The Summer Budget

I agree totally with that, Gill57

I hate to say this, but I agree with IDS that there is more to child poverty than a simple measure of income. It was ever thus. My Mother grew up in a family of 8, Father a miner, very hard up but the same income as all the neighbours. All 8 gained professional qualifications. Contrast to some neighbours who had Fathers who drank half the wage packet. I do not like IDS but it is not all wrong to say that there is more to child poverty/lack of social mobility than just the money that comes into the house every month. Some people manage very well, feed their children healthy meals and take them to free activities to broaden their minds; some do not. I feel for the children whose parents do not manage (used to be called feckless), but I do not think that just money is the answer; education is the way out as it was for my parents in their childhood.

I read that too Ceesnan. The trouble is that as well as helping people in genuine need, you also facilitate others who are so obviously milking the system and putting two fingers up at the rest of us. It's a complete conundrum and doing what is right and fair almost impossible.

I have just heard about a woman who is the focus of an interview in one of the Sunday papers. She has just given birth to her 12th child and has apparently said "I will have as many as I want. The Government has created this benefit system for me, so why shouldn't I take advantage?" This attitude is all too common and something must be done. The two child cap seems good to me.

The previous measures were only introduced, by Labour, in 2010 Jen so IDS is not overturning a very long history. I do see the point that increases in other people's income can push children into this category, or take them out, from one day to the next.

The new measure includes educational achievement and living in workless households. There certainly are other sorts of poverty than income. I always thought that suitable housing and equal educational opportunities where what children needed. Obviously they need enough to eat, etc., but having said that you cannot always ensure this, even in an above the poverty line household, if parents choose not to or are not aware of what a good and appropriate diet is.

I keep saying this; I really don't trust the Conservatives but that doesn't make everything they are suggesting wrong, certainly not in the first instance. I think the thing that the opposition parties can do is hold their feet to the fire when it comes to housing, etc. No child should, for instance be placed in the B & B type housing and there is far to much of this temporary placement. We know that poor schooling for, say, six months can affect the outcomes for a child for the whole of their school life and I think poor housing may well do the same.

But it's really happening this time. You seem to be ignoring the fact that he is cutting £12 billion from benefits, yet giving money back to those who have money.
Surely you cannot think that is right.

Last Wednesday figures came out about the numbers of children in poverty, an extra million between now and 2020. However, that is not going to be true because on Thursday Iain Duncan Smith changed the definition of poverty so there will be no reference to family income at all.
How clever. The Tories will get rid of child poverty!

Looking at the prices in London on Rightmove is an eye opener, and we are not talking Mayfair here but what used to be very ordinary places, Acton, Clapham, Bethnal Green.

Almost a million for some 3 bed semis in London.

We've been round this one before, DJ

Under the current rules, inheritance tax is charged on estates worth more than £325,000. so if someone's total legacies are over that, ie if they leave more than a house worth £250K and savings, furniture, jewellery and other possessions worth £75K, then the government takes 40% of the extra.

In this climate of ever-rising house prices, you don't need to be filthy rich millionaire to leave that amount - if you haven't spent it all on care homes.

It is up to a total of £1m. Above that , you are a millionaire.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/03/inheritance-tax-giveaway-welfare-cuts-budget-conservatives-george-osborne

The summer budget. How to start a class war. To them that have shall be given. To them that have not shall be taken away.

Or just blow it all on a holiday to China...

Very much the point. Many people who do not have much money save as much as they can towards their funeral, because they do not want to be a burden on their families, as Jane10 and Gracesgran say. No reason why someone on benefits cannot save towards his/her funeral.

Gracesgran what a good post.

Yes, saving for a rainy day has always been my motto, however little we have had in life, and no debts.

It's all about perception of the future Jane10 and you are right, once you are on a fixed income your view of how you would manage if things went even a little wrong are less positive or, perhaps, more realistic. The costs of being poor are very high though so something going wrong which may seem solvable with a little more income just hang over those in this position. Obviously there are exceptions but I would guess that this does affect whether you see the future in a positive or negative way.

Hardly the point, durj.

£6000, funeral or holiday in China?

Is saving for a rainy day not something that older people tend to do more than youngsters? I'm always on about trying to save even a tiny bit each week to youngsters in the family and at work but they just laugh at me!

I know different benefits will take different amounts of savings into account but £10,000 is the lowest I have come across so far. It may surprise some GNs but I believe those on a very low income will do a great deal to save so may try to do this in circumstances those in work would not. There is always hope for better times for those in work but, in my opinion, "poor" pensioners and the "poor" disabled will not really see the hope of much change so squirrel away savings little by little because the rainy day is never far away.

I'm surprised that you think so. I read it as a criticism of the benefits system at the time - a good example of Gordon Brown's largesse!

"On the case of the man going on holiday to China with two carers! He certainly had too much money to spend , quite unbelievable, and glad that it won't be happening now , we hope."

This appears to me to be attacking a disabled man. I am surprised nobody else thinks so.

Very reasonable post GG. Many aspects of this situation to discuss.

There is an extra "in" in the second line - sorry

Jen I do think it is unfair to say people are attacking the disabled. Those of us who want to understand the implications of a particular cut will want to discuss in the "what about this" and "this seems fair/unfair". I would be surprised to find anyone who thinks the current benefits are easy to use or that they always do the most for the least able. That does not mean we want to attack anyone.

Perhaps my comment on how we treat, in particular, single adult households with children (I will not say single parent - children always have two) but I think we have limited the life chances of many of these - usually - women. How we ensure this is changed without making life impossible for those who have extreme problems is very, very difficult but it does not mean we should not discuss it and, to be honest, attacking your fellow posters as if they are less socially conscious than yourself is really not helpful. This is not about any one person but how the country runs the system. I dislike much that the Conservatives believe but that would not stop me allowing that a) anyone might come up with a good idea whatever their politics and b) we need to review a system that has been added to, tweaked and expanded over 65 years without any real overview.

'This government is attacking disabled people, just like some people on this thread.'

I can't find any posts 'attacking' disabled people, durhamjen.

(Yes, I realise that I am not POGS...)