Childrens Trust Fund Axed

[Jeff Le Taxi]

Dirty Tory policies, at least Thatcher only stole milk! happy now council estate tories?

[benjii]

 

Yeah, this lack of two staggered payments of £250 is going to ruin so many lives.

[trousers]

Brown/Darling borrowed yet more money to finance this giveaway.

 

What would you have cut instead?

[trousers]

 

Yeah, this lack of two staggered payments of £250 is going to ruin so many lives.

 

Yeah, and where are they going to get their ciggie money from now?

[View From The Top]

 

Yeah, this lack of two staggered payments of £250 is going to ruin so many lives.

 

The thing I like about it is that is locked away until they are 18.

 

My two youngest ones have them and as we and their grandparents pay in monthly we know that at 18 they will have some money behind them for uni etc.

 

My nippers is in a kids savings account but the return isn't as good as his sisters.

[Dog]

Dirty Tory policies, at least Thatcher only stole milk! happy now council estate tories?

 

[Colinjb]

Labour's legacy of unsustainable spending was going to leave some difficult decisions, this no doubt was one of them. No doubt those disgraceful idiots will be all holier then thou about it too, look what those awful Tories have done now!

 

Short term pain for long term gain, harsh but necessary.

[iansums]

Absolutely necessary. They were a bloody ridiculous idea.

 

Of course soon they will probably cut back or means test the child allowance which I won't be happy about but to be honest I (and many others no doubt) don't need it.

[JustMike]

why was it a ridiculous idea???

 

so spending thousands on fighting pointless wars is sooo much better

[iansums]

why was it a ridiculous idea???

 

so spending thousands on fighting pointless wars is sooo much better

 

 

I didn't suggest that!

 

It was a ridiculous idea because we can't bloody afford it!!

[JustMike]

I didn't suggest that!

 

It was a ridiculous idea because we can't bloody afford it!!

 

well we could if other monies were better used.

[View From The Top]

I didn't suggest that!

 

It was a ridiculous idea because we can't bloody afford it!!

 

We could when it was introduced. Same as we could could afford wars then!

 

Want to save billions? get out of Afghanistan where we are a decade into an unwinable war at the cost of 100s of UK lives and billions of ££.

[JustMike]

We could when it was introduced. Same as we could could afford wars then!

 

Want to save billions? get out of Afghanistan where we are a decade into an unwinable war at the cost of 100s of UK lives and billions of ££.

 

 

this.

 

and while we are at it, how much did those bankers pocket when the rest of us were singing from our supper?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why is this put down as a "Tory Policy", the Lib Dems were against them as well.

 

It was just a typical Labour policy of bribing us with our own money.Now they should abolish WFTC and Child benefit for top rated tax payers.

[View From The Top]

Why is this put down as a "Tory Policy", the Lib Dems were against them as well.

 

It was just a typical Labour policy of bribing us with our own money.Now they should abolish WFTC and Child benefit for top rated tax payers.

 

You really do talk rubbish.

 

The original idea was to give kids from poor backgrounds a start and something to build on. Great idea, poorly executed.

 

Bribary my @rse. I'd suggest you look up what it actually means.

[iansums]

Why is this put down as a "Tory Policy", the Lib Dems were against them as well.

 

It was just a typical Labour policy of bribing us with our own money.Now they should abolish WFTC and Child benefit for top rated tax payers.

 

That would affect me, well my daughter actually as all the child benefit goes direct to her account. But I have to say this would make sense.

 

My problem with this child trust fund is that it is more of 'the state will help make it better' when people should take more responsiblity for themselves. It also meant money going to people who simply don't need it.

[Johnny Bognor]

You really do talk rubbish.

 

The original idea was to give kids from poor backgrounds a start and something to build on. Great idea, poorly executed.

 

 

 

I would suggest a good education and a thriving private sector economy offering job/career opportunities would be far better than £500.

[Lord Duckhunter]

You really do talk rubbish.

 

The original idea was to give kids from poor backgrounds a start and something to build on. Great idea, poorly executed.

