don't know if you will, is why there should be any child benefit at all? You have both stated that there should be child benefit for the first two children only, but if the logic as stated by Sammi is that you should only have the children you can afford, why should the taxpayer support any of the children you choose to have?

**Gonzo** · 16-02-2010 12:27

D_B you have a point - maybe it's because I have children (and I know that is personal choice). I can see the point for getting rid of CB, at least then there is no "incentive" for having children, however it is such a miniscule amount in relation to how much they cost that I doubt it would be missed if it were taken away. Maybe that is a better argument for it being means tested.

I guess that the problem Sammi and I would have with our "for the first two" policy would be that people would be complaining about the 3rd and subsequent childs human rights.

*Would like to point out I am not complaining about how much CB is just that a lot of people probably wouldn't miss it.

**blessed_baby_cakes** · 16-02-2010 13:00

having worked with many low income families and in formulating living costs the amount of monies received is hardly an incentive to have children. do you really believe that it's easy to raise a child on the rate of income support? also another point is the minimum wage is so low that there is actually a decrease in income if you work. so let's think about that for a minute, the amount of money the government says each family needs to keep children living in households above the poverty line is not met by a single mother working full time in a minimum wage job. where's her incentive to work?

we're arguing a point atm that there should be a London allowance for people on minimum wage to increase their income, the cost of living is great in the capital.

as to removing cb, the history of cb is interesting it was paid historically to the mother to ensure it would be used to benefit the child, it's still paid to mainly mothers, and it does make a huge difference to low income households who work, they can rely on that to pay for shoes, school trips or other things that might be ignored, and yes i do appreciate that many people use it for other things, but most don't.

but isn't this about HB for a mansion? i believe the system to be flawed and that there should be a cap no the rent people can charge and the HB people can apply for, but for anyone who's never lived in London let me share a little story with you about rent prices. my eldest son lived in a one bedroom basement flat a few years a go with his girlfriend they paid £1100 a month in rent plus council tax plus bills. he recently decided to move into another basement flat, little more than a studio really, and was told his rent would be £1700 a month plus ct plus bills. now if he was a single mother in full time work he would qualify for help with his rent, you see you can claim hb if you're in work as well, but as they're a no child couple they don't qualify. they're left with minus £500 a month to find before they pay any bills, ct, or the other luxuries in life like food...... so where is their incentive to work and remain child free?

they system is flawed from the roots up. working or not it's not it's the same catch 22 system.

Beebs

**DozyBint** · 16-02-2010 14:03

Originally Posted by samm1551

I can see the point for getting rid of CB, at least then there is no "incentive" for having children, however it is such a miniscule amount in relation to how much they cost that I doubt it would be missed if it were taken away. Maybe that is a better argument for it being means tested

Thanks for your reply Samm and for the record I'm not picking on you with these questions - what you say is an echo of what a lot of 'reasonable' people say - but I have a problem with the logic.

If we want to make the decision that people should only have children if they can afford them, why give them benefit for any children at all? Is the oft-quoted '2 children' suggestion because that number of children is the perceived norm for British families?

If CB is only a small amount that not many people notice, then why is it paid at all? Individually the amount is small; collectively the amount is significant (£11.2bn). I don't agree with means-testing for it - either it should be paid to everyone or no-one and I would prefer it to be paid to no-one. I know the history of CB and the reason it is paid to the mother, but given how society has changed (though not necessarily progressed) and all of the other benefits / credits available, it doesn't need to be retained purely because of its worthy roots.