Gov.uk Petition to retain 2-child benefit

MaizieD

^But why are private rents so high? And why is the State subsidising private landlords?^

I keep banging on about this I know, but that is the way our neoliberal based economy works. It positively favours the flow of wealth upwards by way of allowing profiteering 'private enterprise' with a tax regime which favours the wealthy and by shrinking the public sector.

The state subsidies private landlords because it has no option as there is little social housing with lower rents available but it has an obligation to support the disadvantaged.

Of course, many on here would like to see that obligation removed and leave the poor to fend for themselves.

I find it odd because a very limited number of HA houses were built near us (just 8 houses) and were meant to go to local people.
Someone in the village who was in need applied but was not successful. Those who were successful were not locals. At least two had large 4xs. 🤔

Of course, many on here would like to see that obligation removed and leave the poor to fend for themselves.

Yet another generalisation
And worse, attributing words that only MD has actually said, to other posters.

Can’t make up my mind whether it’s deliberate or for entertainment value.

There's always room for a bit of corruption, Allira. no organisation is immune.

HAs are a step removed from government. I don't know whether they can be held to account in any way. At least local councils in charge of social housing can be democratically held to account.

MaizieD

There's always room for a bit of corruption, Allira. no organisation is immune.

HAs are a step removed from government. I don't know whether they can be held to account in any way. At least local councils in charge of social housing can be democratically held to account.

She and her child did get another house, I'm pleased to say. Not one of the lovely new ones but a good house for her and her child.

There's always room for a bit of corruption, Allira. no organisation is immune.
Oh yes, seen that here!

Opal

And I don't understand your wish to make hard working people continue to provide for others who are 1. perfectly capable of working but choose not to, and 2. choose to increase the size of their family when they simply cannot afford more children.
The right to have children goes hand in hand with the responsibility to provide for them. No ifs, no buts.

Well said, Opal.

sundowngirl thank you for your explanation, that's really interesting.

I was born in 1957 and I was told my Dad received a tax allowance rather than my Mum receiving family allowance for me.

We got married in 1977 and had our first child in 1981.
I hadn't realised we were so close to the date when the family allowance payment was introduced for the first child!

sundowngirl

V3ra. I was born in 1946, obviously just after the war and there was no family allowance for my parents. My son was born in 1973 and at the time there was still no benefit given for the 1st child but things changed around the time I had my daughter in 1977 and I then got family allowance for both of them

My son was born in 1971 and the was no child benefit but there was a tax allowance, there was one on marriage as well. By the time you applied and got it there was usually a nice rebate due as well.

Why pay people who just have chikdren that others keep. I don't understand it, it's a kick in the teeth for those hardworking people that have the chikdren they can afford, they are only just keeping their heads above water. Before anyone says everyone can fall in hard times, yes they can, that's why you have children you can afford, should that happen. This is just taking the mickey why bother working when you get all the benefits available and can stay at hone in the warm. This government is a real mess.

I don’t think many people object to paying their hard earned taxes to help the less fortunate. But when the less fortunate end up on more money you……..?
Well. you can’t help people getting get fed up. And it’s always the people who are just above the benefits cap. People who work hard on an average income who suffer. It’s never the rich.

V3ra

sundowngirl thank you for your explanation, that's really interesting.

I was born in 1957 and I was told my Dad received a tax allowance rather than my Mum receiving family allowance for me.

We got married in 1977 and had our first child in 1981.
I hadn't realised we were so close to the date when the family allowance payment was introduced for the first child!

Thanks for that. As far as my (very limited) memories of my childhood go - I do remember my mother saying that there was no "family allowance" for me (ie first child) - but there was no countervailing "Ah - but your father got tax allowance for you - so that's okay then" as far as I remember. Nope - just "Your brother brought money - but you didnt !!! " (she wasnt the worlds brightest button 'tis true).

Kandinsky

I don’t think many people object to paying their hard earned taxes to help the less fortunate. But when the less fortunate end up on more money you……..?
Well. you can’t help people getting get fed up. And it’s always the people who are just above the benefits cap. People who work hard on an average income who suffer. It’s never the rich.

Valid point. One almost wonders why the newspapers are so full of what some individual people are up to (ie those who are rich or super-rich anyway) and proceed to go off and spend it buying mansions and supercars and having weddings that cost millions of £s/etc - and yet Joe/Jane Average in the Street are taxed money they can't afford.

How much was Jeff Bezos' wedding again?

I guess we don't see the rich flashing obscene amounts of cash around - but yer "ordinary person in the street" next door spending money they apparently haven't got is way more visible to everyone in some respects.

