Re: Budget 2012

I have no idea how much child benefit is these days but it isn't something I wholly agree with. If there MUST be child benefit then there should be a "cut off point", perhaps after two children. The times we read about these "super families" with 10, 15, 20 children, living on enormous amounts of benefits, demanding bigger houses etc etc. Well it's downright wrong. If you want so many children then you should ensure you can afford them out of your own pocket. I think it is also disgraceful that asylum seekers, immigrants etc should be given more money to live on than a pensioner who has worked and paid into the system all their working lives.

Quite frankly I can't see any difference between a conservative government and a labour government, they are all there simply to line their own pockets and the pockets of their friends, and often enemies!

Re: Budget 2012

You can't please all of the people all of the time, and in all my years I cannot remember a single budget that I liked, from any government. Can you?

There are always winners and losers but in this case, to an extent, I can relate to the furore relating to pensioners and I think George Osborne may come to regret this instance of political ineptitude.

Re: Budget 2012

Hear hear Loretta, well said...

Re: Budget 2012

We've already got him in our sights Barry and come the next election he may find it very difficult in holding onto his seat. Remember the 'grey vote' are those that actually can be bothered to vote and since I have a long memory, will continue to remind people of what he has done!!!

Re: Budget 2012

When my twins were born in the early 70s, I gave up work to raise them through the most important learning years of their lives. I received, what was family allowance then, for one child only. It was hard work and I think you need to have had children to understand how exhausting it can be and the pressure you are under. No way could I have coped with a job and raising two babies and there were no relatives nearby to help out with baby sitting duties which personally, I wouldn't have expected that anyway. My husband worked his day job then went straight to a part time job every evening. When the twins were six, I took a P/T job as a school cleaner to bring in some extra money to give my husband a break from his P/T job. These P/T jobs didn't attribute to my future pension at all.

My reward for all that was two well mannered, hard working children who I am proud of ..... and a low pension.

Maybe if more mothers stayed at home and raised their children properly, we wouldn't have half the problems with teenagers in the world today.

I think the statement "If you have kids - pay for them yourselves - or don't have them." is very selfish. Today's children are the future ...... therefore, are they only for the rich?

Re: Budget 2012

I don't see it as a selfish statement Mags, especially these days when birth control is easily available. I quite simply do not think it is right or fair when people who have made a conscience decision on the size of their family, probably based on how many children they can afford to feed, clothe and educate, should then have to pay taxes to support people who have babies every year knowing full well they will be on benefits for the rest of their lives and won't ever have to worry about finding a job but will live better than those working and struggling to keep their heads above water.

I agree it would be better if mothers could stay home to bring up their children but unfortunately the majority simply can't afford to. I have one son, I stayed home with him until he started school then I worked round him as much as was possible. At the time I was lucky, my mother was still around to take care of him if I had to work. When he was 6 I became a single parent so I had to work full time and arrange for my son to be cared for after school and in school holiday. I say "had to", I guess I could have gone on benefits but that was not for me. I have never had one penny in benefits ever but I well remember another girl who lived near me, her mother lived next door to her. This girl had two young boys, she was always wanting to borrow from me, would I get her some shopping, she never paid me for it, would I lend her £10, I did that twice only, never got it back. When I asked her why she didn't look for a part time job as her mother lived next door, her reply was "why should I work, the money is put there for people like me" !

Yes of course children are the future, but what kind of future is the benefits culture going to bring?

Re: Budget 2012

That's not selfish at all Mags.
When we were all newly married and thinking about starting a family, the first question we asked ourselves was "can we afford children". We all raised our own children with little help from the state, and if there had been no family allowance it wouldn't have changed things one iota. You could either afford to lose one wage for five years or you couldn't. I see no reason at all why the children of modern families should be raised by the state, and I resent the fact that we are also paying for childcare for absent parents. By mothers continuing to work and farming their kids out to all and sundry instead of being there with them, nurturing them and teaching them what they need to know about life to become decent people, we are just storing up problems for the future. For goodness sake kids are starting school these days not even potty trained, never mind not being able to read and write, which most of us could when we started school.

A modern couple next door to us have two kids below school age and both parents work full time. They are taken to childcare at 6.30am and are picked up again at 6pm. What sort of childhood is that?

Re: Budget 2012

Mags said
I think the statement "If you have kids - pay for them yourselves - or don't have them." is very selfish. Today's children are the future ...... therefore, are they only for the rich?

Well said Mags - I would have said exactly the same. I am sure people without children do not appreciate how much it does actually cost to bring them up (and I don't just mean financial cost). The child benefit is a drop in the ocean in real terms compared with the actual reality.
I have had two children and like you stopped work for a while to see they had a good start. It may not be apparent to everyone, but when a woman stays at home with her children you can lose out on your o.a.p. later in life. Because I do not have full qualifying years (which in my day was 44 years - I think) I did not get a full o.a.p. when I retired. I had 38 years of contributions, which would be enough nowdays because the qualifying years have changed. In my case I only get 88% of a basic o.a.p. When I went back to work I paid into a privae pension, but it is only a small one. I actually feel a bit cheated that I am penalised for having children and do not get a full basic o.a.p. I have given the country and society as a whole two great hard-working, fully contributing adults and we took full responsibility for their upbringing without thinking the state would be responsible for them.
The children that we bring into this world eventually go on to work, pay taxes, NI and their contributions actually pay for the pensions of the o.a.p's. Obviously if no children are born, no contributions made and the country's population would eventually die out - so everyone should be happy that people still do want them - For the vast majority of people it is not an easy cop out having children - it's flipping hard work and responsibility. There will always be the minority who probably shouldn't have children, but I believe the vast majority of people who have children are hard-working and conscientious folk. Make no mistake, it is the hardest job anyone does raising a child to be a well-adjusted and valuable member of society - We should not knock the efforts of parents - rather we should give thanks that some people still think it is worthwhile having them. I personally would have been financially rich if I had not had them - they are a lifetime's work.

Re: Budget 2012

Plantman said
A modern couple next door to us have two kids below school age and both parents work full time. They are taken to childcare at 6.30am and are picked up again at 6pm. What sort of childhood is that?

Those parents will be paying a large sum for that childcare Barry - it is a considerable expense for parents and many can't afford it unless they have decent jobs with a good income - the state doesn't pay for it. I know this because two of my grandchildren (who are under three) have some daycare - not full-time, but a couple of days each week which their parents fully pay for themselves. As for not being any sort of childhood, I personally think that some nursery care is very good for children and gives them a head start for when they actually do go to school. As with all things there is a happy medium to be struck. I think that the 15 hours state paid nursery care when a child reaches 3 is well worth the country paying for. It is only paid from 3 years of age until the child goes to school, so is hardly years and years (less than two I think). Compared with what that child will put back into society when adult it is a mere drop in the ocean. What would you rather spend money on? Surely our children (the adults of the future) are worth such a small investment.

Re: Budget 2012

Sorry don't agree at all. If you want kids you should pay for them no-one else. If you want to buy a house or a car you either have the money or you get a loan. So maybe child benefit should be as a form of a loan which you have to pay back. No way should you get handouts just because you decide you must have children. It is totally unjust and unfair. The world is over populated and if there were no child benefit handouts it might make people think more about having them.