 

Bribary my @rse. I'd suggest you look up what it actually means.

 

It wasn't a "Great idea", and it was our money.From my understanding it is a universal benefit, therefore a higher rated taxpayers children are able to get it. Money going from the public revenue into the pockets of rich kids.It's maddness.

 

 

David Laws said today it is "deceiving" people if they were handed funds that were from borrowed money.

 

If you want to give kids from poor backgrounds something to build on, educate them to a higher standard, don't just throw a little bit of money at them.

[Jeff Le Taxi]

I would suggest a good education and a thriving private sector economy offering job/career opportunities would be far better than £500.

 

Take it from that you havent seen the proposed cuts in education announced today then?

[Jeff Le Taxi]

Brian Morris, head of savings at the Building Societies Association, said: "This is disappointing as CTFs are a very good way of getting children into the habit of saving. It will hit hardest those on lower incomes since higher income families are more likely to save without the incentives that CTFs offer."

[dellgirl]

As the majority of lower income and benefit funded parents will not be adding to it,what will it be worth in all those years time anyway,not enough to do anything meaningful with and having cost a fortune we couldn't afford at the time,just more cynical window dressing from a corrupt party who sadly won an election.

[View From The Top]

I would suggest a good education and a thriving private sector economy offering job/career opportunities would be far better than £500.

 

Repeat ad nauseum Mr B.

 

Private sector good. Public sector bad.

[View From The Top]

It wasn't a "Great idea", and it was our money.From my understanding it is a universal benefit, therefore a higher rated taxpayers children are able to get it. Money going from the public revenue into the pockets of rich kids.It's maddness.

 

That I don't disagree with that hence my belief that it was a fine idea poorly executed.

 

Folk like me add to it knowing that our kids will have some money behind them when they turn 18 but it's obvious that the poorest kids won't have that benefit to the same degree.

 

Good idea, poorly executed.

[Patrick Bateman]

Take it from that you havent seen the proposed cuts in education announced today then?

 

Cuts that will not affect the vast majority of people and won't harm education at all.

 

BECTA has been binned; I don't know many schools/teachers/children that will be affected by this.

 

A quango (I hate that word) which interferes with the national curriculum has been binned. My girlfriend, a deputy head of a very large primary (which has just got 'outstanding' with ofsted, i.e. one of the top 7% in the country), says this is a good thing as they were planning on interfering negatively with something that already works (I don't know the exact details of meddling, I was still half asleep at 6.30am when she was wittering about it whilst walking out the door to school).

 

10k new uni places instead of 20k. Not a big deal. More kids should be doing apprenticeships, not being forced to go to uni to do a pointless degree that won't get them a job.

In fact, so many people now have degrees that in the sector I work in, a masters is preferred, even for people in their mid-30s, like me.

[Patrick Bateman]

That I don't disagree with that hence my belief that it was a fine idea poorly executed.

 

Folk like me add to it knowing that our kids will have some money behind them when they turn 18 but it's obvious that the poorest kids won't have that benefit to the same degree.

 

Good idea, poorly executed.

 

Not wishing to be stereotypical here, but ... a large portion of children these days seem to have poor role models as parents and poor life guidance. What's the betting that in x years (when was this fund introduced??), there will be a glut of kids, £500 richer, spending it on booze, holidays and cars, rather than the intention which was to help their education.

 

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but I like to generalise in this example.

[Johnny Bognor]

Take it from that you havent seen the proposed cuts in education announced today then?

 

Jeff Left Taxi, start a thread on it rather than banging on about a cheap bribe.

 

 

Repeat ad nauseum Mr B.

 

Private sector good. Public sector bad.

 

No, repeat ad nauseum...

 

Private sector creates wealth (for redistribution), the Public sector doesn't.

 

Have a strong private sector and the benefits to the poor will be far greater than 2 x £250 vouchers. Simples.

[bridge too far]

Jeff Left Taxi, start a thread on it rather than banging on about a cheap bribe.

 

 

 

 

No, repeat ad nauseum...

