Well we were once a civilised nation with a welfare state - probably the first and the best in the world. Now it lies in shattered remnants; the final ruins of it being picked over and pissed over by lardy tories.
Well we were once a civilised nation with a welfare state - probably the first and the best in the world. Now it lies in shattered remnants; the final ruins of it being picked over and pissed over by lardy tories.
However, a sustainable welfare state would probably require more money, or at least the same amount, going in as coming out. Ours has probably become a leaky bucket with more money gushing out the holes than going in.
I find it ironic that TVGirl is slagging off the benefit system when she has readily admitted previously that she lives off it cos she can't find a job that suits her lazy arse !
Families over here live in Hog Heaven compared to families in the USA!! In some states families are not given one iota of help for children(Iowa,for example), and some states only help up to the second child(Colorado, for example), if you have a third child then its YOUR problem. The USA has something called the WIC(Women with Infants & Children) Program, but even then they only help families and single parents up until the child is 6 years old(unlike 18 years old here), cos they figure that by that age the child(ren) are in school, leaving the mothers time to go to work, leaving no room for "career baby-producing factory mothers"!! If a child is born with a disability then thats different, they can then apply for SSI and disability benefits.But even then theres no such thing as a Carers Allowance, like we have here, for families because they figure that you can leave the disabled child in the hands of PCAs(Personal Care Attendants), or the disabled child will go to school, so that you can go out to work!! but in most normal cases, theres not much help for families!!
Families here havent got a ****ing clue how lucky they are here!! The thing is, I beleive there should be a complete overhaul in the Child Benefit system here and only award it to families who are REALLY in need or whos yearly income is well below a certain income cap, other than that you should not get Child Benefit, you can look after and care for your children out of your OWN income, IMO!!
Yeah America with its obscene wealth divide and homeless cities is such a Christian country - Jesus (the love of money is the root of all evil) must be so proud.
It's because children don't ask to be born into poverty - or wealth for that matter. As far as I am aware it's so that basic provisions such as food and clothing can be provided for the child, regardless of the family's economic circumstances.
I might be wrong though.
I think there should be checks on potential parents which decided whether they're fit to be parents (means wise)
Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance: Where it all started
Child benefit was phased in from 1977 to 1979 by Labour, replacing family allowances and child tax allowances.
Child tax allowances
Child tax allowances were first introduced in 1798, though they were abolished again in 1805. They were reintroduced in 1909.
The amounts related to the age of the child. They were limited to taxpayers (working people) and were worth even more to higher rate taxpayers.
Family allowances
Family allowances were the subject of a White Paper in 1942, but there was disagreement among Labour and Conservative politicians about the way they should be implemented.
The Beveridge Report, written by the civil servant William Beveridge, proposed an allowance of eight shillings per week for all children, which graduated according to age. It was to be non-contributory and funded by general taxation. After some debate, the Family Allowances Bill was enacted in June 1945. The act provided for a flat rate payment funded directly from taxation. The recommended eight shillings a week was reduced to five shillings, and family allowance became a subsidy, rather than a subsistence payment as Beveridge had envisaged. You can find further details on the Beveridge Report on the national archives website.
Family allowances were introduced in 1946, with the first payments being made on 6 August. At that time, they were only paid for the second child onwards, a further watering down of Beveridge’s scheme. In 1952, the Conservative government reduced food subsidy, which had been in place since the war. From October 1952, family allowance was increased by three shillings per week in order to advance the potential effect on nutrition. As a means of encouraging families to keep children in education, the Family Allowances Act of 1956 extended the family allowance to all school children, although the bread subsidy was abolished. In 1961, Cabinet agreed that the majority of apprentices be excluded from the family allowance provisions, but dismissed proposals that family allowance for the second child be abolished. Family allowance provisions therefore remained intact in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act of 1962.
Believing family allowance was not widely supported among its constituency, the Labour government of 1964 was unenthusiastic about the issue. However, in 1966, pressure groups (especially the Child Poverty Action Group) forced it to address family allowance. Cabinet debated the respective merits of an increase in the existing family allowance, or a new means-tested family supplement that was supported by the Chancellor, James Callaghan.
Following the Conservative electoral victory in 1970, Sir Keith Joseph introduced Family Income Supplement (FIS). It was designed to replace further increases in family allowance with a means-tested supplement for the poorest families, and was in some ways similar to the scheme devised by Callaghan under Labour. There was a low take-up rate of FIS, which proved unpopular, especially as it was accompanied by the withdrawal of subsidised milk for children.
And to add the biggest hikes in Child Benefit came under Tory Governments too.
Yeah America with its obscene wealth divide and homeless cities is such a Christian country - Jesus (the love of money is the root of all evil) must be so proud.
Jesus was the ultimate Socialist, infact he'd be disgusted at how Christians etc are so wrapped up in Capitalism and the lack of compassion shown to those on benefits.
Infact he'd be so p*ssed off he'd curse those very people who are attacking the poor.
On topic - half a dozen primary schools in my town have been rebuilt over the last ten year, along with brand new schools for new areas in town. They are also planning on building a new "super school".
On topic - half a dozen primary schools in my town have been rebuilt over the last ten year, along with brand new schools for new areas in town. They are also planning on building a new "super school".
But that's not the topic, someone has really derailed it!
I think the original idea of child benefit was to make certain that some stay at home mothers actually had access to money for their children's basic needs, because in many cases, some irresponsible fathers never gave them a penny from their wages, and instead pissed it all away at the pub or the bookies. Backing this up is the fact that child benefit is in the name of the mother, although this never stopped people like Philpott getting their greasy hands on the cash afterwards.
Comments
Did the people who claim child benefit invent it, or did the goverment invent it for people to claim, same thing with all benefits
We have those in the UK too. !!!
http://www.maryhare.org.uk/school
I bet none of those schools come with a Geography class though.
I knew a few kids that went there!
Bet they don't yet you dial out for pizza during double geography, though.
Flying the flag I see!
Anyway...back on topic!
You really are quite tiresome.
Nice school in Scotland:
http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/uploadfiles/gallery/fullsize/c64_Beath004(i).JPG
Horrible school in America:
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5140a8616bb3f7c73000000a-300/school-through-the-fence.jpg
The door, seeing as you hate the UK so much:
www.heathrowairport.com
However, a sustainable welfare state would probably require more money, or at least the same amount, going in as coming out. Ours has probably become a leaky bucket with more money gushing out the holes than going in.
I'm going for the latter!:D
And we should care about that... why?
Otherwise she's also got everyone who picked her up on the military/education spending crap on ignore as well.
But somewhere there are 24 folorn cartons of soap powder pining for their box.
Yeah America with its obscene wealth divide and homeless cities is such a Christian country - Jesus (the love of money is the root of all evil) must be so proud.
I think there should be checks on potential parents which decided whether they're fit to be parents (means wise)
And to add the biggest hikes in Child Benefit came under Tory Governments too.
Jesus was the ultimate Socialist, infact he'd be disgusted at how Christians etc are so wrapped up in Capitalism and the lack of compassion shown to those on benefits.
Infact he'd be so p*ssed off he'd curse those very people who are attacking the poor.
And then it changes in the future and makes the tests pointless. Being a good parent isn't all about finances.
Absolutely not. Having money does not make a person a good or bad parent.
Love this post!
On topic - half a dozen primary schools in my town have been rebuilt over the last ten year, along with brand new schools for new areas in town. They are also planning on building a new "super school".
But that's not the topic, someone has really derailed it!
Yeah, after posting that post, I scrolled to the top and seen the thread title, I was a bit confused at first.