[Closed] It has started - Tory Cuts Content...

you think any government would be able to avoid cuts in this economic climate.
and child trust funds are regressive anyway as they are not means tested and takeup is higher among the middle/upper classes

(kind of just responding to the Tory part of your message but i expect ill loose out somewhere too. we are all gonna have to)

Nothing at the moment but I don't think that cutting the child trust funds was an unreasonable one though.

[img] [/img]

"they must die the death of a thousand cuts!"

I know little about the child trust fund, but as I understand the government gives your kids some money to put in a savings account, so how is the axing of this going to cost you £750?

Gonna save me money, and probably most working people, especially those who have chosen not to have kids.

I work, the government takes more than half my money and gives it to someone else, it's my money I've worked for, I should be able to choose who I give it to!

Face it, there have to be big cuts in public expenditure, MTFU and stop wingeing.

I thought the child trust fund was paid out just once at £250 per child when they are born.

Are you saying you've lost out on £750 because you planned to have 3 kids and they're not yet born?

There are easier ways of making £750. 😉

In 5 or 10 minutes?

What gearfreak said.

And I don't have kids nor do I want any.

I do feel for families who have zero income from being unemployed but thats about it.

I always though that child trusts were a waste of money, and in reality were no different to someone putting money in a savings account while carrying a balance on a (greater interest) credit card - ie pointless and stupid.

"Tory" cuts, not really the case is it?. I didn't vote for them and wouldn't but I know whichever governmment had got in massive cuts were on the way.

I think cutting CTF a fair one, and I hope they cut the £190 health in pregnancy grant too. both fairly pointless imo.

Child trust funds used to get topped up by another £250 when kids were 7yr old. It's that bit that they will miss out on.

They're hardly "Tory" cuts. Do you think things would be much different if anyone else was in #10?

I work, the government takes more than half my money and gives it to someone else

I don't know the exact figure, but I think you'll find a fair bit of it does go back to you. Never been sick? Never driven a car or ridden a bike on a public highway? Never had a decent night's sleep due to lack of a police force and judicial system so you live under constant fear of being broken in to (take that whichever way you want 😐 )? Need I go on?

In all honesty, it's a pretty minimal amount in the grand scheme of things, has no immediate effect (you don't miss what you didn't have) and in turn means not having to make £500m of other savings (which presumably means jobs) right now which will affect people.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, you have to pay for it sometime, and that sometime is now.

Dyslexia must be kicking in, could swear it said Tony Curtis content.

you know to really get this country back on track, all the work shy bog trotters should be given vouchers for basic food clothing and housing needs, with no cash for luxuries, this will never happen as too large a percentage of these are voters so this party would never get in power, but it would sort the defecit in 1 foul swoop and give people more incentive to get back to work!!

mrsflash - Member
I think cutting CTF a fair one, and I hope they cut the £190 health in pregnancy grant too. both fairly pointless imo.

Perhaps in the middle class utopia of STW, but no doubt made a difference to some.

....and another really unpopular one, give only those who contribute to society (either work, volunrary work etc) the right to vote, remove the freeloaders from the electoral system, and far harsher but far more beneficial cuts could be achieved

pedalhead - Member

They're hardly "Tory" cuts. Do you think things would be much different if anyone else was in #10?

Surely it's who the cuts are targeted at which defines them as "Tory" cuts.

Hardly costing you anything, it's money given to your kids that can't accessed for 18 years.

It was a stupid idea and a waste of money.

If you've got kids put money away for them yourself and don't look to the state to provide.

Yeah, think more things should be means tested (like the 'health in pregnancy' one which seemed silly to give to a comfortable family who were always going to be eating well/etc irrespective).

I don't know the exact figure, but I think you'll find a fair bit of it does go back to you. Never been sick? Never driven a car or ridden a bike on a public highway? Never had a decent night's sleep due to lack of a police force and judicial system? Need I go on?

Playing devils advocate...

I can buy my own health insurance (reduced as I would be faily low risk as I'm healthy, eat well, do plenty of excercise and wear sunscreen), could pay tolls for the roads I use in proportion to the damage I do to the (so not too much as a bike don't do much damage), and as for police and judicial system, I've had quite a few sleepless nights due to the ineffectiveness of the one we have. But if my whole street clubbed together for 24 hr security I could sleep better at night knowing my bikes are nicely protected.

this will never happen as too large a percentage of these are voters so this party would never get in power

Logic would dictate that, but in reality, turnout in deprived areas is very low.

Surely it's who the cuts are targeted at which defines them as "Tory" cuts.

Who is the child trust fund cut aimed at?

It's not costing me anything. If you read carefully what I typed up there you will see that.

