Cyclone Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I see the point of the post. We have 5 children between us. We have been married for over 12 years and in that time I have been unemployed for a total of 8 months, so hardly a benefit scrounger. Without things like HB and tax credits etc my wife would not be able to afford to study and make our life better. What is needed is the government to penalise those who refuse to work. They is no extra help for those who want to get an education and get a decent job and out of the MW trap. I pay for all my training and licenses to enable me to work. I can claim some income tax back is this still a benefit? And under your ideas not be allowed for my family? I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the link in the OP http://blog.cix.co.uk/gmorgan/2012/02/02/the-real-comparisons-for-capping/ With 5 children between you, whether working or not the change will not affect you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 How many children do you have? How is that relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 No not at all. As I said it it is there for times of hardship. In 12 years 8 months I've needed to claim JSA other times the benefits have been in work benefits. I know plenty of people who haven't worked at all in those same 12 years and have no intention of working as they are plain lazy and sooner let other provide wholly for them. So shouldn't there be a cap on how the benefits of these people are increased whenever they choose to have more children? Why should you and me pay for their family of above 5 children through our taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubby Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 So shouldn't there be a cap on how the benefits of these people are increased whenever they choose to have more children? Why should you and me pay for their family of above 5 children through our taxes? I see where you are coming from. For those in long term benefits (not maybe disabled hard one to judge that one) Maybe a cap to prevent them from claiming for children while on benefit. Would have to be those over maybe a year on out of work benefits so not to affect those who have just had bad luck like losing their job. I know a woman who is claiming (not sure what but her current partner is also not working) she has been since she moved in our area about 3 years ago. She has 3 children and is pregnant again. Your idea may apply to her and when she or her partner are working (for so long) clock get reset so if he leaves or she is unemployed etc she is covered. With the current system if she was on her own she would find it really hard to raise her education level to get a better job. Also hard to work round school. We find it hard sometimes and there is two of us due to working patterns, me working away etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubby Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 How is that relevant? Just trying to find if the number of children you have has influence your POV as it does mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubby Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 So if it's not limitless then where is the line? The line at the moment is based on income and not family size. If the limit is reached taxes etc are increased to raise more government revenue both on a local and national level. HB/CTB is paid on a local level but correa is set on a national level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Presumably in your situation, where some of the children came with your wife, the father of those children has to contribute to their upkeep... In a more simple example, it's not reasonable for a family to have 5 children whilst not working (which is different to loosing their income having already had and being able to support 5 children). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The line at the moment is based on income and not family size. If the limit is reached taxes etc are increased to raise more government revenue both on a local and national level. So we should just keep paying out? And if it gets too expensive everyone else who is still working should pay more tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Just trying to find if the number of children you have has influence your POV as it does mine. We had what we could afford without reliance on benefits..only thing we've ever had is child allowance.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubby Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the link in the OP http://blog.cix.co.uk/gmorgan/2012/02/02/the-real-comparisons-for-capping/ With 5 children between you, whether working or not the change will not affect you. I just read the link and to be fair don't understand it and take your word that it won't affect us (hopefully if my wife's studies go as planned and the jobs are there) by the time it comes into play. But what a lot of people have said they feel it should be capped at 2 children. Surely that would affect us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.