We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Too posh for dosh !!

12345679»

Comments

  • I studied Social Policy (the legislative branch of sociology) at university a few years ago. (early 90s).

    The academics were only just starting to grudgingly accept the possibility of welfare dependcy then, but the concept was viewed with great suspicion.

    IMO the problem is that the policy makers in this country still live in the mental world of the 19th century. They are full of Dickens, Rowntree, 'Round about a Pound a Week', 'Tuppence to Cross the Mersey' and all that misty eyed stuff about the working poor.

    They don't seem to realise that the situation has changed from one where you can't afford to stop working, to one where people can't afford to start working because of welfare dependancy.

    It's a cliche but the welfare state should be a safety net, not a hammock.

    The only hope is a more practical, realistic generation of social policy makers will come through, but I suspect the budget will be bust before then.
    'Never keep up with Joneses. Drag them down to your level. It's cheaper.' Quentin Crisp
  • carolt
    carolt Posts: 8,531 Forumite
    I'd love michaels' idea, I think it was, to just divvy up the pot - our family of five would get 25K back a year - lovely, but a tad unrealistic...

    That said, personally I'm in favour of keeping the Child Benefit - it's not a huge amount, but saved it can - and will, I'm sure - pay for the children of the middle classes to afford university, as tuition fees continue to rise and assistance is only available to the unwaged (again) and very low waged. I don't really see it as a 'benefit' for the parents; I see it as a helping hand to the children, who will need that to fund things their parents' generation were given for free.

    Plus the point others have made above, about the cost of the means testing equating to more than the money saved.

    Tax credits is a different matter, though - they are so open to abuse, and fail utterly in their aim of encouraging people back to work.

    Personally, I'd get rid of the whole tax credit system, and bring back the married couple's allowance for families (with adjustment to allow for comon-law marriage). Then with the money left over, I'd reduce everyone's tax bill - better encouragement back to work, IMO.
  • How would you verify common-law marriage? Apart from that, a very good post.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.