 

Private sector creates wealth (for redistribution), the Public sector doesn't.

 

Have a strong private sector and the benefits to the poor will be far greater than 2 x £250 vouchers. Simples.

 

 

But not forgetting that public sector workers buy private sector stuff, eh JB?

 

What comes around goes around as they say.

[Johnny Bognor]

But not forgetting that public sector workers buy private sector stuff, eh JB?

 

What comes around goes around as they say.

 

Two can play that game...

....... where do you think public sector pay or public sector budgets come from?

 

 

(This is like the word association thread, where it goes on and on, however with the exception that there will only be one winner)

[bridge too far]

Two can play that game...

....... where do you think public sector pay or public sector budgets come from?

 

 

(This is like the word association thread, where it goes on and on, however with the exception that there will only be one winner)

 

From people who have been well educated and kept healthy by the public sector and kept safe from criminal acts and fires by the public sector etc. etc.

 

Deuce?

[Johnny Bognor]

From people who have been well educated and kept healthy by the public sector and kept safe from criminal acts and fires by the public sector etc. etc.

 

Indeed, but they are still funded by the private sector. He who pays the piper and all that.....

 

Deuce?

 

Nope.

 

I'm not devaluing the public sector, but at the end of the day, the better the private sector, the more we have to spend on public services.

 

Anyone who is 'for' the public sector should also be 'for' the private sector as it is in their interests. However, many on the left don't subscribe to this theory, which in my mind is total lunacy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Massive cuts are coming as we've run out of money. If the Leftie's are getting themselves into rage over this small insignificant bribe from the Labour Party, what are they going to be like when the really big stuff arrives? We are spending more money than we get in, that has to stop and we need to address the massive deficit.There is no pain free way of getting ourselves out of this mess, a mess caused by the global situation, but made worse by Labour's mismangement of the public finances (again).

 

Along with this measure I would like to see Family benefit stopped for all but basic tax rate payers, WFTC stopped for anyone earning over £35,000. I would also like to see the overseas aid budget slashed by 50%, let's get our finances in order and then we can start giving more to the world's poorest.Why should pensioners in this country have VAT raised on goods they want to buy, whilst still pouring millions into Countries thousends of miles from here? Oversea's aid is great when we can afford it, but at present we can't.

[bridge too far]

Sometimes, JB, the private sector isn't better, is it.

 

Not when the ONLY driver is profit. Take hospital cleaning as an example - standards deteriorated noticeably when the private sector took over and, in order to boost profits, got rid of a large number of very experienced previously public sector workers.

 

Of course we need a private sector - or at least the revenues it provides in the form of all sorts of taxes, be they income based or purchase based. But a private sector can only work successfully if it has the infrastructure of the public sector in place to support it.

[View From The Top]

Not wishing to be stereotypical here, but ... a large portion of children these days seem to have poor role models as parents and poor life guidance. What's the betting that in x years (when was this fund introduced??), there will be a glut of kids, £500 richer, spending it on booze, holidays and cars, rather than the intention which was to help their education.

 

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but I like to generalise in this example.

 

I don't disagree. As I said, noble idea but poorly executed.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I would suggest a good education and a thriving private sector economy offering job/career opportunities would be far better than £500.

 

You may be able to get away with that now seeing as they've got rid of BECTA, but how long till we see real deep cuts in education spending...

[View From The Top]

Jeff Left Taxi, start a thread on it rather than banging on about a cheap bribe.

 

 

 

 

No, repeat ad nauseum...

 

Private sector creates wealth (for redistribution), the Public sector doesn't.

 

Have a strong private sector and the benefits to the poor will be far greater than 2 x £250 vouchers. Simples.

 

It just educates and looks after the health of those wanting to or already in the private sector.

 

How very wrong of people wanting to work to help others. Evil people they are.

[Johnny Bognor]

Massive cuts are coming as we've run out of money. If the Leftie's are getting themselves into rage over this small insignificant bribe from the Labour Party, what are they going to be like when the really big stuff arrives?

