Gov.uk Petition to retain 2-child benefit

Skydancer

I remember some years ago a Polish man working in Britain said he was amazed that this country pays people not to work.

That’s strange, as Poland does provide unemployment benefit🤔

“Poland has an unemployment benefits system that provides a monthly allowance, job search assistance, training programs, and potential subsidies for starting a business.” (AI overview)

nanna8

If you have a lot of children it is quite hard to work when they are young because they get a lot of colds, coughs and infectious diseases. Just saying.

If you have no family close and you’re in a new area, even one sick child makes work difficult.

If you have a lot of children it is quite hard to work when they are young because they get a lot of colds, coughs and infectious diseases. Just saying.

Galaxy

Yes there appears to be a growing population of young people who would not have smoked but do vape. I think it remains to be seen if it will be viewed as a successful public health policy in years to come.

I'm blowed if I can think why anyone vapes at all. I would have thought the information of just how bad it is for one's health (popcorn lungs anyone - if I remember aright) is widely disseminated.

I guess it's one quick way to figure out if someone is errrrm...not very bright...ie they're vaping.

Yes there appears to be a growing population of young people who would not have smoked but do vape. I think it remains to be seen if it will be viewed as a successful public health policy in years to come.

I’m uneasy, to say the least, about encouraging vaping, just stop smoking of any kind

A lot of people who are in poverty are heavy smokers and other addictions
More could be done about crazy cost of cigs some people are unable to give up and families go without as a result I think in the budget vapes tax was mentioned Hopefully they aren't going to make vaping as bad A lot have managed to have more money by changing a hopeless addiction to cigs for vapes

www.google.com/search?q=How+many+families+who+have+had+more+than+2+kids+in+the+UK+had+to+claim+benefits+when+one+parent+left+or+died%3F&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB790GB790&oq=How+many+families+who+have+had+more+than+2+kids+in+the+UK+had+to+claim+benefits+when+one+parent+left+or+died%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.462172j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8"How many families who have had more than 2 kids in the UK had to claim benefits when one or both parents became ill or died".
Just thought I'd ask the question..... Apologies if someone has already asked......

But I do think we have to acknowledge that the wealth of some of the rich has very much, in the past and the present, been acquired from the poorer members of society who have worked with very low wages to produce the products whose sale has enriched them, and bought the products. Without 'consumers' their wealth wouldn't exist.

Oh, I agree.

I remember some years ago a Polish man working in Britain said he was amazed that this country pays people not to work.

So, let's get on with helping the children and then take a look at stats, perhaps in those regions mentioned upthread, to find out how it has worked out.

Allira

MaizieD

Allira

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.

Very true.

Many years ago the rich industrialists were philanthropists and social reformers too but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

I thought we had started to achieve a society which didn't depend on the philanthropy and social conscience of a few of the wealthy.

Until Thatcher and Reagan came along, that is...

As you know, I was not saying that society should be dependent on rich philanthropists to look after the poor.

What I said was that the rich in years gone by contributed to society and tried to improve social conditions whereas most of the very rich now seem to just become greedier and wealthier.

I'm sorry if I seem to have misinterpreted you, Allira. Perhaps I missed something you said earlier. I hold my hands up and say I'm guilty of not reading the whole thread before commenting..

I don't have any problem with acknowledging that some wealthy individuals in the past did try to improve social conditions, even that some today still do. Bill Gates being a prominent example.

But I do think we have to acknowledge that the wealth of some of the rich has very much, in the past and the present, been acquired from the poorer members of society who have worked with very low wages to produce the products whose sale has enriched them, and bought the products. Without 'consumers' their wealth wouldn't exist.

I know this isn't the whole story, there's more complexity to it, but basically the rich draw to themselves as much as they possibly can of the money which the state provides, supposedly for the benefit of all.

As you say, they just become greedier and wealthier...

MaizieD

Allira

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.

Very true.

Many years ago the rich industrialists were philanthropists and social reformers too but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

I thought we had started to achieve a society which didn't depend on the philanthropy and social conscience of a few of the wealthy.

Until Thatcher and Reagan came along, that is...

As you know, I was not saying that society should be dependent on rich philanthropists to look after the poor.

What I said was that the rich in years gone by contributed to society and tried to improve social conditions whereas most of the very rich now seem to just become greedier and wealthier.

Allira

^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.^

Very true.

Many years ago the rich industrialists were philanthropists and social reformers too but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

I thought we had started to achieve a society which didn't depend on the philanthropy and social conscience of a few of the wealthy.

Until Thatcher and Reagan came along, that is...

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.

Very true.

Many years ago the rich industrialists were philanthropists and social reformers too but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

How much was Jeff Bezos' wedding again?

No idea, but one could argue it provided a good income for a lot of people!

Maggiemaybe

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.

Hear, hear 👏👏👏

Maremia

To reassure GNs that this was a good decision, or to confirm to others that it was not, which organisations would it be worth while paying heed to, in a couple of months or so, after implementation and roll out?

Start with schools and food banks and the parents themselves.
Follow up with research into government claims that child poverty has been reduced.
The North West news the other day, referred to Morecambe and Lancaster as having the highest rate of child poverty so that would be a good area to focus on.

It’ll depend on individual standpoints, so there’ll never be consensus. I’ll be looking to the Child Poverty Action Group, and whether pressures ease on the local Food Banks and Baby Banks. Others might look elsewhere.

To reassure GNs that this was a good decision, or to confirm to others that it was not, which organisations would it be worth while paying heed to, in a couple of months or so, after implementation and roll out?

To try to help children, who are not at fault?

Worth trying though?

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.

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.

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.