Were all in this together

[pigman]

Slightly bitter/cynical view:

I already subsidise parents by working extra, unpaid hours and/or taking on extra responsibilities so they can exercise their "right" to flexible working. They get priority (here) on taking leave during school holidays which means I don't get to take any of my leave during school summer holidays, and my taxes support paying a premium to them whether they need it or not.

on the other hand, being a parent aint easy or cheap and (as well as getting a helluvalot out of being a parent) is making certain sacrifices to hopefully continue and improve the human race.
Remember that when a family takes a hol in peak periods, the high prices being charged to family holidays goes to subisidise the childfree adults who able to get their £20 flights and accommodation for the rest of the year.

Before having had kids, I was eager to let those with kids have peak holiday times off whilst I held the fort during slack periods and could then pick and chose my hols during the rest of the year.

Two sides to every coin matey

 

[grahame]

Slightly bitter/cynical view:

I already subsidise parents by working extra, unpaid hours and/or taking on extra responsibilities so they can exercise their "right" to flexible working. They get priority (here) on taking leave during school holidays which means I don't get to take any of my leave during school summer holidays, and my taxes support paying a premium to them whether they need it or not.

on the other hand, being a parent aint easy or cheap and (as well as getting a helluvalot out of being a parent) is making certain sacrifices to hopefully continue and improve the human race.
Remember that when a family takes a hol in peak periods, the high prices being charged to family holidays goes to subisidise the childfree adults who able to get their £20 flights and accommodation for the rest of the year.

Before having had kids, I was eager to let those with kids have peak holiday times off whilst I held the fort during slack periods and could then pick and chose my hols during the rest of the year.

Two sides to every coin matey

Did I say it was a fair and balanced view?

 

[pigman]

Did I say it was a fair and balanced view?

nope, you said it was a bitter and cynical view. Hopefully a few redressing the balance has made you feel less bitter and more upbeat about your situation.
best wishes fella

 

[grahame]

Well my situation is this:

Two years my wife had 3 miscarriages in 9 months (6 weeks, 6 weeks and 13 weeks in), we then decided the emotional stress associated with them was something we didn't want to repeat, we applied to adopt and were turned down on the grounds that "you haven't been through IVF yet."

Being a parent is something I want more than anything I can think of (yes, even more than a Merlin Superlight Newsboy with full XTR), yet it is looking ever more unlikely.

Yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder about it. Yes, my views are unreasonable. Yes I do get upset when people feel hard done by when they have a gift that I would give almost anything for.

And yes, if the situation changes you will get to hear about it - it'll probably be an offer of beers and cigars all round on me in London if I ever get to be a dad.

 

[capitanfigueras]

Agree with computerbitz the system is not fair.

Why should a household with one earner of £45,000 be penalised but a household with two incomes of £40,000 each still receive the benefit. It should be based on total household income.

But this is why our government is in so much debt. Child benefit was introduced after WWII when we were all piss poor, not a pot ..... etc. But since then it has remained and the bill has got larger and larger, despite the UK being relatively well off (80s onwards). Child benefit should have been means tested a long time ago and it's just stupid that people who earn £2000 per month (under the proposed system) get an extra 1% per month for their first child and then 0.7%. It should be the poor who receive it, not your average Joe who will put the money into a saving account for when the child is 18.

We really have lost the concept of what the social system is there for.

 

[IDB1]

I'm a tad puzzled as to why it wouldn't be based on a household income..

Watching the news earlier . .

Couple with just one working and earning £45k won't get cb
Couple with both working and getting £40k each will....

Makes no sense (to me)

 

[tintin40]

personally i'd do away it CB. You people decide to have then that's your choice. And it's an accidents then you should bought some rubbers and taken the pill.
Why my tax goes on helping people have children i don't know. Their are to many humans on this planet. Should give me £££ for not having any 'little angels'

 

[jamabikes]

personally i'd do away it CB. You people decide to have then that's your choice. And it's an accidents then you should bought some rubbers and taken the pill.
Why my tax goes on helping people have children i don't know. Their are to many humans on this planet. Should give me £££ for not having any 'little angels'

those kids will be the ones looking after you when you cant.

they will empty your bins

they will be your doctors

they will be your nurses

they will be your barman

they will be your politicians

they will be your bike mechanics

they will be your dentist

having kids may not be your life choice but it is a lot of peoples, and surely they should be given support by the people meant to support them.

 

[Tusco]

Agree with computerbitz the system is not fair.

Why should a household with one earner of £45,000 be penalised but a household with two incomes of £40,000 each still receive the benefit. It should be based on total household income.

But this is why our government is in so much debt. Child benefit was introduced after WWII when we were all piss poor, not a pot ..... etc. But since then it has remained and the bill has got larger and larger, despite the UK being relatively well off (80s onwards). Child benefit should have been means tested a long time ago and it's just stupid that people who earn £2000 per month (under the proposed system) get an extra 1% per month for their first child and then 0.7%. It should be the poor who receive it, not your average Joe who will put the money into a saving account for when the child is 18.

We really have lost the concept of what the social system is there for.

all right. the only thing which I think is wrong though is to take away disposable income by families at a time when the economy struggles. They should keep the public money flowing I believe at least until the recovery is well established. So ok for me to cut universal benefits to the rich but it'd be better to keep the whole public expenditure unaltered.

 

[capitanfigueras]

Tusco, know what you mean, but the UK economy is not the Kays Catalogue and 20p a week for the next 10 years just won't do.