Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Child Poverty In Britain Report
http://
The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty (SMCP) Commission has now said that we will fail to meet our targets in this area by 2020. The report warns that it meant that the UK was at risk of being "permanently divided" with the poorest left behind.
As this is a non-party political issue, what do we think needs to be done ?
The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty (SMCP) Commission has now said that we will fail to meet our targets in this area by 2020. The report warns that it meant that the UK was at risk of being "permanently divided" with the poorest left behind.
As this is a non-party political issue, what do we think needs to be done ?
Answers
I too agree with much of what youngmafbog has written...up to a point. The idea of removing children from families is basically appalling. This is because when you remove a child and place him/her in care, you are increasing the likelihood that the child will do worse at school, obtain fewer exam passes and increase the likelihood of that child going off the...
13:13 Mon 20th Oct 2014
Still depends on hoe 'income' is regarded - does it for instance include all forms of social payments for instance?
The only way out is to encourage people to work. Reduce Social payments to those that refuse giving them food parcels and no money whatsover.
For those that work I would like to see people who earn less than 15-20K taken out of the tax band altogether (This includes the NHI 'tax'). I would then like to see the 10% band reintroduced.
This would not cost as much as one might think. People in the low income brackets would spend the extra, mainly on VATABLE essential items so the Government still see's 20%. The extra spend is ploughed through the economy thus meaning those on the chain pay more tax.
Where parents are of the sort that breed to fund their workshy lifestyle, spending on themselves and not their kids then I am afraid we need to take the hard decision and remove those children. funding the parents just makes the rest of us a laughing stock, especially those poor souls that work hard with 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet.
Further I would like to see travel as a tax deductible expense (Only at basic rate). This would help people reward who 'get on their bike' to find work rather than sit bleating their is no work.
The only way out is to encourage people to work. Reduce Social payments to those that refuse giving them food parcels and no money whatsover.
For those that work I would like to see people who earn less than 15-20K taken out of the tax band altogether (This includes the NHI 'tax'). I would then like to see the 10% band reintroduced.
This would not cost as much as one might think. People in the low income brackets would spend the extra, mainly on VATABLE essential items so the Government still see's 20%. The extra spend is ploughed through the economy thus meaning those on the chain pay more tax.
Where parents are of the sort that breed to fund their workshy lifestyle, spending on themselves and not their kids then I am afraid we need to take the hard decision and remove those children. funding the parents just makes the rest of us a laughing stock, especially those poor souls that work hard with 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet.
Further I would like to see travel as a tax deductible expense (Only at basic rate). This would help people reward who 'get on their bike' to find work rather than sit bleating their is no work.
YMB...It might surprise you to know that I agree with most of what you have said. We can't go on rewarding fecklessness with yet more of us taxpayers hard-earned cash. I can't see the point in giving parents an extra, tax-free lump sum every month of £58:70 a month, every time they have another child, a child that they can't afford to have or to keep. Why do the rest of us have to pay to bring up a child that isn't ours ? Whoever is going to win next May, should have the courage to stop paying out child benefit for more than perhaps 3 or 4 kids. We can do this on a sliding scale, over a period of time if necessary but its a step that is well over due. When I was a nipper, Mums only got Family Allowance for the 2nd and subsequent children, not the first.
But I can't agree with you in taking children away from their parents without a proper reason. If we were to do that, 100,000's of children may be involved and just where is the cash going to come from to pay for all the infrastructure that would need to be put in place to cope with such huge numbers ? We already have a problem housing the children that are in care now, without adding to the numbers.
One of the main causes of poverty, child or not, is unemployment, whether it is beyond peoples control, or part of a life-style choice by the lazy and feckless. This is closely followed by low rates of pay. One of the key recommendations of this Report is for Britain to be a "living wage" economy but 2025. Its nothing short of scandalous that people should be working only 10-15 hours a week, often on a zero-hours contract, and always on the minimum wage.
But I can't agree with you in taking children away from their parents without a proper reason. If we were to do that, 100,000's of children may be involved and just where is the cash going to come from to pay for all the infrastructure that would need to be put in place to cope with such huge numbers ? We already have a problem housing the children that are in care now, without adding to the numbers.
