The people on benefits are not the poorest in society, the poorest are the ones that work for a living but don't earn enough to pay for everything their family needs, but, earns just by a whisker too much to get sufficient help.
When we first moved to sittingbourne, my husband was working in london, he worked 48hours a week at £10 an hour (before tax) we have 4 children. His wages were too high (only just by a couple of hundred a year) to get working tax credit and we had reductions to our child tax credits, no housing benefit or other help. With the rising cost in fuel he was paying about £80 per week just to get to and from work, neither of us smoke, we don't go out, only once a year on our anniversary, dont really drink but yet we struggled to even send our kids to school with a decent packed lunch. He then quit his job in London and got a minimum wage job in a local petrol garage, we are now much better off and he is working less hours and at a lower wage, doesn't do much for his self esteem though.
Your situation involves you already having 4 kids. I'm saying the people that are selfish/careless are those that would then increase the size of their family. There's nothing disgusting about questioning the reasoning of those that do that?
If a jobless family have a child then they shouldn't be able to reproduce again until they are earning over a certain amount of money.
If you can't provide then you shouldn't be able to reproduce.
What an offensive comment. Reading your constant negative posts I suspect nobody would ever want a child with you anyway.
The only people who should be offended by that are people who DO have children they know they can't afford. I honestly can't imagine anything more selfish than creating life and then worrying later because you have to choose between nappies and rent.
Complete bollox.Take a look at the unemployment figures in this country. Look at the jobs that have been lost.factories that have been shut in ONE industry towns. Should they have refrained from having kids just in case their source of income is suddenly cut short.
? But no one on this thread is talking about people losing their job (even though you would hope that those people would have some kind of savings) we're saying don't have children if you don't have one or have one that doesn't pay enough.
What you said in an earlier post Gary was that you should be earning more than a certain amount before you have a kid, that is wrong because there are some people that are on low incomes but work bloody hard and have done their whole lives, these people are probably worse off than those on benefits, according to your theory the fact they work hard and are loving, caring and reliable is not enough if they are still not worthy to become a parent. But a footballer who beats his wife, has sex with strangers and sticks coke up his nose is ok to have a child because they can afford it. I have mixed in lots of circles from the very rich to the poverty stricken and some of the poorer ones are better parents, there is more to parenting than money.
What I don't agree with is parents that feed their kids junk and dress their kids in rags because they say they can't afford to buy them any better but can still afford to buy their fags everyday.
Gary I know you are about to become a father, which makes bedsaddicks comment very wrong, I am also sure you'll make a great dad, but, would your excitement be any less if you suddenly lost your job? Or would you say that someone that works as equally hard or even harder than you doesn't deserve to have that wonderful feeling you have now, just because they earn considerably less?
Like I said after my initial post I could have worded my comment better.
as a scenario say theres young boy that goes to primary school, his dad works but only earns a small wage. His mum only works part time as she has to pick him up from school etc. the young lads school uniform is a bit worn and tattered. He can't invite any of his friends over for tea as its one more to feed. He doesn't have a playstation like the other boys in class. He doesn't go on the school trips because his parents can't afford it. Then one day his mum comes to pick him up from school and and shes pregnant again. That scenario happens up and down the country. It happened at my own school when I was younger. There's no logic in it and its not fair. I'm not talking about the first child (altho he already has problems in some aspects) I'm talking about the 2nd and the knock on effect. It's not fair. People can't help losing their job and there not the people I'm talking about. I just think having a child is such a responsibilty financially and you should be in a position where you should be independently able to provide for them prior to having anymore children. The street 2 mins from me has a lot of unemployment on it and it amazes me how those that live down there seem to have on average around 3 very young children each.
sandiejane I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The biggest problem in this country is that it pays you not to work. Your husband takes a job that pays less to give his family more of an income. I'm not saying this in a derogatory way it is the system that's at fault.
I'm sure your husband would have much preferred to carry on doing the job he was doing but instead he has to take a lower paid job TO EARN MORE.
Unfortunately we live in a "something for nothing" culture.
I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush there are a lot of honest hardworking people in this country but they are the ones who suffer to pay for the lazy, uninterested layabouts who are quite happy to take and contribute nothing to society.
