Latest Moan From You and Me 2025

But the education system changed when labour were last in power but didn't come into force until 2015 as students now had to be in either further education or training until they were 18. Students who were in part-time education and course related work experience exceeding 12 hours, then the parents would still be eligible for full child benefit. My son was learning to be a mechanic, so full child benefit was available. In the past this was stopped on either the 31st August or when the child turned 16. So by changing the school leaving age, child benefit was still available for 2 more years depending on the child's circumstances, which was probably a factor in the cap.

Now this government is proposing to increasing the qualifying period for non EU nationals from 5 years to 10 years. They are basing it on reducing net migration and welfare payments paid out. However, the benefit status claimed by migrants has never been published until now. So, the labour party would like us to believe that non EU citizens are the main reason for rising net migration and increases in the welfare pay outs, but the figures say different.

Data shows immigration status of benefit claimants for first time - BBC News

According to more detailed figures on where UC is being claimed did not surprise me. 83.6 claimants are British and Irish citizens, then EU citizens on settlement, IRL status is 9.7% and non EU citizens here on settlement IRL status is 2.7% with rest being refugees etc etc. The figures clearly show that non EU citizens are not as much as a burden on the welfare system than EU citizens. Yet they are going to target and make things more difficult for non EU citizens, no wonder tensions are running high in this country regarding controlling of our borders.

How Many Foreigners Claim Benefits in UK?: Latest Statistics Explained

 

This is the last time I'm posting on this subject.
It's about everyone working to create a decent society for us to live in, and consideration for others, not just ourselves. That means contributing, whether you actually use the service you contribute towards or not. I could easily have died when I slid 200 feet down an icy hill on my front, but I just wrecked my rotator cuff instead. I therefore used the NHS, but if I'd died, I would have been saving the cost of my state pension instead. I could easily have died having my first daughter, and lost her too, due to various complications, but I didn't, due to the skills of the medical staff.
My daughters both work, and are contributing to all sorts of things they'll absolutely never use [children's education for example] but they need other services. I'm proud of the fact that they understand about not being thoughtless or selfish, and that it's how society works, even though it's never perfect.
Swings and roundabouts.

 

Totally agree @fairygirl. Too much me me individualism and lack of care for others. We shoud all contribute what we can and take only what we need without a sense of begrudging or entitlement. Basic manners and consideration for others are what keep the wheels of society turning.

Greed, lack of thought and consideration for others in other circumstances are what lead to inequality, fear of difference and thus divisions and resentment.

 

But, children in care are at unprecedented levels, with poverty being linked as a major factor. More children that end up in care will actually be a bigger burden on tax payers. It was only on the news this morning that councils on average spend £318,400 on each child placed in a children's home per year. So, not only do you need to address the issue why so many children are ending up in care, but the huge sum it's costing and profits that are being made from it.

 

gks this hasn't got anything to do with children in care this is parents having children they can't afford and the government paying for childcare

The other two I'm not complaining about paying tax for services I may receive I'm saying if you can't afford to look after your children don't have them

 

Profit being made by private equity firms from children in care is a perfect example of why you should not outsource these things. Not only are the costs per child currently enormous, the level of "care" is shocking, with young, minimum-wage workers with no relevant qualifications responsible for the full-time care of troubled teens placed hundreds of miles from home in random terraced houses. The daughter of a friend of mine was employed to do this for a couple of yrs. I was truly shocked at what was asked of her. Being kind and caring (as she absolutely is) is not sufficient for this type of challenging work.

 

I understand what your saying, but, parents loose their jobs, cost of living crisis, high inflation, increase in interest rates etc etc which are all out of our control. Hindsight can be a wonderful thing, but in general I think to many people spend beyond their means and are ill prepared for unseen circumstances. I don't think for one minute all parents have children that they can't afford, yet I agree, there will be some that do.

 

I don't understand people thinking they can have children before they themselves have a steady situation.