One of the main causes of poverty, child or not, is unemployment, whether it is beyond peoples control, or part of a life-style choice by the lazy and feckless. This is closely followed by low rates of pay. One of the key recommendations of this Report is for Britain to be a "living wage" economy but 2025. Its nothing short of scandalous that people should be working only 10-15 hours a week, often on a zero-hours contract, and always on the minimum wage.
// When I was a nipper, Mums only got Family Allowance for the 2nd and subsequent children, not the first.//
Ye,as was when I was a child and a family in the next street had 10 children,some ran barefoot. That premise really doesn't help a great deal.
I do agree some parents/people are feckless, always have been and always will - but also as stated above things can change,illness,disability,death,divorce.
If everyone gave full consideration to what changes life may bring,none of us would have children due to the fear of the future.
Ye,as was when I was a child and a family in the next street had 10 children,some ran barefoot. That premise really doesn't help a great deal.
I do agree some parents/people are feckless, always have been and always will - but also as stated above things can change,illness,disability,death,divorce.
If everyone gave full consideration to what changes life may bring,none of us would have children due to the fear of the future.
Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit cost the Tax payers much more than actual income Support. The fact a family can earn in excess of £20,000 a year and still receive government hand outs is ludicrous. I receive £81 per month for my one child under 18 -I don't need this money -it goes straight into his 'University Fund'. Real poverty should not exist in this country. What people choose to spend their 'Benefits' on is another matter all together.
“Remove the children? Really? “
Absolutely, ummm.
I have said on AB many times before that people who are not capable without considerable State intervention of ensuring their children are properly sheltered, fed, and clothed, but who continue to breed fecklessly should have their children taken into care. The State has a duty to protect vulnerable children and children are vulnerable if they are born into such an environment.
I’m not talking about a couple who are trying hard but struggling to bring up a small family nor am I talking about the circumstances you describe, ummm. I’m talking about feckless parents, particularly mothers, who bear large numbers of children, often by multiple fathers, and expect the taxpayer to write them ever larger cheques and provide them with ever larger accommodation. There is no earthly reason why such people should have their ever increasing broods supported in this way and the children should be taken into care and placed in homes where they will be properly cared for. However much it costs, Retro, to keep them in care until adoption is insignificant compared to the long term costs of paying for everything to do with their existence until adulthood. Child benefit is not the end of it as everybody knows. There is the cost of housing, social support and all the other services these heavily dependent families require.
But back to the question, there will always be “child poverty” whilst it is measured the way it is. A measure relative to an average will always demonstrate that some people are below the average. The measurement needs to be absolute: have the children’s families sufficient funds to shelter, feed and clothe them sufficiently? That’s what needs to be measured, not “have they get more than 60% of the average income?” Such a measure is meaningless.
Absolutely, ummm.
I have said on AB many times before that people who are not capable without considerable State intervention of ensuring their children are properly sheltered, fed, and clothed, but who continue to breed fecklessly should have their children taken into care. The State has a duty to protect vulnerable children and children are vulnerable if they are born into such an environment.
I’m not talking about a couple who are trying hard but struggling to bring up a small family nor am I talking about the circumstances you describe, ummm. I’m talking about feckless parents, particularly mothers, who bear large numbers of children, often by multiple fathers, and expect the taxpayer to write them ever larger cheques and provide them with ever larger accommodation. There is no earthly reason why such people should have their ever increasing broods supported in this way and the children should be taken into care and placed in homes where they will be properly cared for. However much it costs, Retro, to keep them in care until adoption is insignificant compared to the long term costs of paying for everything to do with their existence until adulthood. Child benefit is not the end of it as everybody knows. There is the cost of housing, social support and all the other services these heavily dependent families require.
But back to the question, there will always be “child poverty” whilst it is measured the way it is. A measure relative to an average will always demonstrate that some people are below the average. The measurement needs to be absolute: have the children’s families sufficient funds to shelter, feed and clothe them sufficiently? That’s what needs to be measured, not “have they get more than 60% of the average income?” Such a measure is meaningless.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles76 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.