Thomas and I are obviously not the Tory idea of working class eternal spongers, they are intending to target. We are both directors of our own company. I have a five year uni degree, he has an eleven year one. I had five kids because I could afford them. But imagine tomorrow if we couldn't make the money we need any more... Suddenly we'd be unemployed with five kids but not eligible for benefits despite paying taxes, occasionally at the high end of the tax spectrum. Also they simplistically think of family back in 60s terms. I mean - I have five kids so would only be eligible for benefits for Marcel and Charlotte, but Thomas actually only has two kids, although he is financially responsible for three who aren't his. Would he get benefits for his kids, despite their being my numbers four and five, or would he be doubly penalized - made to pay for mine and not eligible for benefits for his own?
Not all three plus families currently (or potentially in the near future) claiming benefits come from these generations of never-employed living in ghettos. People often bring up step kids these days which is a big enough financial burden without it impacting on their own future families.
So they'd be creating a system where divorcé(e)s would not be able to remarry till the kids leave home and that would force many more kids to be brought up in poverty instead of being brought up in step-parent families. How is that helpful? Imagine again my set-up if I was to lose my job. Would my ex-husband (should he be made redundant) be allowed two new kids as I have full custody of ours, while my current husband would be allowed none because he's paying his money to bring up mine from a previous marriage?
If they bring continue down this naive road, all they'll create is one huge quagmire of nonsense and embarrassment. Will they never learn?
Post a Comment