Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Since my three kids have grown up and (almost) left home, a cut in child benefit doesn't affect me. 

However, we'll soon be in territory where they will be looking after me, so I hope no-one's going to cut whatever carer's allowances are going.

I'm so not looking forward to old age JB.... :-/

[holtender]

It is about time it was cut, I had 3 kids and they were all payed up until they were about 19 I think because they were all in full time education,

To be honest I didn't really NEED it though, it was just the pocket money for the missus. That money could have been better used helping OAP's who are in more need to then the likes of me.

[pscocoa]

The one earner family on £44k + plus loses benefit

The two earner each under £44k  family presumably pay sufficient tax between them to more than cover the child benefit.

[jerry]

Have total empathy with all those on here who attack our current benefits system-or more accurately those who abuse it. Both me and the other half work because we have to and in order to do so and still have childcare we have seperate days off and different holidays. Ships in the night. Trust me, it aint healthy and there are times when I think Ill look back and regret this very lopsided work/life balance. I work f***ing hard and I cannot begin to communicate my anger/frustration at the results of our benefits system and the lazy f**ks who actually chose not to work as a lifestyle or get themselves pregnant for a place to live or continue to have children that they neglect because we are not a Hitlertarian/Maoist state that would steralize them after the second child wound up at risk and being paid for by the state. HOWEVER, there are genuine needs for benefits sometimes, whether it be through illness or because there really are no jobs in that area. Surely noone would disagree with that? As for the child benefit system, it used to be that earn more than 15k and you got jack , but earn less...Why does it have to be an all or nothing?Why cant it be "graded" and therefore fairer? Why cant those claiming dole be made to work eg coucil maintenance works or helping in hospitals? Is it because such things would put others out of a job? Surely this manpower could be put to some good use? Why isnt the benefits system more of a carrot AND stick-eg a financial carrot to keep mum or dad at home with children until school age and then a gradual financial withdrawal stick to encourage them back into work after ? I know its more complicated than this but the basic principles cant be rocket science can they?And before I get accused of coming over all right wi ng it still p*sses me off that Thatcher allowed so many council houses to be sold off at so far below the market value whilst so many of those who had to buy struggled . Sorry,must be Mr Angry tonight ; .Seriously though, such things are every bit as galling as any other form of social injustice.

[albitz]

I agree with almost everything you have said Jerry.The only good reason I can think of for them to do it in the way they have chosen, is the fact that most other options would require the usual army of civil servants to administrate them. And they are trying to move away from that style of governance.There is a good chance that they are soon going to have the problem of these armies of civil servants going on strike in order to prevent the changes which are going to happen.
Personally I feel that it is a bit of a timid move, which is hitting soft targets first, but its a start.

[jerry]

No doubt youre right Albs about the reasons being around the administrative costs needed to "drill" down a bit further to better target the abusers and I appreciate like you the need to cut back on the "Big government" of New Labour. However, from a sound business point of view as much as in the interests of fairness, surely it would be worth it? Knee-jerk reactions rarely work. The aspects of big gvt that I ,like many, despised were the empire building/jobs for the boys and self justification elements. Surely no one could object to more accurate targeting? In an ironic way that was what big gvt argued themselves;any accusations around them just giving money away and the systems being open to abuse were often met with the riposte that it would be too complicated,time consuming and costly to investigate individual cases . Clearly it never occurred to them that to do so would pay for itself in that massive savings could be made. (My personal opinion is that much of this was due to the sheer size of the self satisfying big gvt and the fact that sound business principles such as individual accountabilites were not enforced). The danger-as ever-is of swinging now too far the other way.

[albitz]

wouldnt argue with any of that Jerry.

[Mr Skrunts]

Mmmm.
bet he feels no pain at the end of these pub crawls.............medicinal purposes perhaps, funded by the benefit system??
Makes me sick.

Report him then, Not hard to do.

[waspy]

Mmmm.
bet he feels no pain at the end of these pub crawls.............medicinal purposes perhaps, funded by the benefit system??
Makes me sick.

Report him then, Not hard to do.

