Posted on : 02-09-2009 | By : admin
The worth of the Child Trust Fund is a subject that has been much debated since its inception in 2002. The Conservative Party have now said that they will reduce the Child Trust Fund so only children from the poorest families will receive it should they win the 2010 general election. The have not yet specified by which specifications it will be decided who will receive it, and who will not.
Most people would agree that the poorer areas of society should receive more help from the state than those who don’t need it, and this is something that the Conservatives have taken on board with their policy. Poorer children can have a disadvantage when they are young adults, as wealthier parents are more able to help their children with University or getting on the housing ladder. Less wealthy parents are unable to help in this way even if they would like to. Some though, have argued that this benefit should not be limited in this way. Is this something that all children should be entitled to and not based on a child’s background? After all, is their any guarantee you will be wealthy just because your parents are.
Another question that has to be asked: are children from middle income families stuck in the middle. They may no longer be entitled to the Child Trust Fund and their families won’t be able to help them in the same way as the wealthiest. Although they have higher incomes than the poorest, they may also have higher overheads, such as a mortgage, so their disposable income is not necessarily any higher.
In theory children from the wealthiest families will not need the benefits of a Child Trust Fund. Certainly the Child Trust Fund amount (two payments of £250) is not a lot to the very richest members of society. Some parents, though, believe that children should find their own way in life so won’t give payouts to their children the way others might. Where this is the case, children will be punished because their parents are wealthy. Is it fair that children (and young adults) are treated according to their parents’ income?
The problems the Conservative Parties Child Trust Fund policy could cause can be compared to some of the issues of student loans and frees. These are means tested but not always to the benefit of those who need assistance. There are loop holes that mean those from wealthier backgrounds can end up benefitting from the system. Parents who are wealthy enough to be able to retire early do not count as being employed (especially if they are not receiving a pension). Therefore their children get the same assistance as students whose parents are unemployed. This is likely to apply to the very wealthiest families, so the extreme rich can benefit from a scheme that is supposed to help the poorest most. Another issue with this is that students whose parents are divorced get their assistance based on the parent they live with. Therefore if the parent they live with is relatively poor but their other parent is wealthy, then they will still receive the benefits. This means they could be receiving high student loans and having their fees paid, and at the same time be receiving money from one of their parents.
In theory the Conservatives Child Trust Fund policy is a good idea; it is most important to help those who need it. It needs to be dealt with the right way though, so those who do need this extra benefit don’t loose out, and there are no loop holes which mean the wealthiest are able to benefit from something not designed for them.
Andrew Marshall ©
Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/affects-of-the-conservatives-child-trust-fund-policy-1441259.html
National Trust set for overhaul: Plans to overhaul the National Trust for Scotland are set to be unve.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news... (#sprnch)
Let’s do some Math here and it will show you why daycare is the less expensive option.
yeah but obama was bad too…….USA politics are in the shitter relax matty. ill admit it obama and McCain both were bad. i mean u had a old wrinkly guy and a dumb bitch or a black guy…..
Oh Stephen Colbert is fantastic satire. He’s so good that a number of conservatives actually thought he WAS a republican for a while. Though that could just be attributed to the idiocy of the common republican.
wow! her voice is sooo crisp and pitch perfect! GOJACKIE!!!
its probably just stale bread with the crust removed.
[...] October 19, 2009 by samthomasjr Location, location, locationWhere you buy not only affects the home’s current and future value, but it also affects your lifestyle. Your agent will be able to conduct a more targeted home search if you outline your preferences in neighborhoods and nearby amenities. Here’s a checklist of items you should consider and communicate to your chosen real estate agent. [...]
Coalition’s first 100 days: Tory and Lib Dem aides share much in common -
Yeah, well, it's a dumb financial move.
Using life insurance as a savings account is DUMB. Run the numbers. 10% of what you pay in, goes to the cash value. 90% goes to the insurance company. AND, the amount of the loan gets subtracted from the payout, if you die with it not paid back. OH, and the insurance company keeps the interest you pay back on your own money.
Would you open a savings account where 90% of what you put in, goes away instantly, forever? How dumb is that? how about, give me $1000, and I'll lend $500 of it back to you - at 10% interest? Hey, it's a GREAT deal, it's 5X more than an insurance company will lend you!
Run the numbers. Insurance is NOT a good savings/investment tool. It's a financial planning tool. Different horse.
No, conservatives are extremists. Conservatives are responsible for a good 75% of the federal debt. Conservatives started a war in Afghanistan and fought it half-assed and let the terrorist who killed nearly 3,000 Americans in 2001 get away. Conservatives lied us into a war with the sovereign nation of Iraq with no strategy to win. Conservatives fought both those wars with money borrowed mainly from communist China. Conservatives sent our military into battle without the armor they needed. Conservatives privatized a good part of them military, which led to corruption, overcharging the government, and widespread war profiteering. Conservatives provided arms to both Iran and Iraq. Conservatives deregulated the banking industry, which led to the collapse of our economy. Conservatives deregulated the commodities markets which led to record gas prices, which contributed to the collapse of our economy. Conservatives deregulated the savings and loan industry back in the 80s, which led to the S&L scandal and subsequent bailout. Conservatives extended the war in Vietnam for political purposes. Conservatives went on a big witch-hunt back in the '50s and ruined the lives of many Americans simply they had friends who may have been interested in communism. Conservatives want religion taught as science and science modified to fit their ideology.
No, conservatives are radicals. I could go on but I won't wasted any more time.
I do not :3
Jesus Christ, if you say so mate :/
Google WiFi lawsuits head to Silicon Valley -
The contributors are trusted not to make deliberate errors.
what the fuck. i’m jewish and i loved this video. why would you think jews pressed the thumbs down. some people can’t take a joke but what you said is kind of racist
m.fisk: sgombro subito un tema (quella contrattuale). in tutti i contratti di servizio viene introdotta da 40 anni la possibilità di agire sulla rete con meccanismi di tutela del cliente e (auto)tutela, nel caso di 3 sono presenti dal 2002 (prima del lancio) per cui spostiamoci sulle politiche di gestione della banda. Idem sulla ‘garanzia di banda larga 24/7′: che io mi ricordi, nessun operatore mobile ha mai venduto offerte con banda minima garantita. O tu comprti un volume di traffico o tu compri un monte ore, che nei limiti contrattuali devono esserti garantite. Questo succede, ovviamente. Se qualcuno blocca un servizio, p2p o voip ad esempio, te lo deve dire prima: a parte un grande operatore mobile che applica politiche restrittive senza dichiararlo (non solo blocco servizi, ma anche blocco sessioni e altro), vodafone e wind che bloccano lo dichiarano, 3 non lo dichiara perchè al momnento non blocca alcun servizio.
If your emotions affect your body, doesn't it stand to reason that your body also affects your emotions? So….if…
ralph the wonder llama, official spokesllama for Troll-Free America™ says:Leftside Annie – Item 6 on Teh Gay Agenda says:Oh, stupid? For the record, creative types tend to be liberal, because wingnuts are way too closed-minded to be truly creative.
"But if you allow this person into your house, you are no longer in control of when the interaction ends. This is not as simple as finding the right opportunity to walk away. No. This is some next-level shit. You can’t just walk out of your own house and leave the person there. Where would you go? "