Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020

Agreed Anya, if I was to turn in everyone who was fiddling their taxes I wouldn't have time to run a legitimate business!

I understand all your comments and to me and many others it is a matter of pride. I really do know several young ladies who wear expensive clothes and use new buggies etc and they are on benefit. The social workers encourage them to have new stuff and they get loans to have the latest of everything.

Equally I have been in a doctors household where the wife was doing a pile of mending while making homemade soup and the children were dressed in old clothes, presumably having changed after school, I know this was not a poverty household but thrifty. Consider those on low pay who throw away good stuff, even my DD threw away a good pair of converse because they were dirty.

Many older people are too proud to beg for charity, I myself never put the heating on overnight, I just cant afford it and btw having read some of these links I would be considered living in poverty but I cant do anything about it, I was brought up never to discuss finances and so I put on a bit of make up, wear clean clothes and if the government cut back benefits then so be it, I don't get benefits I work so I will just have to manage but Im not going to expect any help.

also I am concerned by the impact on the work ethic, if children grow up thinking that if their income drops below a certain level then they can claim benefits, and afford all sorts of things, shouldn't we have to work to be able to afford a good lifestyle.

I watched a programme today which I had recorded about a food bank in Dundee.
I never thought of Dundee as being a poor city, but 1 in 4 children now live below the poverty line.
You can argue as much as you like about what that means.
A building company went into liquidation while they were filming, putting 250 people out of work, 250 families affected, and they were not going to be paid for the last two weeks they had worked.
One of the fathers was followed to the food bank, before he went to the job centre the next day, because he had no money to buy food. They were talking about having to open up another food bank to cope with the expected influx of people.
There were a couple of people on there who will fit your prejudiced view, but they were definitely not all like that.
There were people who have the work ethic, but cannot get jobs. It happens a lot. It's worth watching just to follow the manager of the food bank, who says that one good thing about going to a food bank is that there is always someone there who can say "I know how it feels." He was one of those four years ago.
Apparently shoplifting in general is in decline, but the police say that there is a sharp increase in people stealing to eat.
I find that absolutely appalling in this country, that people should have to.

action.sumofus.org/a/lidl-living-wage-campaign/

It will help some workers.

'There were a couple of people on there who will fit your prejudiced view, but they were definitely not all like that'

Who the hell do you think you are talking to DJ? I suppose that was in reply to ethelbags's post. This is why most people are sick and tired of posters who just hammer one point of view and refuse to acknowledge those of others.

No, it's more than that. By using phrases such a 'prejudiced' views you are actually scorning their opinions, which I happen to know in ethelbag's case is based on experience. Just try to keep a civil tongue in your head and try to see how nasty posts like that last one do you no favours.

Would it have hurt to have missed out the phrase 'prejudiced view' and simply posted instead ...

'There were a couple of people on there who will fit your description, but they were definitely not all like that'

???

Note the difference. You are now acknowledging Ethel's post, accepting she has a point but putting your own over too. Nothing nasty, nothing offensive.

I think, from reading her posts, that ethel 'speaks as she finds' from her own experiences - and it sounds as if she has more experience of RL and the attitudes of 'ordinary people' than left wing journalists in their ivory towers who are not always the fount of all wisdom.

It makes it difficult to post on any but the knitting threads .....

Oh heavens, the "Post Police" are back to tell people how they may and may not post.

Back to talking about the subject. Jen the conservatives "barely adequate income" - it is not a living wage - will indeed help some people but I think most people can understand that if you take £x away from someone and tell them they will not have to pay tax because you are raising the level at which tax is paid but ... you do not pay tax - you will be worse off.

Equally, if you have £x amount taken away and you are told that your employer will make some of this up because the "barely adequate income" is going up but ...

* your employer feel he cannot afford it so cuts your hours, or
* you will have at least 18 months while others earn more but your income does not reach even the conservatives idea of a "barely adequate income" - but this will still not make up for the amount you have lost, or
* you cannot work more hours (as conservative MPs have suggested) because there are none available in your area, or because you already have several jobs, or you do not know from week to week what your hours are, or there are no jobs offering any hours in your area and you need to do whatever you can to hang on to the one you have, or
* you have children and while the Conservatives talk about increased free childcare it is a mirage. There is little or no funding and it is more likely to force businesses out of state funded care so there will be even less free care.