Waste of time Phil There's an idol tosser up the road from me that's on incompetence pay & has been for twenty years & more.
I've reported him more times than i care to remember & it's no use

[HolyCount]

No doubt youre right Albs about the reasons being around the administrative costs needed to "drill" down a bit further to better target the abusers and I appreciate like you the need to cut back on the "Big government" of New Labour. However, from a sound business point of view as much as in the interests of fairness, surely it would be worth it? Knee-jerk reactions rarely work. The aspects of big gvt that I ,like many, despised were the empire building/jobs for the boys and self justification elements. Surely no one could object to more accurate targeting? In an ironic way that was what big gvt argued themselves;any accusations around them just giving money away and the systems being open to abuse were often met with the riposte that it would be too complicated,time consuming and costly to investigate individual cases . Clearly it never occurred to them that to do so would pay for itself in that massive savings could be made. (My personal opinion is that much of this was due to the sheer size of the self satisfying big gvt and the fact that sound business principles such as individual accountabilites were not enforced). The danger-as ever-is of swinging now too far the other way.

The current round of cuts has no regard to future potential income. Today's target is to CUT COSTS. If they tick that box the bean counters are happy. They are ignoring that, on many fronts, todays savings will cost more in the future in respect of lost revenue and having to pay ex civil servants dole for no return.

We all know that evaded tax, if chased up, would knock a hole in the deficit, but will require increased manpower --- which isn't going to happen.

Contrary to public opinion, most grass root public servants want to do a decent job, but are hog tied by a bloated managment system and, frankly, an incompetent Senior Civil Service.

When these particular cuts hit, who will be getting the backlash in the face ? It won't be the "mandarins" in Whitehall.

[Mr Skrunts]

Mmmm.
bet he feels no pain at the end of these pub crawls.............medicinal purposes perhaps, funded by the benefit system??
Makes me sick.

Report him then, Not hard to do.

Waste of time Phil There's an idol tosser up the road from me that's on incompetence pay & has been for twenty years & more.
I've reported him more times than i care to remember & it's no use

That's a shame, coz I am still thinking of repoerting my old neighber.

[albitz]

Might be worth another try now that the friends of the workshy are no longer holding the pursestrings.

[jerry]

Dont get me wrong Count, I have someone who works for me part-time, his fulltime job is with the council but whilst we are getting a pay increase this year he isnt and he didnt have one last year either. He, like many, is worried about his job security come March, although the council seems to be giving his dept an increasing workload so maybe he'll be safe.But whilst over the past few years he and his workmates have stayed stationary re payawards etc the middle management tier has been growing. Wont bore you with examples of injustice and waste as Im sure you get the point. Just agreeing that not all workers -or management-within the umbrella of "big government" are the same and that there are many who are hard working and want to do a good job and who now, like many, face uncertain times. I think that one of the dangers of the gamut of proposed cuts will be the growth of privatizations in these sectors. PCTs for example. Get rid of them and a lot of the works they do will still need doing and that will be done by private businesses. Ok, this will create job opportunities for those who will lose their jobs in the coming cuts, and privatization in itself is not a bad thing. But privatization is all about profit and shareholders and unless there is healthy competition I think we will all find a decline in services rather than an improvement. (And before anyone pipes up about the gvt passing the roles of PCTs to GPs being a very good thing because GPs  will naturally be more inclined to look after their patients needs just ask yourself how long you have to wait to see "your"GP, or how many late nights they make themselves available for you, or how much they earn compared with you. Make no mistake; GP practices are run as businesses). I do not disagree with the need for cuts or the need for improved efficiency but I do also worry about the casualties of such cuts. Sadly, I cannot but agree with you about the immunityof the Whitehall "mandarins" either.

[albitz]

I am quite bemused by the idea of GP,s being in charge of NHS budgets etc. Dont understand what the thinking is behind it. I know a couple of GP,s and they have no experience whatsoever of this type of thing, apart from having a practise manager to do it for them on a much smaller scale. They are nice, middle class, naive  (and hugely overpaid for what they do) people, who would get eaten alive in the cut throat world of dealing with large businesses. :-/

[jerry]

I am quite bemused by the idea of GP,s being in charge of NHS budgets etc. Dont understand what the thinking is behind it. I know a couple of GP,s and they have no experience whatsoever of this type of thing, apart from having a practise manager to do it for them on a much smaller scale. They are nice, middle class, naive  (and hugely overpaid for what they do) people, who would get eaten alive in the cut throat world of dealing with large businesses. :-/

Exactly Albs!!!
Last time I posted on this I felt I was being shot down a bit . PCTs are far from perfect but we need to find a viable alternative and the idea of passing the role to "groups of GPS" and everything will be OK seems incredibly naive. All that will happen is that they wont have the time nor experience to take over these roles and so enter the private companies offering to do the jobs for them.