To be fair though the Child Trust Fund always was a bit of an odd one - surely any parent should be planning for their children and saving if they can.

£500 per child is not going to go very far if the parents are not able to save on top. And if the parents CAN save, then they shouldn't really be given the money anyway surely?

As has been said, it isn't means tested - they just give money to you whether or not you need it.

Other peoples kids will be paying for your public services and pitiful state pension as you grow older if you don't have any, your money is being spent on caring for the current crop of social care. The theory is an investment in the child and healthy happy families reaps future tax income for all.

I have benefitted from the child trust fund but I agree they are sort of pointless - worst thing is they get the money at 18 regardless, and I know exactly what I would have done with it at that age, and it wasn't invest it in my university education.

gearfreak - presumably you'd also never leave your street (as you'd get mugged) and certainly never go riding as people would just push you off your bike and nick it.

I'm still waiting for Georgie Boy to cut the ****king nonsense that is PFI.

And Trident, of course. 😈

TooTall - Member
mrsflash - Member
I think cutting CTF a fair one, and I hope they cut the £190 health in pregnancy grant too. both fairly pointless imo.
Perhaps in the middle class utopia of STW, but no doubt made a difference to some.

'Ahh, £190 - now where is the organic freerange kiwi fruit isle?'

Perhaps in the middle class utopia of STW, but no doubt made a difference to some

clubber - Member

Surely it's who the cuts are targeted at which defines them as "Tory" cuts.

Who is the child trust fund cut aimed at?

Ain't got a clue, as I've never heard of it!! But I'm sure the definition of a "Tory" cut would be one that favours the "Tories".

Could you explain it to me, please?

All benefits should be means tested. Disabled people, parents, oldies etc all get benefits however much they're earning or sitting on. A lot of that money could be put to far better use.

They could save £15,000,000 plus whatever the security will cost if they (we) weren't funding The Pope's visit.

Just thought I'd throw that in for a bit of troll fishing.

It was a stupid idea and a waste of money.

If you've got kids put money away for them yourself and don't look to the state to provide.

Bit ambivalent about this- I can see that for cashstrapped low income families it could be a boost for their children in the future, especially in the current 'user pays' world of education. In the same way we're en couraged to start pensions as soon as we're working, we now need to save for education in the same way-it's just that the onus for this lies with the parents, who may not be in a position to do so.

It's not costing me anything. If you read carefully what I typed up there you will see that.

You said it's costing your family. It's not. It's just removing something that was "freely" given. Totally different. Cuts, so far, don't affect me at all.

Sure, Don Simon 😉

I reckon it's a pretty well non-targeted cut that affects almost everyone and once again, has no immediate impact which as I said, is better I reckon than cutting jobs or important services right now instead.

In fact, as above, the child trust funds apparently go more to better off families who tend to actually take up the option so I suppose that you could argue that this 'Tory' cut affects their 'Tory' supporters...

All benefits should be means tested.

Agreed, our family get benefits, we don't need them, I resent paying tax only to be given stupid bits back.

Why should you get money for having children if you don't need it?

We've never used our child benefit, don't need it, waste of government money. It comes in by DD and goes by DD on the same day into a pension for the kids.

I can see that for cashstrapped low income families it could be a boost for their children in the future

I would rather see Jonny Two Audis get nothing if it means a genuinely needy child gets his £500 as well as their own £500.

We've never used our child benefit, don't need it, waste of government money. It comes in by DD and goes by DD on the same day into a pension for the kids.

So in effect you are using it, to build up an investment for the future?

Presumably this "Child Trust Fund" is paid for out of my taxes, at least in part.

Can you give me a good reason why [u]I[/u] should be paying for YOUR children? If you can't afford them, DON'T HAVE THEM.

for cashstrapped low income families

Whats the odds for the above demographic

90% spend it on a wicked sound system for their Corsa / Xbox / Big Earings
10% on Uni fees

I am now donning my fireproof suit 😀

Do any of us really believe that people on lower incomes went out and bought lots of healthy food with their windfalls?
'Ahh, £190 - now where is the organic freerange kiwi fruit isle?'

Thats a pretty ****y thing to say m_f.
What are your feelings on, say, the provision of state funded fertilisation treatments to lower income groups?

Why? Because they'll pay your pension 😉

And some of them will have to change your incontinence pants 😳

tiger - from observation, that's about right 🙂

Thats a pretty ****y thing to say m_f.

Mr Woppit - I agree!

Given the amount of food my wife is stuffing into herself as we enter the last few weeks before the ETA of something small and screamy I think that a bit of extra cash for the less well off for food is a good idea. Possibly vouchers for veg and fruit might help how it's spent by some though?

But £500 won't go far.
I would rather see Jonny Two Audis get nothing if it means a genuinely needy child gets his £500 as well as their own £500.

