Ok whats the secret?

Toto

Fridge2 wrote: »

Actually, you have somewhat oversimplified the situation here....

I agree that there should be no economic handouts simply because pople have children.

However, in turn, I am in favour of cutting taxes-all taxes-as much as is humanly possible so that folk can keep more of the money they earn.
I mean, why tax someone, then give it back? just tax them less in the first place!

It seems senseless to me to have this great cumbersome mechanism whjere money is coerced from people then redistributed back to them and others-it probably is very wasteful in administrative costs alone.

That's all well and good but you have to remember that tax credits replace quite a few benefits for people who would be on a very low take home income if they went to work. Most people don't get housing benefit for example, because their tax credits take them over the earning threshold for it.

Tax credits have also given many people a chance to go to work when they just couldn't afford it before. Even with one child in nursery you are looking £200+ a week just in fees alone. Have a couple of kids and it becomes totally beyond the reach of most people to work.

It seems that people forget how it used to be though. Taxes were no different before the tax credit system came in. There may have been an allowance for people with kids but that was nothing much. Other than that, for the childless taxes were no cheaper then than they are now. So why on earth do people want the govenment to stop giving money to families? what would you rather, they cut tax by 1p in the pound and scrap benefits, how long before that penny goes right back on again and nobody benefits?

I can think of lots of things I don't want my tax money being spent on, but giving some of it to the ordinary bloke on the street isn't one of them.

Fridge2

Toto wrote: »

That's all well and good but you have to remember that tax credits replace quite a few benefits for people who would be on a very low take home income if they went to work. Most people don't get housing benefit for example, because their tax credits take them over the earning threshold for it.

Tax credits have also given many people a chance to go to work when they just couldn't afford it before. Even with one child in nursery you are looking £200+ a week just in fees alone. Have a couple of kids and it becomes totally beyond the reach of most people to work.

It seems that people forget how it used to be though. Taxes were no different before the tax credit system came in. There may have been an allowance for people with kids but that was nothing much. Other than that, for the childless taxes were no cheaper then than they are now. So why on earth do people want the govenment to stop giving money to families? what would you rather, they cut tax by 1p in the pound and scrap benefits, how long before that penny goes right back on again and nobody benefits?

I can think of lots of things I don't want my tax money being spent on, but giving some of it to the ordinary bloke on the street isn't one of them.

I hear you, and I can assure you that I would not limit tax cuts to this issue alone.

For me, it's not so much the fact that the money is being given to families, it is the fact that it is taken from me at all.

However, remember that for every penny given to a family, a childless person is bankrolling it.

Income tax was never meant to be a permanent measure, it was introduced during times of war as a temporary source of revenue for the Government.

Myself, I believe in abolishing income tax altogether, and replacing it with a consumption based tax, and then only on non-essential goods. That way, the individual has much more control over how much tax they pay, and the act of coercion is removed.

And I personally have no problem with SAHM, it's not my business at all. I just don't think the state should be intervening.

MyLastFiver

Fridge2 wrote: »

Actually, you have somewhat oversimplified the situation here....

I agree that there should be no economic handouts simply because pople have children.

However, in turn, I am in favour of cutting taxes-all taxes-as much as is humanly possible so that folk can keep more of the money they earn.
I mean, why tax someone, then give it back? just tax them less in the first place!

It seems senseless to me to have this great cumbersome mechanism whjere money is coerced from people then redistributed back to them and others-it probably is very wasteful in administrative costs alone.

Fridge, whilst I respect your view, I disagree with you so fundamentally that to explain why would need a thread of its own. Probably best to agree to differ.

Needabuckortwo

charley24 wrote: »

You will find that the mums who stay at home have either no qualifications and just do menial jobs on minimum wage.


You may look down on the lady in the chip shop serving up your cod, but I bet with every chip she fries she is probably doing it for her children not for herself.

I actually find the original poster here quite rude and ignorant. I am a young mum yes, my partner worked ever since my DD was born earning just £700 a month, we had no help what so ever. Thankfully he earns a bit more now, but not every person has the same opportunities in life, I'm now at uni and hoping to graduate when she starts school and have a "qualified job", also at the same time I work in the chippy at the weekend now, not because we need the money we're fine, we dont have an expensive lifestyle but I want to show my daughter that she has to work for her rmoney and that it doesnt come handed to her.

If in a few years yime I become pregnant again, I would happily give up my job to stay at home with my child becuase thats what suits me.

Sometimes it works better for families to have one working person and the other to look after their child, its better finiancially, not every body who stays at home is a benefit cheat or incompetent.

Nargleblast

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I don't believe people should be financially supported by the government to have children.

It is a choice to have them, and if so, you should be able to financially support them yourselves.

If you can't afford them on the salaries you earn you should not expect other people to pay for your lifestyle choice.

I totally agree with the sentiment that people should not have loads of kids and expect the taxpayer to foot the bill without paying anything themselves to support their children. However, the taxpayer does have an obligation to help support all children and families to a certain degree.
Why? Well, those of us in work - imagine fast forwarding on a few years/decades to the time when you are elderly and no longer working.