We need to introduce a living wage rather than just a minimum wage... Families won't then struggle and kids won't miss out seeing their parents when both have to take two jobs just to make ends meet
Some people, I'm not saying its right, have more children to get more money, if you are working and on a low income having just one child isn't enough to get government help so they have more. Unfortunately the previous government put it so that you received premiums each time you had a child, then there is the baby element of tax credits etc which is quite substantial, plus housing benefit allowances for bigger properties the list goes on. Sometimes people get caught pregnant if they are in the situation you said above then they have 2 choices, abortion and keep on broke but also with the added guilt of the abortion on your conscience or have the baby get a bit more help for a while and maybe buy your kid the play station he wants, like I said I am not saying its right but I know which option I would take
Controlling how many children people should have smacks of the sort of thing a dictatorship would try to do. Having said that, I don't think the government should encourage it with the way they structure benefits.
It seems to me it is very easy to live other peoples lives and say what they should or shouldn't do.
I spend most of my time putting my own house in order to concern myself with sorting out the rest of the world.
I'm saying this as a person who has had on going problems with ASB (so problems with other peoples kids) whilst trying to give my kids the best emotional and developmental support as possible whilst living in a financially deprived area.
I read somewhere, and it might be complete rubbish, that one of the criteria that they use to judge whether a child lives in poverty in the UK is access to broadband Internet at home? Sounds like an urban myth to me, but if true, that's not really poverty is it?
Sadiejane, a genuine question, did your husband ever earn enough to support all six of you comfortably, as you don't tell us your history before moving to Sittingbourne?
Comfortably? no, not really but we was able to pay rent/ct and bills including luxuries such as sky and all the kids were clothed fed and watered along with a short break each year and day trips etc. we couldn't afford to be frivolous but we survived and our kids were provided for without handouts. Also I studied and achieved my degree with the intention to go back to work when littlest was big enough for nursery, however he has since been diagnosed with classic type autism (the severe one) gdd, ADHD and spd. So the going back to work thing has been delayed until his needs are taken care of.
I hate to rain on anyone's parade but there are NOT 3.6 million children living in poverty and if you believe that is the case you are a fool I am afraid.
Comfortably? no, not really but we was able to pay rent/ct and bills including luxuries such as sky and all the kids were clothed fed and watered along with a short break each year and day trips etc. we couldn't afford to be frivolous but we survived and our kids were provided for without handouts. Also I studied and achieved my degree with the intention to go back to work when littlest was big enough for nursery, however he has since been diagnosed with classic type autism (the severe one) gdd, ADHD and spd. So the going back to work thing has been delayed until his needs are taken care of.
That's a tough break. I think you did okay up until then by the sounds of things. Best of luck for the future to you all.
so 13 years of a Labour Gov and did what for "child poverty" ? arnt they the party that is SUPPOSED to equal out the wealth of this country and why didnt they do it 13 years IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS,
2 years of Cameron and they are supposed to get rid of the debt mountain, stop Labours mass immigration policy, end child poverty, turn round Labours NHS PFI balls up, get out of two wars, keep us in or get us out of Europe. If ANY party could actually do one of those in 2 years then they would get my vote ---end of.
As for "poverty" in this country that definition moves about all over the place.
I thought this was going to be a thread about the children in need programme last night, and whether Girls Aloud still looked lovely, bit it's all gone a bit political.
A living wage is a lovely ideology, and very trendy at the moment, the problem is , it's not been thought through properly and will lead to higher unemployment in the longer term unless you raise taxes significantly.
I do not have a problem with people having a big family, it's individual choice, but I do object having to contribute towards it.
Life is not easy or fair and we all need to take responsibility for out actions , rather than expecting it handed on a plate from the state.
A family with two adults and two children needs to have £349 each week in order to be above the poverty line. How do you think that compares to what your family has?
£12 a day – the reality of living in poverty How does living in poverty compare with the average UK family? What effects can child poverty have? How does Barnardo's help?
£12 a day – the reality of living in poverty Many families living on a low income have only about £12 per day per person.