I agree, and that's how it should be, especially in the current climate. The hope is like a pension, it will be worth substantially more in 18 years- enough perhaps to make the difference to a childs life.

So in effect you are using it, to build up an investment for the future?

Yes, but they won't be able to spend it when ther are 18 😆

But my point is that we can afford to do this without state help. We shouldn't get it and taking it a step futher if we as a middle income family don't need it then there are a lot of more wealthy people who really don't need it.

From a governmental point of view any money they give out in benefits is better off given to the 'corsa, Xbox, big earring' brigade who'll spend as much as they can ge hold of. As soon as the money's spent the govt will get a significant portion back in VAT, national insurance and income tax from the retail establishments that provide these things. If the money's saved it's gone as far as the govt is concerned.

As soon as the money's spent the govt will get a significant portion back in VAT

Well it goes out of the cofers now, won't be spent for 18 years and who gets to look after it for 18 years. It's our friends the banks (and not the nice High Street ones, its the bloody investment we ****ed it all up banks)

It's a dumb idea and well done the Conlibs for binning it.

If the money's saved it's gone as far as the govt is concerned.

Well it is available to be lent out in return for interest which increases the lender's profitability and results in more tax paid. The the borrower spends it on something - investment in a business maybe or goods which results in tax in the short or longer-term plus the economy as a whole is helped.

Dyslexia must be kicking in, could swear it said Tony Curtis content.

Thats a pretty ****y thing to say m_f.

Some Tony Curtis content 😉

My, he was a handsome chap in his day!

[img] [/img]

Can you give me a good reason why I should be paying for YOUR children?

No, but thanks for the cash all the same

Not sure how it is going to cost you £750 directly as you aren't being asked to spend the money - it was a handout the government gave you when the child was born and I think a top up when they reached 7 - so unless you stuck your hand in your own pocket and gave yourself the £750 then it's not cost you anything - what it has cost you child is £250 to start a savings account that might help them a little along the way when they reach 18...

I suspect each person who is paying tax is probably sticking a few pence of their tax payment to the whole childcare trust thing so even if you get down to the nitty gritty then you are perhaps 'saving' a few pence on your tax payment to be spent on something else...

Now that could be resolved if you have some wealthy family members who think a savings account is a great idea and set it up, but otherwise, you haven't lost out unless you plan on replacing the £250 government handout with your own handout?

Shame it is going but makes sense...only thing I've lost out on will be the top-up in 5 years time for my daughter - but by then things should be much better* so not somethign to be concerned with.

* Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaa...apparently!

Some Tony Curtis content

Yaander lies duh castle uv my fadder...

This really annoys me the way cuts are portrayed as Tory, lets face it for the past thirteen years we have been misled and had needless public sector jobs created at the expense of the tax payer, we have been crippled by a target culture and bureaucracy, Labour spent more than the tax receipts are bringing in, so wake up and smell the coffee this is reality not some Labour spin who totally dug there heads into the sand. We are facing economic meltdown, and if you remember many people had to pay back their family tax credits because of miscalculations etc, so welcome to the real world guess you will have to survive like the rest of us.

Can you give me a good reason why I should be paying for YOUR children? If you can't afford them, DON'T HAVE THEM.

Even Tony Curtis spent his £190 on fags

[i]My, he was a handsome chap in his day![/i]

How times change.
[img] [/img]

😯

precisely why I said 'in his day'

She's a bit of alright though 😉

the average mean slary in this country is 22k

so what the median would be without it being skewed by all them bankers* must be somewhat lower

once again the white middle class male domain of stw knows the score

edit *or indeed the fat IT consultants in audi TTs

There's a much better photo floating around on the internet of him looking incredibly ridiculous next to that woman, can't find it now though.

I agree though, I bet he didn't have to work very hard to attract the ladies in his younger days.

fat IT consultants with enough money to drive, an Audi TT, at 90 half way across the country so they can ride a trail centre on their £3000 toy and have even more money for cakes after their ride

Yeah, how dare they listen at school, go to uni, work hard, get paid, pay tax and then spend it.

What a bunch of selfish c0ck5!

Whoever got in power isn't going to be liked, period. The country is in the financial Sh*t. There is no money in the bank...... zip, nothing and somehow we need to clear it. Tax, Duty, fuel, Booze, fags (you shouldn't smoke anyway) except it it will all go up..... In real terms there is a long way to go before we see the light at the end of the tunnel.