However, I also think society as a whole needs to care more for all its members who cannot care for themselves and that's children, the sick, the handicapped in whatever way. A major problem is that the cost of housing has risen exponentially since we bought our first house and provision has not kept up. Wages and salaries have also not kept up with the cost of living unless you're CEO of a major company or utility where they, especially the utilities, can now earn millions in bonuses whilst delivering poor service, poor investment and poor pay for their workers.

Giving a living wage and even a small share of profits to every employee would reduce a lot of stress and, as has been shown in companies that do it, higher productivity and fewer sick days.

Anyone earning over £100,000 a year can trim their sails to allow for an extra % or two on their tax band, increasing by at least 1% for £200,000, £300,000. providing free child care and school meals to everyone in state schools would improve health and outcomes att all levels, especially the poor.

No-one should be allowed to move funds or income offshore or put homes, businesses and other assets in their partner's name to avoid taxes. Just 1% on the assets of millionaires who take up residence, even part time, would raise enough to pay for decent salaries for NHS, teachers, essential services. 2% would allow for investment in decent shool and hospital buildings that aren't falling apart.

Inroducing classes in civic responsibilities and parenting would help at all levels of society. We should be a co-operative society where everyone can attain their best rather than everyone grabbing what they can at the expense of others. Surely, with the exception of psycopaths like Putin and Trump, we've learned enough just in the last 100 years to know that.

 

Trouble is that women who wait for the "perfect time" often then find that they are no longer able to conceive. Should people give up all hope of having a family, just because of finances?

 

Should it not be based on joint income and not just an individuals income. A couple with a joint income over 100k even more, would still get full child benefit as long as one individual's income is not over the 60k threshold. Yet a house hold income of 80k only from one individual they then will have to pay the full amount of child benefit back if claimed for.

 

I think if house prices were cut by 50% it would solve pretty much all the problems, it is mortgage payments that are sapping everyone's income, people don't have disposable income so the economy suffers.

I often think that up to the super rich level lots of what I would call wealthy don't really consider themselves so.

Compared to some people I'm probably wealthy, but I don't think myself to be.
People live to the amount of money they have coming in, lots above that level.

 

Living within your means and saving for the future is a foreign language to many people. Having been a volunteer advisor at a local CAB, it was quite an eye opener discovering how easily people got into serious debt. From feeling they had to spend more than they could afford for Xmas presents/celebrations to simply being unable to understand finance in general. The majority were seriously worried about the situation they found themselves in but there were the odd few who understood exactly what was going on but got caught out. That was over 20 years ago and things have obviously not improved.
Forced reduction of house prices overall could prove a problem for those who rely on their house as their only asset. If you are forced to move to a Care home and you are relying on selling your house to help fund the costs ( which are staggeringly high), and the value of your £250 k house has reduced by half, it wouldn't fund you for very long. You would then end up having to try claiming every benefit going which would add to the burden facing the benefit system .
Govts - past and present - could have managed the finances more sensibly but chose not to for many reasons. I imagine we could all guess what they were

 

Yes the 50% cut in house prices is pie in the sky, but I can't help thinking governments should have some means at their disposal to stop the price escalating.
I'm no economist, but then neither is Rachel Reeves .

But future ideas about bringing house prices down should be a main priority, or just keep them stable.

The build build build policy will never work imo.

 

Plus we will soon run out of farmland to build them on.

 

@Escarpment people are having children when still teenagers on in their 20s and long before they are financially stable.

@gks - yes, joint income if you like but of greater importace is the millionaire end of the scale where they contribute little or nothing in taxes because they are allowed to avoid if not evade.

@pete No-one is going to allow house proces to be cut 50% but a sensible house/home building policy would go a long way to stopping them increasing at the ludicrous rates they have in the last 40 years.

@Philippa yes, living within one's means does seem to be an alien concept to some people who could manage better but there are certainly some whose low pay mean they'll never afford rent, heating, food without help.