Biting the Hand that Feeds You!

Published on April 14, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

OK, this blog pissed me off!

While surfing member blogs on blogexplosion, I came across the following:

I got my new Child Benefit order through today. For anyone outside the UK, that's a paltry sum the government gives all parents/carers toward the upkeep of a child/children. Currently it stands at £17 a week. Wouldn't even buy half a pair of shoes (or as some would say, one shoe).

Ah but... I am also a sad, lonely, unmarriable woman so I get lone parent benefit on top. Wow!

This currently stands at 55p per week (about 25 cents). So there you have it guys, that's what the government of this sceptred isle think you're worth. Wouldn't stand for it if I were you

Now, before I get started, let me tell you I know little to nothing about British politics. All I know about this "child benefit" is the information provided me by the blogger. I also know little about currency exchange rates, though I believe the pound to dollar ratio is, like, two to one (please feel free to correct me and/or weigh in on points of error).

This blogger states that the child benefit is given to ALL parents, meaning, if you have a child, you get 17 pounds a week (the blogger stating this isn't enough to buy a pair of shoes, apparently the United Kingdom is bereft of secondhand stores or discount retailers). By this equation, a family with 4 children would receive 68 pounds a week for doing nothing (again, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong with this,as it is the blogger's misinformation, not mine). The benefit for parents, while apparently small, also must be mitigated by the fact that THIS IS A FREEBIE. IT COST THIS LADY NOTHING.

This,in a nutshell, is yet another reason why I oppose such measures in the US. No amount, it seems, would EVER be enough for some people.

To paraphrase Brad (who was quoting another user): "DON'T CRITICIZE THE FREE ICE CREAM!"

Comments

Dr Guy

on Apr 14, 2005

Your conversion is close enough.

But that is what is becoming of western europe and even the US. The Entitlement mentality. What was supposed to be a little to help, and not a subsistance income, is now looked upon as having to be able to be survived upon.

You see it in a lot of the posts of liberals here as well. Why should X get a tax cut when Y does not have enough money for a VCR for her children.

It is sad.

Dr Guy

on Apr 14, 2005

But after thinking about it, it's not much different from our own "Earned Income Credit."

That is means tested.

dharmagrl

on Apr 14, 2005

It used to be called 'Family Allowance', and you get a certain amount per child, regardless of your income.

17 pounds IS enough to buy a pair of shoes, it's just not enough to buy a pair of Clarke's or Birkenstocks.

bakerstreet

on Apr 14, 2005

I can play the devil's advocate and see how this might be of a small benefit to society. Maybe it helps keep a bit better quality food on the table. Maybe it does help buy medicine for the kids when they get sick. Maybe they can upgrade to a bit better coat in the winter.

The problem here is that the person in question seems to think that this is INCOME. That she is somehow expected to live on it. "Toward" is the keyword in that description above. When you give people an allowance, though, they somehow expect to be able to live on it exclusively.

sheweevil

on Apr 15, 2005

Child benefit was brought in to replace tax relief married couples got called family allowance. It is currnetly £17 for the first child and £11.40 for subsequent children. It is not means tested. It was introduced at a time when women mainly stayed at home and was usually given to the mother in recognition that some mothers got no access to the father's wages.

I have to agree with you to an extent but have to add that I would rather pay the increased taxes and have access to our welfare benefits and healthcare system with all its shortcomings than not.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 15, 2005

I have to agree with you to an extent but have to add that I would rather pay the increased taxes and have access to our welfare benefits and healthcare system with all its shortcomings than not.

And that is fine. Britain, as the US, has the right to determine her course and I don't criticize that. What I am criticizing, though, is the fact that this woman is complaining that it is not enough. As Baker said, I can actually see a societal benefit, especially as it is NOT means tested. But my larger point is, this is a perfect example of the fact that, no matter how much you give, there will always be people around who grouse about how they DESERVE more.

shadesofgrey

on Apr 15, 2005

I am not sure how it is any different than the extra allowances that you get to take on your taxes in the US for having kids.

Maybe there is more to the blog that I am missing. I don't see the blogger bitter complaining--rather just laughing off the "paltry" sum. She's merely saying it isn't a whole lot--and she's right. While the exchange rate might be 2 to 1 most of the price tags on items in England are the same, for example--a pair of jeans might cost me $35 here, and they would be 35 pounds there. I'm not an extravagant shopper, but I'd have a hard time finding a pair of shoes for 17 quid in the UK.

Personally, I think that the best part of her blog is when she says the government pays her 55p (which is really more like $1 than 25 cents) for not being an unmarried mother--very high regard for men, that shows!

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 15, 2005

The extra allowances on taxes for having kids are based on means; they're not universal (but yes, the principle is similar). But are you saying there are no secondhand stores in England? That sounds kind of odd to me (while some may turn their nose up at shopping at secondhand stores, it's what you DO if you're trying to make ends meet).

Anyway, I think you miss MY point here. My point is that she's complaining about something that is GIVEN to her, because it isn't enough. It would be like your friend giving you a Timex watch for your birthday...and you throwing it back in his/her face because it wasn't a Rolex.

The fact is, the British government, like the US government, isn't a magic djinni. The money they send out comes from TAXES; to increase allowances and entitlements, they must first increase taxes. Frankly, if our government was giving us an extra $120/week (approximate equivalent for my family with 5 kids), I HOPE I wouldn't be stupid enough to complain about it not being enough.

shadesofgrey

on Apr 15, 2005

Anyway, I think you miss MY point here. My point is that she's complaining about something that is GIVEN to her, because it isn't enough. It would be like your friend giving you a Timex watch for your birthday...and you throwing it back in his/her face because it wasn't a Rolex.

I didn't miss YOUR point, I didn't agree with it. My impression of the blog is that she's having a laugh and being very cheeky about it.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 15, 2005

The blogger came across as being bitter, not being humorous. Perhaps I missed something in the translation, who knows?

David Hawley

on Apr 15, 2005

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." -John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Good advice.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!