The Summer Budget

How does your post of 17.59 make sense, durhamjen?

just a thought regarding kinship care..if a family with two of their own children where to take in one or two of a relations children, in case of crisis ..or death would they be eligible to claim tax credits especially when parental responsibility is given to the carers or a grandparent taking all 3 and having to put in a claim as It is not transferable as far as I am aware

Yes, Jane10, no pensioners will lose at all, and self-employed only lose if their profits are less than £15,000.

Changing the subject slightly I'd like to say that for the first time ever, when using the budget calculator I'm very slightly better off. I had 10 years without a pay rise before I retired and DH is self employed and hasn't taken any increase in take home pay for 13 years. Somehow we managed, only had 2 children (all we could afford) never had any tax credits or assistance despite repeated redundancies in the 1980s yet were always worse off after a budget. This time we're not. I suspect there are many more like me. Not smug, not unsympathetic to those less fortunate but just quietly grateful.

They haven't got a very good mandate considering they have already backed out of the Evel vote next week.

(ignore the 'a')

In 2005 Labour won the election with a 35.19% of the total votes cast.

Did you cpmplain about that, anno?

Just think about the stigma involved. As Anya says, many rape cases do not get reported, usually because nothing happens if they do.

It's like lots of other things, it does not happen to many women, but the incidence of rape has risen over the past few years.
If you already have two children, and have a child after you are raped, are you going to admit to it?
If you do not, you get no child benefit even though you might need the money.

"I accept that this government has a mandate from the voters".

You do, Anya? As far as I'm concerned, 36.9% of the total votes cast at the General Election doesn't constitute a mandate, though it suits this mendacious government to claim that it does.

I have never been raped magpie123 but, as I understand it, rather than a sexual act it is more about a physical attack that is intended to make the aggressor feel powerful. If that is the case to gain power he will do whatever he can in order to drain yours so many people will be left a long way from being able to get "round to the doctors/chemist pronto" but will be feeling mentally and physically destroyed. Add to this they may not agree with the use of the morning after pill but did not ask to be put in a place where they had to make that choice.

I certainly think we need to treat people with care and consideration but still believe the numbers will not be great.

So many cases of rape go unreported anyway.

Possibly rape victims don't always think logically, Magpie, and may neglect to take that quick solution.

Exactly GG.

Surely if you had been raped you would get round to the doctors/chemist pronto and get the morning after pill, dilemma solved.

I wonder if you think that anyone who said they had been raped should get benefits for that child Jen. Obviously it would not be possible if you are limiting the number of children it is available for but you would want there to be exceptions for hard cases I imagine. I think the benefits decision maker would be able to be kind and pleasant but surely all they will need to know will have been reported to the police and/or doctor and that is where evidence will come from.

It's like a b****y cracked record isn't it?

The good points in the budget were the ones in the Labour party manifesto.

Ana I'd not waste your breath posting finger on those who are not prepared to even listen.

While you and I are on opposite sides of the political fence ideologically, I accept that this government has a mandate from the voters and I am prepared to acknowledge that there are good points within this budget while deploring the effect this will have on some genuinely poor, hard-working families.

I can't find any reference to a rape victim 'having to justify herself to the taxman' in the relevant part of the budget.

A Treasury spokesperson said: “As part of the reforms to the welfare system set out in the Budget, we are absolutely clear there needs to be adequate protection for victims of rape and other exceptional circumstances. The details of these protections will be set out in due course.”

This bit seems to have been missed, that a victim of rape will have to justify herself to the taxman to be able to claim for the child.

"SNP MP Roger Mullin urged the Chancellor not to force rape victims to justify themselves to the tax man. Adding that victims of rape should be given “decent treatment” within the benefits system.

Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said the budget was highly moral, a comment which “stunned” and infuriated Mr Mullin.

Mr Mullin replied: “It reminded me that today is the 131st anniversary to the day of the formation of the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children – on the very day that this Government brings in a Budget that attacks children, tax credits for children.”

He added: “What on earth is moral about dragging women to have to talk about the fact that they may have been raped to get some decent treatment out of benefits in this society? What can possibly be moral about that?

“I would appeal to the Government to, for goodness sake, you may seek savings in many other parts of welfare but don’t punish children and don’t force women who have gone through the trauma of rape to have to justify themselves to the taxman.” "

All families have to think before they have more than two children ( we did, ourselves) but sometimes accidents happen in spite of contraception.If this is the case, then the families have to manage as best they can, they will still be supported for the first two children.Children already here are still provided for and next year as well.Women will have to take control of their own lives and bodies and stop producing babies if they can't afford to have more.

Statistically large families are likely to be either very poor or very rich.

If we find the birth rate is a problem we could increase the number to three. However, the issue is not that everyone is only having two children, many people are having only one or none. If this is the case it may be better to improve the help, as I suggested, so all families could consider two. Those who don't are often trying to do their best for one.

I still believe, even if we have to moderate the number a little, that the support should, in the long run, be spent directly on the children.

Yes I think support for the children should be paramount.

Do people deliberately have children to claim tax credits/child benefit? I very much doubt this but even if they do why should the children of such a family be punished?

As I have mentioned before, in the UK the number of children in a family has been steadily falling and apparently the average is now 1.7. I think the figure is that only 14% of people have families of three children or more and large families dependent on out-of-work benefits are very unusual.

I'm afraid it is always the case that hard cases make bad laws and I really do not think that you can change the law to, say, give benefits for three children in case a few, and it would be very few, women have a third because of rape. You would then have to repeat the argument for a women who has a forth child in the case of rape and eventually you would be saying that benefits should apply to the parents for every child. We would then be back where we started.

Personally, I do not agree with supporting parents for every child they have. More than anything I take this view because I do not believe it is good for mothers. However, I do agree with supporting every child. I hope (although I am not holding my breath with a Conservative government) that we see much more free wrap around support for childen, before and after school, free breakfast, lunch and evening meal, homework clubs, etc., etc. and most of all the best education we can provide.