Then I think most people will understand that you will go without yourself in order to feed your children in every way you can but even that will not be enough so you may be very inadequately fed, working and unable to give their children an adequate diet.

We should be ashamed that people are having to steal to feed themselves but I imaging the right will just impose harsher punishments. Didn't they used to hang those who did this?

I think we are losing the point a bit here, regardless of our personal definitions, it is acknowledged by respected bodies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that there is an increase in poverty. Yes, our definition of poverty is not the same as that of our parents or grandparents, but do we really think that 'the poor' whoever they are, are not poor until they are eating bread and dripping, do we really want the elderly dying due to their inability to heat their homes? I just dont understand this pride in 'ooh we had it tough', surely we should be proud that life is no longer like that? And although I respect everyone has their right to an opinion and that is why I am on GN, I still don't believe the stories of Social workers encouraging people on benefits to get into debt to buy stuff, for one thing being on benefits does not mean you get a social worker. Now, can we get back to the point, that surely regardless of our personal politics, we should all be concerned about increasing child poverty, however it is measured?

An aside - "A building company went into liquidation while they were filming, putting 250 people out of work, 250 families affected, and they were not going to be paid for the last two weeks they had worked." so if that building firm had continued in operation, 250 families would not have to rely on food banks.

Going back a bit in the chain of events and getting money moving round the country (not out of it by buying foreign-made goods) would mean businesses did not slip into liquidation, so there would be fewer people needing help, the money available would not be spread as thinly.

That would, of course, mean that more people in other countries would be unable to sell stuff to us, so their businesses couild suffer.

That is the problem with globalisation. Those who can produce for less because they have nothing will get the contract, bcause everyone goes for the cheapest option. So standards of living drop everywhere as whole countries give up production and move over to consuming. A vicious circle that goes only downwards. Wholesale borrowing and qualitative easing (ie, devaluation) follows because things are measured by money, not by what they can be bartered for, and then those who sell money are the winners, everyone else the losers.

Missedd out a few words.Should have read "Those who can produce for less because their employees have nothing.

GG try for more originality and not that old chestnut the 'post police' - and did it ever occur to you to read and think about what was written and why?

If you look at the above post from Gill you will see she can make her point, lucidly, intelligently and strongly, without resorting to personal insults.

I actually disagree with her posts on several issues but I see the point she is making.

Ethel's view was prejudiced. She knows it. I do not agree with it.
There are a few on here who are prejudiced against people on benefits who smoke or drink.
What about looking at the message instead of always attacking the messenger.

Link to the programme, so you can watch it, then know what I am talking about.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06dsdqk/the-food-bank-scotlands-hidden-hunger

Well said, GillT.

Getting back to the point about child poverty, throwing money at the problem may not be the best answer. There is actually a lot of food for though in the 'ooh we had it tough, but we still managed to get by' comments.

Parents need help in budgeting, learning to cook from basics and other basic life skills, which former generations have failed to pass on to them. More people could manage better in the money they have, feed their children better meals, if this issue was addressed properly and not just skirted round.

It's not just those on benefits who lack these skills. I was constantly shocked by friends and colleagues, in well paid jobs, who lacked the ability to bring in a nutritious, tasty meal for a fraction of the price it would cost for convenience food. It's OK, I suppose, as these people can afford to waste money like this, but when you're on a budget then you need, more than ever, to have these skills.

I ran an after school cookery club, for children and parents, in a deprived area of Liverpool. The club was marketed as getting the children to eat more fruit and veg, but there was a hidden agenda. Every parent took to it like ducks to water, and started cooking soups, stews, making home made smoothies, roast dinners, and so on. They revelled in their new-found skills.

The Resolution Foundation has found that Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020

Does this take into account regional differences in costs of living?

(removal of both the family element and support for third children and beyond only affects the flow of new claimants (or additional births)

One wonders how many children in that number of 600,000 would be 'additional births' and why anyone would choose to have 3 or more children if they cannot afford to feed and care for them?

