Dear Dave: pay child benefit to all regardless of income, and save a packet

Depends on how you define "scroungers". I know loads, if you define them as people who either deliberately get themselves into a situation where they are reliant on means tested benefits or deliberately don't get themselves out of it when they could.

Yeah, cos the deficit isn't real is it? Ask the Greeks.

Yes, the fat cats have seen their pay soar under Labour. Not to mention taxes on the rich were far less under the last Labour government than even under Thatcher. Which is why so many millionare businessmen back Labour. At least the new government are proposing a

20:1 max ratio of pay in the public sector, more than the last lot of incompetant fat cat arse lickers ever did.

But Karen Matthews faked a kidnap to extort money. I've no idea what her income was but the crime suggests that it was not "enough".

Just did. Karen Matthews

I haven't seen this. From my personal experience we need two decent incomes to raise an ordinary family, to provide our children with the minimum expected. This doesn't include things such as multiple cars, iphones, HD TVs, good holidays and XBOXs etc. Nearly all the families I know both parents have to work.

Indeed if benefits are so good why don't more people give up their jobs and why do people buy income protection insurance?

She did, but the point here about her is that she has seven children. Money for old rope.

They happen to be by five different fathers, but that's not particularly relevant in this matter.

I don't agree. Looking after children is challenging and expensive IME.

It may be if they can afford to pay any maintenance.

I would totally agree with that. So why get pregnant when you can't afford it? Because the state will pay. I rest my case.

In any case whether these particular ones can or can't afford maintenance I don't know (but I can guess), but there are plenty of people who appear to get pregnant so that they can get state benefits. I can't name them, but they seem to appear from time to time.

Quick cut and paste (figures are for last year so the benefits will be a little more this year, the working families figures will be almost the same). Figures assume a family with 2 school age kids.

Unemployed family:

IS/JSA(IB): 5249 Child tax credit: 5015 Child ben: 1726 Housing benefit/LHA [1]: 7800 Council tax ben: 1200 Free school meals:500 Free prescriptions/dentist:200

Total 21690

Working family on 30k:

Wage: 30000 Tax: -4705 NI: -2671 Travel to work (assume 3 a day): -720 Child tax credit: 545 Child ben: 1726

Total 24175

[1] LHA rate for 3-bed house in Manchester. This will be much more in London.

Partly because of independant taxation. The idea that you tax an income which supports a family of 4 the same as an income which supports a single person. People abroad really don't understand how we put up with it. It means the gain to work for the first earner is trivial (as above) but the gain with the second earner is very significant.

This results in a sharp divide between 2-earner households and no earner households. Despite having lower unemployment than most of the EU, we have the highest proportion of children living in jobless households. It creates a divided society, increasing child poverty.

Generally people don't have a clue. The number of times I've quoted figures like the above and people haven't believed me.

Insurance is often sold to the stupid at silly prices - PPI, extended warranties, Super CDW, etc. A few years ago I bought a PAYG mobile for

30 and was offered insurance at 5 a month!! Yet apparently some idiots pay it! Most people seem totally incapable of assessing risk and reward.

How many people think of the consequences first I wonder. Very few I'd guess. Remember 8 out of 10 people are caused by accidents ;-)

I don't know what to believe. I suspect that the problem is exaggerated by the gutter press.

Interesting. Neither amount would be enough (for us) to live off though.

I totally agree. However, even in a fairer taxation system, I still think both myself and my wife would need to work.

A lot of these are obviously a waste of time. Is income protection so straightforward though?

Prejudiced as I am, as soon as I saw that woman's face on TV I knew exactly what she was... Yet her daughter who was allegedly "kidnapped" looks a delightful child.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

Labour should be in inverted commas in this context, Blair was a Tory.

What they are proposing is one thing, what they will do is another.

"RobertL" wrote

But how do you stop the entire *existing* population from "simply cashing in"?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Not so - the state should just save up some of the taxes while people are working, to pay back to them later when they're no longer paying taxes (so there'd be no "sponging off the kids of those who did").

And in which bank do you suggest they save it ...?

"Martin" wrote

Stuff some more gold in the vaults at BoE?

Mind you, they could "invest" it in paying CB for current kiddies, who'll grow up to pay taxes in the future...

Better way to save money is to scrap it altogether and not replace it with anything else. Parents should bear all the responsability and costs of bringing up the children they chose to have.

OK. As long as no-one else benefits from their existence. I assume therefore that you will never claim your state pension or ever benefit from anyone else children? No. I thought not.

Surely my NI contributions were meant to provide my state pension.

My children were raised without trust funds, tax credits or any other benefit other than Family Allowance. My daughter is a teacher and my son is in the pharmaceutical industry, sufficient repayment of minimal benefits received?

Surely the time has come when people only have the children they can afford.

dg