When it came to child tax credits we got a 1 off payment of £500 because he was adopted and that was it. Because my wife and I work our entitlement wasn't worth the paperwork we had to fill in to get it. So were not loosing out too much at the moment. But this will change

Yes I for one want to see hungry children and their parents begging in the streets like some third world country so fat IT consultants with enough money to drive, an Audi TT, at 90 half way across the country so they can ride a trail centre on their £3000 toy and have even more money for cakes after their ride

No, but I'd happily see people think twice before dipping their wick if they thought they might not be able to afford to look after the results.

What a bunch of selfish c0ck5!

Can you give me a good reason why I should be paying for YOUR children? If you can't afford them, DON'T HAVE THEM.

It's simple, children grow up to become taxpayers. If people stopped having children then the future tax take would plummet and the government/country would be in serious problems as it could no longer fund healthcare, pensions, repay long term govt debt etc. In this respect, incentivising people to have children through child benefit/tax credits/CTFs etc is a damn good long-term investment.

Plenty of poor people work f@cking hard they just get low wages.

Yep, these people are sometimes the best people and should get all the breaks they deserve (Nurses, Social Workers, etc) in fact anybody who is deriving an income that doesn't fully support them should be helped.

But there are a lot of people who are lazy and rely on the system and people who work hard shouldn't be made to feel guilty about this.

Society should reward hard work and give people the will to work hard for themsleves and not rely on the state.

Plenty of us on here get paid very well

Indeedy. And I have no issue paying my taxes for others to benefit from, and for the CTF being dropped 3 months before North Jr. is due to show up.

But then again, I'm not a selfish Tory c**t.

>Can you give me a good reason why I should be paying for YOUR children? If you can't afford them, DON'T HAVE THEM.

The second point would be fair enough in theory, but life's not as black and white as some would like to believe - eg you could cap child allowance at one child but it's the additional kids involved in low-income families that are likely to suffer, it's not going to be a magic form of contraception.

There's loads of examples of what's effectively cross-subsidy - or even how you view it (eg is your tax supporting kids education, or the education you received as a youngster ?). Likewise public transport - people whinging about transport they don't use but the flipside of the is the more people use it, the more freely the other traffic on the roads can move - it benefits everyone. Or the lottery that's one's own health - you may be fine now, in 30 years time you may have to rely heavily on the healthcare system.
The incoming government made a lot of noise about how labour approved a lot of spending in the last year as if it was all a bad thing, yet one of those is a public transport development that the local tory MP wants support for.

I don't have kids, not intending/likely to since I/the OH are 47 and 48. However, what I *do* want to see is a bunch of educated, well-rounded, useful members or society (tho' some on STW seem to fail at least one of those 😉 ) - and taxes are a part of that.

>Society should reward hard work and give people the will to work hard for themsleves and not rely on the state.

It's not the reserve of the long-term unemployed, I'm sure most people could think of at least one some well-educated, well-paid employed freeloader that doesn't pull their weight. But it's not that simple.

We had a cook here at work for a while - she was pretty damn good too - already had a child that was in daycare, funded by her ex-partner. She'd just got through her probationary period when he decided to chuck his job (iirc) 'cos he'd be better off unemployed and not paying childcare. Her only option was to take the child out of daycare because she couldn't afford it. So despite *her* efforts, she was screwed because of factors out of her control.

>But then again, I'm not a selfish Tory c**t.

I don't think you've ever been accused of being Tory.
😉

- Member
>Can you give me a good reason why I should be paying for YOUR children? If you can't afford them, DON'T HAVE THEM.

The second point would be fair enough in theory, but life's not as black and white as some would like to believe - eg you could cap child allowance at one child but it's the additional kids involved in low-income families that are likely to suffer, it's not going to be a magic form of contraception.

There's loads of examples of what's effectively cross-subsidy - or even how you view it (eg is your tax supporting kids education, or the education you received as a youngster ?). Likewise public transport - people whinging about transport they don't use but the flipside of the is the more people use it, the more freely the other traffic on the roads can move - it benefits everyone. Or the lottery that's one's own health - you may be fine now, in 30 years time you may have to rely heavily on the healthcare system.
The incoming government made a lot of noise about how labour approved a lot of spending in the last year as if it was all a bad thing, yet one of those is a public transport development that the local tory MP wants support for.

I don't have kids, not intending/likely to since I/the OH are 47 and 48. However, what I *do* want to see is a bunch of educated, well-rounded, useful members or society (tho' some on STW seem to fail at least one of those ) - and taxes are a part of that.

Oh, O.K., then.

Can you give me a good reason why I should be paying for YOUR children? If you can't afford them, DON'T HAVE THEM.

We need people to have kids in order to pay our pensions and operate our economy when we're all wrinkled old prunes staring out over Bournemouth seafront. Simple as that.

To do otherwise (ie, rely on immigration) is stupendously risky.

We need people to have kids

As long as they're nice middle class ones though...?!