This needs to cover:
all of their day to day expenditure, including necessities such as food and transport occasional items such as new shoes and clothes, school trips and activities for children, and replacing broken household items such as washing machines and kitchen equipment all household bills such as electricity, gas and water, telephone bills, and TV licences. Find out:
what causes child poverty child poverty facts and statistics where do you fit in? How does living in poverty compare with the average UK family? In 2010, average weekly spending for:
an average couple family with children was £634, which is equivalent to £170 per person a couple family with an income in the lowest 20 per cent spent just £306 each week, equivalent to £87 per person. That’s almost half what the average family spends.
There are big differences in crucial items of spending, such as health and transport:
The poorest fifth of couple families spent about £49 per week on food in 2010, compared to an average of £70 for all couple families. There were even bigger differences in spending on transport, where the poorest families spent £27 per week, compared to £88 on average for all families.
What effects can child poverty have? Living in a poor family can reduce children's expectations of their own lives and lead to a cycle where poverty is repeated from generation to generation.
As adults they are more likely to suffer ill-health, be unemployed or homeless, and become involved in offending, drug and alcohol abuse, and abusive relationships.
In tackling poverty it is crucial to break the cycle. Education is a key element of this, as are initiatives which involve people in developing their skills and finding their own solutions to the problems in their community.
There are currently 3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK . That’s almost a third of all children. 1.6 million of these children live in severe poverty .
In the UK 58% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works .
These child poverty statistics and facts will help to give you an idea of the scale of child poverty in the UK and the affect it can have on:
a child's education a child's health the day to day lives of families.
Does child poverty affect children's health? Three-year-olds in households with incomes below about £10,000 are 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000 . Infant mortality is 10% higher for infants in the lower social group than the average.
Does poverty affect a child's education? Only half as many poor children who are eligible for Free School Meals achieved 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent compared to pupils not eligible. Only 73 per cent of 5 to 6 year olds from the most deprived areas achieved the expected level of writing, compared to 90 per cent of those in the least deprived.
How much money do families living in poverty have? Families living in poverty have just £12 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport.
How does poverty affect families? 24% of children in the poorest fifth of households are in families who can’t afford to keep their house warm, compared to just 1% in the richest fifth. Nearly half of all children in the poorest fifth of households are in families who can’t afford to replace broken electrical goods, compared with just 3% of children in the richest households. 62% of children in the poorest fifth of households have parents who would like to, but cannot afford to take their children for a holiday away from home for one week a year. This only applies to 6% of children in the richest fifth.
The Government has a statutory requirement, enshrined in the Child Poverty Act 2010 , to end child poverty by 2020. However, it is predicated that by 2020/21 another 1 million children will be pushed into poverty as a result of the Coalition Government’s policies.
It seems to me that if we raised the minimum wage it could solve a lot of these problems and actually incentivise people to work at the same time.
I honestly think that the single biggest underlying cause of this mess is property prices. They have risen so fast and so high within a generation as to make property (particularly in the SE) pretty much unaffordable for many ordinary working people, even on average incomes. It never used to be that way. The knock on effect of all this is massive rents - so this means that getting housing benefit is by far the most significant income for many people and losing it by taking work simply makes no economic sense. I have seen examples where people have taken jobs, lost their HB and ended up with a net profit of less than £10 per week for their troubles. Hardly an incentive, is it? Raising the minimum wage would mean that many people who work but still need HB to make ends meet may no longer do so.
As for the bankers, if the last government had had the intelligence to impose strict conditions with the bail outs, including removing bonuses and forcing bankers to hand over the lions share of any that they may have been awarded, then it wouldn't have been an issue. Blaming them for being able to get away with it is pointless - we could have stopped them, but the government were too incompetent and ended up having to watch it happen from a position of powerlessness. As for making bankers pay more in general - they work in the private sector, so we cannot impose such restrictions, unless we raise income tax levels - and this is a very risky strategy in a recession when you are trying to stimulate growth.
As for the other issue - subsidising people to have children really hasn't worked out so well, has it? I know that people are uneasy with restrictions on the number of children that people can have, but no one is looking at the big picture. We have too many people on the planet with insufficient resources to cope with an ever increasing population. Unless we get a grip on that, then moaning about one's human rights being infringed will look patently ridiculous in the face of (real) poverty, starvation and wars over resources. The fact that the Chinese are the only ones with the minerals to address this issue is interesting, I think. Inwardly digest this statistic and then tell me it is not terrifying - the population of the world has doubled since 1970.