 

It's laughable really. They throw their toys out of the pram over 2x £250 that the children of the future will not get in 18 years time, but are quite happy to saddle these same children of the future with a debt per head of £16,000.......

 

 

Sometimes, JB, the private sector isn't better, is it.

 

Not when the ONLY driver is profit. Take hospital cleaning as an example - standards deteriorated noticeably when the private sector took over and, in order to boost profits, got rid of a large number of very experienced previously public sector workers..

 

I did not say that the Private sector was better than the Public sector. Just because it creates the wealth to fund the public sector, does not make it better, just necessary.

 

There are certain services that are better provided by the Public sector and I don't have a problem with that, but at the end of the day it all has to be paid for.

 

....and this is where I have an issue with the views of the left. They are so entrenched in a glut of envy, that they can't see the bigger picture.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I don't disagree. As I said, noble idea but poorly executed.

 

 

I dont call just handing out our money to people "noble". Letting people keep more of the money they EARN is noble. Just giving everyone £250 regardless of wealth, lifestyle, or behaviours is just plain daft. Any benefit should either be a safety net for the vulnerable, or in place to drive certain behaviours and reward people who do the right thing.

[View From The Top]

I dont call just handing out our money to people "noble". Letting people keep more of the money they EARN is noble. Just giving everyone £250 regardless of wealth, lifestyle, or behaviours is just plain daft. Any benefit should either be a safety net for the vulnerable, or in place to drive certain behaviours and reward people who do the right thing.

 

I. Will. Type. This. Slowly. For. You.

 

It. Was. To. Encourage. Saving. For. Kids. Futures.

 

Noble. Idea. Poorly. Executed.

[Baj]

Try to make your point without being patronising (that means treating people as if they are stupid)

[Lord Duckhunter]

I. Will. Type. This. Slowly. For. You.

 

It. Was. To. Encourage. Saving. For. Kids. Futures.

 

Noble. Idea. Poorly. Executed.

 

If the Govt said you save £250 for your children and when they're 18 we'll match it, that's encouraging them. The feckless will just be given the money and withdraw it at 18, without saving an extra penny. Just going round giving people our money willy nilly is not "noble". If we're going to just give people money I would rather it went to pensioners, rather than 18 year olds.

[Johnny Bognor]

You may be able to get away with that now seeing as they've got rid of BECTA, but how long till we see real deep cuts in education spending...

 

... as long as English and Maths are protected, the future of our economy will be secure. If it means that leftie-multicultural-brainwashing activities like school visits to mosques are axed, so be it.

 

As for higher education, there is massive imbalance where the higher education system needs to re-focus on the needs of the economy rather than the pipe dreams of the student. Someone with a degree in outer mongolian jazz in the 12 century is no good to anyone.

 

 

It just educates and looks after the health of those wanting to or already in the private sector..

 

I've dealt with that already. See a few posts above.

 

I don't have a problem with the public sector in that a good public sector is good for everyone. However, an affordable Public sector is also desirable. A growing private sector will be essential to maintain good public services.

 

 

How very wrong of people wanting to work to help others. Evil people they are.

 

My mother was a nurse of 40 years, having to work hard for **** pay, so don't get high and mighty with me.

 

Just take off your green-eyed spectacles / blinkers and acknowledge that I'm right.

[Saint George]

It's all pretty much irrelevent anyway...Wait till the Unions get started after those cuts start to take place.

 

There's not a chance in hell the ConDems will get to push through anything like they're proposing without the Unions pulling the Country the rest of the way down the gutter..

 

Hold tight folks, it's gunna be a rough ride for the next few years....The 'cuts' are going to hurt, but the consequential Union action will be the final nail.....It 'aint gunna be pretty.

 

Hope most of you make it out the other end ok.....As for the Commie's, Socialist's, Marxist's, and "non job" Public Sector leeches......Well, y'all shoulda been a little more careful about what you wished for.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

... as long as English and Maths are protected, the future of our economy will be secure. If it means that leftie-multicultural-brainwashing activities like school visits to mosques are axed, so be it.