For instance, is it right to assume that people such as 'Claire' whose question Jeremy Corbyn brought to Prime Minister's Question Time should expect the taxpayer to fund her choice of having five children, when other young couples, who are also taxpayers, restrict their families to 1 or 2 children that they can afford to look after?

Sorry to sidetrack this thread but I cannot let your post go unchallenged DJ as it is unbelievable that you can write that ethel is prejudiced and not see your own prejudices.

And then to say 'what about looking at the message instead of always attacking the messanger' actually beggars belief. That is exactly what you were doing when you called ethel names. Just because you don't agree with her views does not make her prejudiced.

Irony is alive and well

Back to the question in hand. Roseq this point has been made many times. Peope are allowed to have as many children as they can afford. In times gone by, when families had no access to family planning it must have been a nightmare, and heartbreaking, to had so many children you couldn't feed or clothe them adequately.

But it has been pointed out we shouldn't be harking back to those times, and nowadays everyone in the UK has access to means to limit their family size. So barring the odd accident, there is no reason why people cannot choose to have only the number of children they can afford.

Many on here, took that decision in our childbearing years, even though we might have preferred a larger family. So yes, people need to take responsibility for their actions, and that includes family size.

Here is a link about Claire from the Telegraph (ooh, horror)
But sometimes it is useful to see both sides of an argument, and there are plenty of links relating to the other side of the debate on here already. I am sure that Claire is not alone in her views.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11871261/Why-should-I-pay-for-Jeremy-Corbyns-friend-Claire-to-have-so-many-children-tax-credits-PMQs.html

I think it's only new applicants that will be affected by the new family credit rules, so it won't make any difference to Claire,or anyone else already in the system. As far as I'm concerned people can have as many children as they like but not at the tax payers expense. I once knew a family that openly boasted that having a baby every three or four years guaranteed them extra income, they proudly played the system, and why not, if the system is daft enough to allow this to become a way of life. No one needs to have more children than they can cope with either emotionally or financially, yes the odd accident can occur but by and large, most of us can limit our families and have been able to for years.

Ethelbags,well done to you to keep posting after those unpleasant and personal remarks directed at you, you obviously have a better grasp of RL and it's problems than some on here!
Good posts Anya.
There is not a magic pot of money to dip into, as others have said.

That's just silly, roses. How can anyone have a better grasp of real life than anyone else?
We are all living in the real world.

Anya, lots of people have the number of children they can afford. Then they get made redundant. They might already have large TVs and expensive mobile phones. Then they get made redundant.
Pre-welfare state, the council used to come round to your house and take any furniture to sell before you were given any financial help from the council.
Shall we go back to those days? At least it would stop others saying they cannot be poor as they have a big tele and new clothes. Their children even have shoes!

Despite positive action on low pay, cuts to working age benefits mean that most of this increase is expected to be among those living in working households.

I thought the OP referred to working tax credits

Then they get made redundant. not to welfare payments to someone out of work through redundancy.

Or have I got it wrong?

That's just silly, roses. How can anyone have a better grasp of real life than anyone else?
Perhaps through their work if they come into contact with a wide range of opinions from the general public, not just from publications?

And , with due respect, silly prejudiced etc are not the best words to use if one is trying to debate. It just gets the other person's back up as it is personal.

We do not need a magic money pot, roses. All we need is for people to pay their fair share of tax, and to pay decent wages.

www.google.com/url?q=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/12/facebook-tax-politics-power&sa=U&ved=0CAUQFjAAahUKEwjp2pK0wL3IAhUBlIgKHZFoA5M&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNENuxd1DGxPjDAWFGDJ6fhBW8lgGQ

About Facebook.

And for there to be enough jobs in enough businesses, large and small, for the tax-payers, lartge and small, to fill the pot that is to be shared out.

If the small businesses go bust, and if the multi-nationals take their jobs elsewhere when they are asked for their back taxes, to countries who are less thorough, the pot won't get the input from them, large or small, or from the workers who are not getting the pay to be taxed on.

It is not "All we need . . ." We need a lot more than that. A policy needs more than one leg to stand on.