Hit the poorest the hardest - is this really what people voted for?

[London Calling]

If it was such a great, essential idea why didn't Labour get around to it whilst still in power?

It did, there has been increases in the threshold of children getting free school meals and other help, plus child tax credits etc.

Ultimately, there is a balance and priorities.

Personally I would have liked this 10 years ago.

Or 20 or 30 etc

 

[pork pie]

It did, there has been increases in the threshold of children getting free school meals and other help, plus child tax credits etc.

Ultimately, there is a balance and priorities.

Personally I would have liked this 10 years ago.

Or 20 or 30 etc

Right? Can you think of anywhere to get the money to pay for such things?

 

[London Calling]

I think the gap between rich and poor under labour got wider LC. So with the blue party in whats the difference

As we know, that gap, is due to the very rich 1% highest earners, getting proportionally richer.

Normally people say that is a sign of a successful economy.

A bit of wealth distribution is of course the answer.

 

[bhaexpress]

I am all in favour of a tax raise to pay for other peoples' children, maybe not.

 

[Superphil]

How does that work out?

Labour planned to introduce it, so it isn't in place yet.

Con/Dem are scrapping the plan, meaning everything stays as it is.

Why is there a £600 hike?

That would be too straight forward for some to deal with, especially if they voted for the party that lost the election becasue not enough people wanted them.

 

[London Calling]

Right? Can you think of anywhere to get the money to pay for such things?

Well lets look at the tax cuts and breakes that have already been offered?

If you want to get children out of living in poverty, and for example 50% of children living in LOndon are in poverty, in my borough, its even higer!

This would be a very effective way of achieving that goal.

 

[London Calling]

That would be too straight forward for some to deal with, especially if they voted for the party that lost the election becasue not enough people wanted them.

I believe the LIberals were also supporting similar changes....................

 

[pork pie]

I am all in favour of a tax raise to pay for other peoples' children, maybe not.

Oh come on! How can you not want to pay when people keep having kids that they cannot afford?

 

[Dave the OAP]

Right? Can you think of anywhere to get the money to pay for such things?

remove child benefit for anyone earning over £30k combined income.

 

[Curious Orange]

How does that work out?

Labour planned to introduce it, so it isn't in place yet.

Con/Dem are scrapping the plan, meaning everything stays as it is.

Why is there a £600 hike?

Because they thought they were going to get it so had already spent the money on an HD TV for the World Cup.

 

[London Calling]

Right? Can you think of anywhere to get the money to pay for such things?

and of course, we can cut some services and add other benefits,

even with these slashers, it doesn't have to be cut, cut cut.

Why announce you will fairly look at benefits, welfare, the entrenchment of poverty and then stopped one of the easiest solutions b4 that review?

 

[pork pie]

Because they thought they were going to get it so had already spent the money on an HD TV for the World Cup.

Or planned another half dozen kids to get full benefit of the new hand-out!

 

[sten_super]

In the Pre-Budget Report, the previous administration had pledged to extend free school meals to around 500,000 children in families with a household income of below £16,190

Child poverty campaigners have hit out at the decision, claiming that suspending the support for these families is equivalent to subjecting them to a £600-a-year income tax hike.

Imran Hussain, head of policy, rights and advocacy at the Child Poverty Action Group, said: "The support of free school meals would have lifted 50,000 children out of poverty, the Treasury has said.

So the scheme would have given 500,000 children's parents approximately an extra £600 in income, yet would only have lifted 50,000 out of poverty? Surely it would be more effective (and more straightforward) to simply give the parents of each of these 50,000 children £6,000 each? Rather than using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

 

[wellquickwoody]

If you want to get children out of living in poverty, and for example 50% of children living in LOndon are in poverty, in my borough, its even higer!

Probably one of the most stupid comments ever written on NSC. Are you honestly claiming that 50% of kids in London live in homes without a fridge, or television, or their parents have no access to a car? You wouldn't know poverty if you were in it yourself you idiot! When you don't have enough food, or shelter or heating you are in poverty. FFS!

Alternatively, if you are fishing you have just caught a whopper.

 

[User removed 4]

Probably one of the most stupid comments ever written on NSC. Are you honestly claiming that 50% of kids in London live in homes without a fridge, or television, or their parents have no access to a car? You wouldn't know poverty if you were in it yourself you idiot! When you don't have enough food, or shelter or heating you are in poverty. FFS!

Alternatively, if you are fishing you have just caught a whopper.

I have to agree with you there woody , except for the art about LC being an idiot, ive met him and he's an alright bloke !

 

[Tooting Gull]

It always amazes me that for a huge number of benefits/tax breaks/credits etc, no account whatsoever is taken of geographical factors nationwide.

Even this idea of the tax credits and child benefit getting cut. If you are in Hartlepool and the household pulls in £30k, the mortgage might be £500 a month, and everything costs a lot less. If you are in Surrey or Sussex at the same income levels and with a mortgage of (most likely) £1,000 a month and paying a lot more for everything from food to all local services, you are not well off, not by a long chalk.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I have to agree with you there woody , except for the art about LC being an idiot, ive met him and he's an alright bloke !

As it is you Bushy, 'LC, you are not an idiot, just misguided'.

 

[pork pie]

It always amazes me that for a huge number of benefits/tax breaks/credits etc, no account whatsoever is factored in for geographical factors nationwide.

Even this idea of the tax credits and child benefit getting cut. If you are in Hartlepool and the household pulls in £30k, the mortgage might be £500 a month, and everything costs a lot less. If you are in Surrey or Sussex at the same income levels and with a mortgage of (most likely) £1,000 a month and paying a lot more for everything from food to all local services, you are not well off, not by a long chalk.

You are right. Add to that the fact that wages in Sussex tend to be low, you have a double wammy.

 

[coventrygull]

As we know, that gap, is due to the very rich 1% highest earners, getting proportionally richer.

Normally people say that is a sign of a successful economy.

A bit of wealth distribution is of course the answer.

A sign of a succesful economy. More of a sign of people being screwed. I agree a bit of wealth distribution is the answer and thats worldwide not just here

 

[wellquickwoody]

It always amazes me that for a huge number of benefits/tax breaks/credits etc, no account whatsoever is factored in for geographical factors nationwide.

Even this idea of the tax credits and child benefit getting cut. If you are in Hartlepool and the household pulls in £30k, the mortgage might be £500 a month, and everything costs a lot less. If you are in Surrey or Sussex at the same income levels and with a mortgage of (most likely) £1,000 a month and paying a lot more for everything from food to all local services, you are not well off, not by a long chalk.

Well said. I have long thought that if two parents were working in the north of the country that they must be living like Kings.