The problem of raising the minimum wage is that the amount that is spent on employers wages is done as a percentage of turnover , if you increase the minimum wage , there is less money to spend on wages and to pay for it you have to lay someone off , therefore increasing the unemployment figures, its not what politicians want to tell you as by and large they have not run their own business, and only have classroom theories.
Comments
There's nothing disgusting about questioning the reasoning of those that do that?
What I don't agree with is parents that feed their kids junk and dress their kids in rags because they say they can't afford to buy them any better but can still afford to buy their fags everyday.
Gary I know you are about to become a father, which makes bedsaddicks comment very wrong, I am also sure you'll make a great dad, but, would your excitement be any less if you suddenly lost your job? Or would you say that someone that works as equally hard or even harder than you doesn't deserve to have that wonderful feeling you have now, just because they earn considerably less?
as a scenario say theres young boy that goes to primary school, his dad works but only earns a small wage. His mum only works part time as she has to pick him up from school etc. the young lads school uniform is a bit worn and tattered. He can't invite any of his friends over for tea as its one more to feed. He doesn't have a playstation like the other boys in class. He doesn't go on the school trips because his parents can't afford it. Then one day his mum comes to pick him up from school and and shes pregnant again.
That scenario happens up and down the country. It happened at my own school when I was younger. There's no logic in it and its not fair. I'm not talking about the first child (altho he already has problems in some aspects) I'm talking about the 2nd and the knock on effect. It's not fair.
People can't help losing their job and there not the people I'm talking about. I just think having a child is such a responsibilty financially and you should be in a position where you should be independently able to provide for them prior to having anymore children.
The street 2 mins from me has a lot of unemployment on it and it amazes me how those that live down there seem to have on average around 3 very young children each.
The biggest problem in this country is that it pays you not to work. Your husband takes a job that pays less to give his family more of an income. I'm not saying this in a derogatory way it is the system that's at fault.
I'm sure your husband would have much preferred to carry on doing the job he was doing but instead he has to take a lower paid job TO EARN MORE.
Unfortunately we live in a "something for nothing" culture.
I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush there are a lot of honest hardworking people in this country but they are the ones who suffer to pay for the lazy, uninterested layabouts who are quite happy to take and contribute nothing to society.
What is the poverty line?
I spend most of my time putting my own house in order to concern myself with sorting out the rest of the world.
I'm saying this as a person who has had on going problems with ASB (so problems with other peoples kids) whilst trying to give my kids the best emotional and developmental support as possible whilst living in a financially deprived area.
Sadiejane, a genuine question, did your husband ever earn enough to support all six of you comfortably, as you don't tell us your history before moving to Sittingbourne?
2 years of Cameron and they are supposed to get rid of the debt mountain, stop Labours mass immigration policy, end child poverty, turn round Labours NHS PFI balls up, get out of two wars, keep us in or get us out of Europe. If ANY party could actually do one of those in 2 years then they would get my vote ---end of.
As for "poverty" in this country that definition moves about all over the place.
A living wage is a lovely ideology, and very trendy at the moment, the problem is , it's not been thought through properly and will lead to higher unemployment in the longer term unless you raise taxes significantly.
I do not have a problem with people having a big family, it's individual choice, but I do object having to contribute towards it.
Life is not easy or fair and we all need to take responsibility for out actions , rather than expecting it handed on a plate from the state.
Plenty of Children in China are from families that can't afford to send them to school, or pay their medical bills. No broadband, OH NO.
What is child poverty?
A family with two adults and two children needs to have £349 each week in order to be above the poverty line. How do you think that compares to what your family has?
£12 a day – the reality of living in poverty
How does living in poverty compare with the average UK family?
What effects can child poverty have?
How does Barnardo's help?
£12 a day – the reality of living in poverty
Many families living on a low income have only about £12 per day per person.
This needs to cover:
all of their day to day expenditure, including necessities such as food and transport
occasional items such as new shoes and clothes, school trips and activities for children, and replacing broken household items such as washing machines and kitchen equipment
all household bills such as electricity, gas and water, telephone bills, and TV licences.
