discodown Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Seriously ???? you don't have to pay council tax if you are in work. How do I go about this - could do with another £100 a month to spend on the family You're being absolutist, there isn't a cut off point of when you can't claim it all depends on your income. Housing and council tax benefit is based on the relationship between how much you earn and how much the govt says you need to live on(applicable amount). Did you not wonder how I reached the figure in my earlier post?! So in short each family has an applicable amount, when you work your income out relative to your applicable amount you may be eligible to claim benefit. Bear in mind if your income is greater than the applicable amount you may still claim but the only benefit you receive is 20% of the excess income for CTB and 65% of the excess for HB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 We have to remember that everyone in society isn't the same, we don't all have the same ability to do something with our lives etc. Benefits and family size is very complex. I'm not blind t the fact there are families who have generations who don't work, or have hardly ever worked. However, most people take responsibility for their own families, but on occasion life has intervenes. Jobs are lost, people become ill or disabled, or families break down, often with severe financial consequences. In theory, I'd be in favour of benefits that included a flat rate 'family premium' regardless of how many children there are. But in reality, the children who aren't very well cared for in the current benefits system would be even worse off. There have always been feckless parents, who don't put their children's needs anywhere near the top of their list of priorities. If there was less money coming in, those kids would have an even harder time. I wish there was a simple answer, but as a decent society, we must be prepared to care for our most vulnerable, and that will always include the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 We have to remember that everyone in society isn't the same, we don't all have the same ability to do something with our lives etc. Benefits and family size is very complex. I'm not blind t the fact there are families who have generations who don't work, or have hardly ever worked. However, most people take responsibility for their own families, but on occasion life has intervenes. Jobs are lost, people become ill or disabled, or families break down, often with severe financial consequences. In theory, I'd be in favour of benefits that included a flat rate 'family premium' regardless of how many children there are. But in reality, the children who aren't very well cared for in the current benefits system would be even worse off. There have always been feckless parents, who don't put their children's needs anywhere near the top of their list of priorities. If there was less money coming in, those kids would have an even harder time. I wish there was a simple answer, but as a decent society, we must be prepared to care for our most vulnerable, and that will always include the children. The report that I highlighted shows there was a 15% increase in births as a result of the increase in benefits. Your post is talking about those who fall on hard times, where this actually quotes figures that prove that people actually were influenced by the temptation of benefits and had more children as a result.Dont you think that they should take personal responsibility and would think twice about having children if the benefits system wasnt there to support their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrogo Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 This is a difficult subject. Like what was previously commented on, children don't ask to be born into poverty, and children will suffer if benefits are cut. The government does need to do something to make employment are more attractive than benefits, and abscent parents need to pay for their kids (hope I haven't got any lol). Just because a woman has fled the man, the government still can deduct money from him, without disclosing his childs whereabouts. The CSA can be used as the go between. If benefits are lowered, perhaps the government should pay benefits in kind. For instance, a food voucher scheme. When using the vouchers at an approved retailer photo ID should be provided. This would insure all the money is being used to feed and cloth the chidren and not to pay for adult vices and luxuries. For someone on long term Income Support, they should be encouraged to take part time work, and benefits should be withdrawn over a 12 month period, to then be replaced with the Working Tax credit. Initially this may prove expensive, but it would at least instill a work ethic into the parent, and children being brought up into the household. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Unless of course she got a job and took responsibility for them. Are you happy to let children starve to death because their parent is irresponsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 So let me get this right. Most of you believe that people should continue to have as many children as they want, not take any responsibility and there not be a cut off point I don't think anybody believes that. What we believe is that your proposed solution would cause suffering to the innocent children while the irresponsible parents just carry on being irresponsible. Maybe you'd be happy with that. I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Are you happy to let children starve to death because their parent is irresponsible? I dont beleive that they would do that. I believe that the parents knowing that there wasn't any benefits to fall back on would not have had so many children in the first place. It is knowing that they are there that is the fundamental problem for some people anyway. Did you not read the report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Are you happy to let children starve to death because their parent is irresponsible? Also social services would then have to intervene if the parents was not feeding their children. Like they do now.The amount of money that was saved would mean that services could be administered much more effectively and would allow them to offer the right support to those who genuinely needed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 So let me get this right. Most of you believe that people should continue to have as many children as they want, not take any responsibility and there not be a cut off point ..............while........ a man/or woman who works and gets taxed to death, many of which do not earn enough money due to the amount of tax they pay...........these people (who in many cases can't afford a one bedroomed flat - never mid a 3 bedroomed house) should continue to pay their hard earned money to support the people who take no responsibilty for their actions? No, you have extrapolated the comments wrongly. We aren't supporting the indiscriminate churning out of children. What we are saying is that those children should not be penalised for their parents' fecklessness. It's a whole different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickw Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Chem1st When did I ever say I was angry. I will continue to provide for me and mine without the intervention of the state, financially or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.