To survive you will need the following:

Place to live
Gas, electricity, water
Food
Local services - street lighting, refuse collection etc
Transport and road maintenance
Post office and banking facilities to pay out your pension to you
Doctors and nurses to provide for your health needs

And who will provide all these commodities when you need them?
The children of today, of course, through the jobs they will be doing and the taxes they will pay.

Therefore it is in the interest of all of us to ensure that today's children are fed, cared for and well-educated, and we do that through our taxes.
Yes, it is annoying when you work your backside off, pay humungous taxes and struggle to pay your bills whilst you see others apparently breeding like rabbits and living the life of Riley (whoever he was) at taxpayers' expense, and heaven forbid we should be dependant on the badly brought up kids of these sorts of people. However, there are always two sides to a story, and the family in your street who appear to be spongers may well be the opposite - they could be hard-working, financially pressed and deep in debt like many of us on here.

The answer is, as others have said, try not to bother yourself about what other people have or how they run their lives. Be content that you live a good life and work hard to pay your way and raise your family.

Fridge2

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Fridge, whilst I respect your view, I disagree with you so fundamentally that to explain why would need a thread of its own. Probably best to agree to differ.

:beer:

That's ok.

We all have our own views on what constitutes the "right" way for society to move forward. Not all of these will agree, and what may be "right" for you may not be for me.

I am quite sure we could both argue our case eloquently, but as with most of these discussions, it is highly unlikely either will change their view.

At least we live in a country where we are allowed to have opposing views and come to our own conclusions.

So yes, best leave it at that.

Toto

Fridge2 wrote: »

:beer:


So yes, best leave it at that.

aww I'm quite enjoying the debate It's not too often you get one about benefits and taxes that doesn't resort to a slanging match.

I do respect all of your differing opinions (even though mine is the right one :rotfl:)

kezzae

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I agree with you, my husband and I both worked, I paid a lot in childcare but it was mainly for me to keep my skills up with regards to the future, when the kids were older and also because I had a good work ethic. You will find that the mums who stay at home have either no qualifications and just do menial jobs on minimum wage. This government makes it that way, you can be qualified, have a degree and the other types just breed kids and get tax credits, right name for that is social security money because it sounds better the government called it tax credits it makes everybody who claims it feel better.

Did you know you could study and get a career but another can have kid after kid and with no qualifications get more take home pay than you, the system is not right.

What a very narrow minded person you are!!! I think you will find that not all stay at home mums have no qualifications and work menial jobs!! I have several qualifications but chose to put my career on hold to bring up my children myself, this works for us as a family.
I am a stay at home mum, my husband works full time and supports me. We claim CTC for the children, yes the children, not us, because we are entitled to it. My husband goes to work every morning knowing that our children are safe and not being cared for by a stranger. So wind your neck in and don't tar all us stay at home mums with the same brush!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad: When my children are older I will return to work but at the moment I have the best job in the world................

charley24

Needabuckortwo wrote: »

I actually find the original poster here quite rude and ignorant. I am a young mum yes, my partner worked ever since my DD was born earning just £700 a month, we had no help what so ever. Thankfully he earns a bit more now, but not every person has the same opportunities in life, I'm now at uni and hoping to graduate when she starts school and have a "qualified job", also at the same time I work in the chippy at the weekend now, not because we need the money we're fine, we dont have an expensive lifestyle but I want to show my daughter that she has to work for her rmoney and that it doesnt come handed to her.

If in a few years yime I become pregnant again, I would happily give up my job to stay at home with my child becuase thats what suits me.

Sometimes it works better for families to have one working person and the other to look after their child, its better finiancially, not every body who stays at home is a benefit cheat or incompetent.

Sorry if I offended with my post, after the original poster mentionened menial working, my first thought was how people say cleaning is a menial job, I didn't in any way mean that people who work in the chip shop wouldn't want to work there. So I apologise as I was trying to put accross a point, for all we know workers in our local chippies could have degrees in rocket science. I agree with your point, showing your children that some Mum's work is good, shows that both Mum and Dad can provide. However on the other hand, Mum's can also do lots of things at home and work very hard being stay at home mum's, but as a working Mum I of the opinion that we need to be good role models to our kids, we would hate them to grow up with a 'I'm gonna stay at home and let the government pay for me'. However whether we stay at home or go to work, some parents just don't instill values in their children anyways, if we are good parents, our children should grow up fine, learning about life and understanding that if we want something we should work for it, if they are taught this by a Mum who cares for a family or a Mum who juggles work and home.

Your point regarding you being at Uni, reminds me of one night when I went to Stringfellows in London (in my youth!) the girls were so pretty and I got chatting to one who had a double degree is something very fancy, I asked why she worked there ? She said that she felt admired and earnt over a £1000 a night !!!!

Needabuckortwo

Hiya, it was not your post that offended me, it was the post you was referring to. I see nothing wrong with people working in the chippy or cleaning etc, at the end of the day they are just trying to make a living like every one else.