Find out:
what causes child poverty
child poverty facts and statistics
where do you fit in?
How does living in poverty compare with the average UK family?
In 2010, average weekly spending for:
an average couple family with children was £634, which is equivalent to £170 per person
a couple family with an income in the lowest 20 per cent spent just £306 each week, equivalent to £87 per person.
That’s almost half what the average family spends.
There are big differences in crucial items of spending, such as health and transport:
The poorest fifth of couple families spent about £49 per week on food in 2010, compared to an average of £70 for all couple families.
There were even bigger differences in spending on transport, where the poorest families spent £27 per week, compared to £88 on average for all families.
What effects can child poverty have?
Living in a poor family can reduce children's expectations of their own lives and lead to a cycle where poverty is repeated from generation to generation.
As adults they are more likely to suffer ill-health, be unemployed or homeless, and become involved in offending, drug and alcohol abuse, and abusive relationships.
In tackling poverty it is crucial to break the cycle. Education is a key element of this, as are initiatives which involve people in developing their skills and finding their own solutions to the problems in their community.
There are currently 3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK . That’s almost a third of all children. 1.6 million of these children live in severe poverty .
In the UK 58% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works .
These child poverty statistics and facts will help to give you an idea of the scale of child poverty in the UK and the affect it can have on:
a child's education
a child's health
the day to day lives of families.
Does child poverty affect children's health?
Three-year-olds in households with incomes below about £10,000 are 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000 .
Infant mortality is 10% higher for infants in the lower social group than the average.
Does poverty affect a child's education?
Only half as many poor children who are eligible for Free School Meals achieved 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent compared to pupils not eligible.
Only 73 per cent of 5 to 6 year olds from the most deprived areas achieved the expected level of writing, compared to 90 per cent of those in the least deprived.
How much money do families living in poverty have?
Families living in poverty have just £12 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport.
How does poverty affect families?
24% of children in the poorest fifth of households are in families who can’t afford to keep their house warm, compared to just 1% in the richest fifth.
Nearly half of all children in the poorest fifth of households are in families who can’t afford to replace broken electrical goods, compared with just 3% of children in the richest households.
62% of children in the poorest fifth of households have parents who would like to, but cannot afford to take their children for a holiday away from home for one week a year. This only applies to 6% of children in the richest fifth.
The Government has a statutory requirement, enshrined in the Child Poverty Act 2010 , to end child poverty by 2020. However, it is predicated that by 2020/21 another 1 million children will be pushed into poverty as a result of the Coalition Government’s policies.
It's about Children
I honestly think that the single biggest underlying cause of this mess is property prices. They have risen so fast and so high within a generation as to make property (particularly in the SE) pretty much unaffordable for many ordinary working people, even on average incomes. It never used to be that way. The knock on effect of all this is massive rents - so this means that getting housing benefit is by far the most significant income for many people and losing it by taking work simply makes no economic sense. I have seen examples where people have taken jobs, lost their HB and ended up with a net profit of less than £10 per week for their troubles. Hardly an incentive, is it? Raising the minimum wage would mean that many people who work but still need HB to make ends meet may no longer do so.
As for the bankers, if the last government had had the intelligence to impose strict conditions with the bail outs, including removing bonuses and forcing bankers to hand over the lions share of any that they may have been awarded, then it wouldn't have been an issue. Blaming them for being able to get away with it is pointless - we could have stopped them, but the government were too incompetent and ended up having to watch it happen from a position of powerlessness. As for making bankers pay more in general - they work in the private sector, so we cannot impose such restrictions, unless we raise income tax levels - and this is a very risky strategy in a recession when you are trying to stimulate growth.
As for the other issue - subsidising people to have children really hasn't worked out so well, has it? I know that people are uneasy with restrictions on the number of children that people can have, but no one is looking at the big picture. We have too many people on the planet with insufficient resources to cope with an ever increasing population. Unless we get a grip on that, then moaning about one's human rights being infringed will look patently ridiculous in the face of (real) poverty, starvation and wars over resources. The fact that the Chinese are the only ones with the minerals to address this issue is interesting, I think. Inwardly digest this statistic and then tell me it is not terrifying - the population of the world has doubled since 1970.
Right, off to Turf Moor....