Allsorts

Why pay people who just have chikdren that others keep. I don't understand it, it's a kick in the teeth for those hardworking people that have the chikdren they can afford, they are only just keeping their heads above water. Before anyone says everyone can fall in hard times, yes they can, that's why you have children you can afford, should that happen. This is just taking the mickey why bother working when you get all the benefits available and can stay at hone in the warm. This government is a real mess.

And what example are parents who are able to work but choose to be unemployed, setting for their children? Living on generous benefits is a lifestyle choice for many these days. Reeves has this idealised vision of lifting children out of poverty but I doubt it will be the success she thinks it will be. Many will use it to benefit their children but many will not. I think she has made a catastrophic error here and sent a message to the workshy that laziness is tolerated in Benefit Britain.

I agree that the 2 child limit should not have been raised but starting a petition is a waste of time, the government has a massive majority and they want it gone.

Maybe if enough vote Reform that will change after the next election, until then forget it.

All these hard working people, are they different from the ordinary working people, must be that these special hard working people do more than ordinary working people, or maybe they consider themselves special and above others who don’t/didn’t work as hard, in their opinion of course. Personally I was in the extra very hard working group, no one worked as hard as me.

It's not the children's fault that they are poor, or that their parents are 'feckless', or that they have too many siblings, is it?

Imo the media are now using the very poor in the same way that they’ve been using immigrants and asylum seekers ie as a way of dividing the country. And it’s working .

Around 40% of people claiming UC are in work, usually doing the low paid, hard jobs that keep our society going. Others are unable to work due to disabilities or health conditions, many are unpaid carers. The exceptions (feckless, workshy, lazy, whatever term you care to use) will always be with us, just as we’ll always have tax dodgers and grifters in our upper echelons too. The thing is, they’ll be subject to the benefits cap, currently around £22,000 a year, so the majority won’t be getting their nails done at your expense.

And of course we have a population crisis. With the average birth rate per woman now barely topping 1.4, and longevity constantly increasing, who’s going to pay all those pensions and care for all those old people in future years?

All things considered, if I end up paying a bit more so that a hard-pressed carer down the road with three or four children ends up better off, I’m fine with that. And if I’m ever approached by anyone wanting me to sign a petition urging the government to keep more children in poverty, I’ll tell them where to stick it.

Bravo Maggiemaybe

David49

I agree that the 2 child limit should not have been raised but starting a petition is a waste of time, the government has a massive majority and they want it gone.

Maybe if enough vote Reform that will change after the next election, until then forget it.

Jeeez, David. Many of the beneficiaries of the removal of the cap will be Reform voters!

Well said Maggiemaybe

Maremia

It's not the children's fault that they are poor, or that their parents are 'feckless', or that they have too many siblings, is it?

No, but it shouldn't be that parents can receive more money for refusing to work than going to work. The benefits system, which was going to be reviewed under Labour until they did yet another U-turn, is long overdue. Genuinely disabled people should be well cared for, no question about that, but there is an increasing number who are able to work but refuse. Why shouldn't people have to do some sort of community work in order to 'earn' their benefits? There are many groups and organisations crying out for help and most local areas could do with a clean and spruce up that councils turn a blind eye to. But no, nothing is asked of them except to hold their hands out every 4 weeks for money. Maybe sucking up to the unemployed is a plan to garner their votes at the next GE.

Who are these people who 'refuse' to work?
How do you refuse to work without losing your benefits?
And what constitutes a 'genuinely' disabled person?

And I repeat, it's not the children's fault.

Allira

MaizieD

But why are private rents so high? And why is the State subsidising private landlords?

I keep banging on about this I know, but that is the way our neoliberal based economy works. It positively favours the flow of wealth upwards by way of allowing profiteering 'private enterprise' with a tax regime which favours the wealthy and by shrinking the public sector.

The state subsidies private landlords because it has no option as there is little social housing with lower rents available but it has an obligation to support the disadvantaged.

Of course, many on here would like to see that obligation removed and leave the poor to fend for themselves.

I find it odd because a very limited number of HA houses were built near us (just 8 houses) and were meant to go to local people.
Someone in the village who was in need applied but was not successful. Those who were successful were not locals. At least two had large 4xs. 🤔

Then we have the owners of HMOs.
My friend ( now retired) was the maintenance manager for the largest owner of HMOs in my city.
He would hold the council to ransom when he wanted rent increased. His reasoning was: if I don’t get it I will close the houses and you will be responsible for housing these people.

Maremia

Who are these people who 'refuse' to work?
How do you refuse to work without losing your benefits?
And what constitutes a 'genuinely' disabled person?

And I repeat, it's not the children's fault.

Nobody is saying it's the children's' fault. However, throwing more money at some parents isn't going to help their children, now or in the future.

Worth trying though?