 

As for higher education, there is massive imbalance where the higher education system needs to re-focus on the needs of the economy rather than the pipe dreams of the student. Someone with a degree in outer mongolian jazz in the 12 century is no good to anyone.

 

Seeing English and Maths as the backbone of our future economy is very short sighted. What about ICT? Science? Languages? By the way, 'Brain-washing' activities? Yeah, encouraging children to grow up tolerant and rational of other peoples is a terrible thing to do, we're scum!

 

How would you bring higher education 'into line' JB? Charge those students who want to study what you may consider 'un-worthy' topics more? Offer financial incentives to those who want to study the more traditional subjects?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

It's all pretty much irrelevent anyway...Wait till the Unions get started after those cuts start to take place.

 

There's not a chance in hell the ConDems will get to push through anything like they're proposing without the Unions pulling the Country the rest of the way down the gutter..

 

Hold tight folks, it's gunna be a rough ride for the next few years....The 'cuts' are going to hurt, but the consequential Union action will be the final nail.....It 'aint gunna be pretty.

 

Hope most of you make it out the other end ok.....As for the Commie's, Socialist's, Marxist's, and "non job" Public Sector leeches......Well, y'all shoulda been a little more careful about what you wished for.

 

Shouldn't you be cleaning oil from your shrimp boat?

[Ponty]

How the f*** are we going to cope without this?

 

Oh yeah, the same way we did before the stupid things were dreamt up in the first place.

[dune]

We could when it was introduced. Same as we could could afford wars then!

 

Want to save billions? get out of Afghanistan where we are a decade into an unwinable war at the cost of 100s of UK lives and billions of ££.

 

We could not afford it then. Throughout the 13 years of Labour we ran a budget deficit. Frivalous schemes like the child trust funds should only ever happen when we run a budget surplus.

 

The whole Labour way of budgetting makes me so angry. It's not rocket science to run a budget surplus during the good times to build up a war chest for the bad times.

Edited 24 May, 2010 by dune

[pedg]

Actually its a bit of a shame as despite the best efforts of labour they did work quite well.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/general-election-child-trust-funds

 

This is the most successful savings initiative that any government has launched. Indeed, if you were to look at it not as part of education, nor as part of the child poverty promises, nor as a drive towards social levelling, but as a way to get people saving, you get a clearer sense of why economists are so in love with it. Twenty-seven billion pounds is spent on pensions tax relief, and yet only 40% of people are in a pensions scheme. A billion is spent in tax relief on Isas; only 29% of people have an Isa. Speaking of the CTF, White says: "In terms of changing people's behaviour, this is the most successful product there's ever been."

Edited 24 May, 2010 by pedg

[dune]

Don't blame the Tories, blame the Labour scum.:mad:

 

Gordon Brown's economic blunders have cost every family in Britain £50,000, the Tories claim today.

The party says Mr Brown is personally responsible for a series of mistakes that have shattered the economy.

They include selling Britain's gold reserves at a record low, raiding pensions for up to £150billion, making catastrophic tax credit errors, racking up over £1trillion in debt, and giving up our EU rebate.

In total, the Tories say, the blunders - which they call 'Gordon's greatest hits' - added up to a total loss of £1,287billion.

The sum is equivalent to £50,000 per family, or more than £3,000 for every second of every day since Labour came to power.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255305/Gordon-Brown-blunders-cost-family-50-000-PM-blame-ruining-economy-say-Tories.html#ixzz0osCuPeie

[pedg]

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255305/Gordon-Brown-blunders-cost-family-50-000-PM-blame-ruining-economy-say-Tories.html#ixzz0osCuPeie

 

Sorry, Can't read the mail as have not figured out a way to wash my brain to remove the nasty smell....

[badgerx16]

Throughout the 13 years of Labour we ran a budget deficit.

Between 1997 & 2001 we ran a budget surplus, ( but I am sure that was the residual effect of the Major regime )

 

And have you checked out the annual deficits during Maggie's and Major's reigns ?

Edited 24 May, 2010 by badgerx16