They have 6 children - its linked to that...also, they may have worked before (for all we know).
The Benefit State
- Thread starter jamief
- Start date
They have 6 children - its linked to that...also, they may have worked before (for all we know).
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Yeah but you only get tax credit if you're working. That's why it's called "working familes tax credit".
Link
Where did it say that? You want this page:
Child Tax Credit (CTC) is a means-tested allowance for parents and carers of children or young people who are still in full-time non advanced education or approved training. You don't have to be the child's parent to be eligible but you must be the main person responsible for them.
Wrong benefit Stretch.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 1,931
- Location
- Tooting, London
I remember seeing an article discussing the fact that incapacity is currently black and white i.e. someone can or cannot work. It needs to be, and people are taking steps toward, a sliding scale system. Apparently there are examples of manual labourers who get injured and can't work on sites anymore, thats perfectly acceptable, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do some other job that doesn't flare up their incapacity.
On one hand if a low income family has a large group of kids they probably need the support and it may be true that both parents canot work in order to raise the children (whole other argument there). So the problem seems to lay in the fact that people have more kids than they can afford. This sounds really barbaric but maybe there should be some system as to how many children you are allowed to have based on financial situation. This is one of those things that makes perfect logical sense in terms of keeping a country self-sufficient but in many ways it seems wrong in principal.
I'd like to have a large family when I'm older but I would only have as many children as I could feel I could provide for in a lifestyle I would like them to be raised in. I would, and I like to think other people feel the same, feel guilty intentionally having a child when I'm going to have to claim support for that child and ultimately not be able to provide well for it.
On one hand if a low income family has a large group of kids they probably need the support and it may be true that both parents canot work in order to raise the children (whole other argument there). So the problem seems to lay in the fact that people have more kids than they can afford. This sounds really barbaric but maybe there should be some system as to how many children you are allowed to have based on financial situation. This is one of those things that makes perfect logical sense in terms of keeping a country self-sufficient but in many ways it seems wrong in principal.
I'd like to have a large family when I'm older but I would only have as many children as I could feel I could provide for in a lifestyle I would like them to be raised in. I would, and I like to think other people feel the same, feel guilty intentionally having a child when I'm going to have to claim support for that child and ultimately not be able to provide well for it.
I find it quite offensive that a family, who clearly can't afford it, would have 6 children. I'd never consider having children until I could afford it and it was the right time in my life - a lot of "council estate" types will be churning them out from the age of 16, safe in the knowledge that the state will pay for their kids. Their kids grow up just like them, and the cycle repeats. Maybe if the state just stopped paying out people would be forced to make a decision about having kids in the first place? (I'm not referring to incapacity benefit here).
Also £25,000 a year on housing benefit - thats more than the average UK salary!
Also £25,000 a year on housing benefit - thats more than the average UK salary!
If I was to have a kid "by accident", I would not expect the state to step in and take care of everything...sure, I may end up claiming something (perhaps CTC?) just to get some breathing room but I would not be sitting there. I'd also be making use of the free time to be an active parent.
[TW]Fox;11334586 said:
Yup.
The data and case is confidential. The op's friend is an asshat and should be reported.
As for the case. The op has given us a sum of claims. No information about case specifics (reasons for claims etc) therefore it's impossible to conduct an intelligent debate, it's just another opportunity for a base thread and for people to talk absolute rubbish.
Benefits should be revamped as follows:
Benefits are only available to those with 5 years of NI contributions. This would mean that no one under the age of 21 would be able to claim benefits and also you would have had to have paid in to benefit. This applies across the board for all cases including immigrants. For those who are in such a situation that they require benefits (incapacity, homeless (as in kicked out), other extreme examples) would be provided for through a system of vouchers. This will prevent them frittering money away on items that are not part of the needs of the everyday person.
edit: The amount of benefits that you receive would be pro-rata against the time that you have spent paying in, e.g. someone who has 30 years of NI contributions would be entitled to benefits for the remainder of their life.
Benefits are only available to those with 5 years of NI contributions. This would mean that no one under the age of 21 would be able to claim benefits and also you would have had to have paid in to benefit. This applies across the board for all cases including immigrants. For those who are in such a situation that they require benefits (incapacity, homeless (as in kicked out), other extreme examples) would be provided for through a system of vouchers. This will prevent them frittering money away on items that are not part of the needs of the everyday person.
edit: The amount of benefits that you receive would be pro-rata against the time that you have spent paying in, e.g. someone who has 30 years of NI contributions would be entitled to benefits for the remainder of their life.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,739
- Location
- Delete *.*
[TW]Fox;11334586 said:
That was my first thought
If he sent the email from work he'll be in trouble anyway.
Yes, but they do not get that money put in their hands, it goes straight to the council in rent and tax, the rest more than likely goes to the power companies for light and heat
The whole thing is a complete joke much like everything else, its best to just ignore it and let them get on with it as there is nothing that you can do. A conservative government would do no different, the whole system is just the way of life for a large part of the UK. Im 30 next year and between me and my partner we earn a decent wage, have a house etc, but still i dont feel we have things right for kids. My kids wont end up little scroats though at the age of 8 breaking into houses and getting locked up all their lives as the type of kids that are raised by these dole wellers.
Aye but i dont see my council tax either but i have to work to pay it, then its straight out the bank, there is no option to spend that portion of my earned money on other things. So its not really different.
Are you happy for your ENTIRE tax contribution (if you pay any), plus that of another 14 average earners paying for a house, food, water, electricity and entertainment for a family who can't be bothered to work?
And I don't see the problem with what my friend did - no personal data changed hands, and the figures can be calculated with about 5 minutes research using google. Get off your high horses please.
I think you're speculating. You can't tell me that we're judging a household of people who can't be bothered to work, so it's impossible to respond to that. Go and ask your friend for the specifics, and then we can even begin to reach a conclusion.
Don't be ridiculous, you're talking about a guy who divulged information pertaining to an ongoing benefit claim. Which (even putting aside the moral obligations of your friend, who obviously deals with sensitive data) is at best bordering on being illegal.
Edit: I'm not being arsey with you personally btw. Just think the thread's ridiculous.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
[TW]Fox;11335030 said:
Yah but for all we know we're talking about 1 working parent, 1 disabled parent and 6 kids born with inherent disabilities? (I actually know a family with 4 disabled kids, it does happen). The details are shady, so the thread is just speculation and more short sighted social commentary.