Think the unthinkable - let's help the coalition with some blue-skies thinking...

chucky

Aspiring_Writer wrote: »

My last line was, perception & circumstance. That means people perceive they have a right to anything and everything and the incumbent Labour Govt privided the circumstances to make it happen, i.e lax benefit & welfare system.

Bringing a child into this world when you know full well you can't afford to feed or look after it without state help is ignorant and makes no attempt at understanding reality...

yes because things are that black and white - how about this situation... where my post came from...

chucky wrote: »

this was sort of part of my point - 2006 all is good in the family budget and you can afford children, 2008 you struggle and hope things get better, come 2010 you have to be reliant on some kind of benefit.

you can't predict what the future holds and people saying that you shouldn't have children until you can afford is a bit wrong. circumstances change and costs also change that will stop you being able to afford 'children' after you've had them.

there's no point in posts like the below - it;s ignorance and arrogance blaming parents for not being able to afford children

these people are obviously ignorant and have a lack of understanding of reality - give yourself a pat on the back for being better than them...

Aspiring_Writer

Give me strength. I nor anyone else as far as I can see, has ever advocated not having children, or that people get into dire straits after the event and have to seek state aid. My point was that most people of reasonable intelligence and a sense of pride and self worth, plan their lives to some extent by establishing a home and ensuring a regular and steady income before having children.

No-one, me included, would deny that 'life happens' we all get into difficulties, but you don't deliberately go out and get pregnant when you have no means of looking after the child. Unless of course you know the Labour Govt will bail you out time and time again.

I am neither naive nor do I believe I am better than anyone else.

chucky

Aspiring_Writer wrote: »

Give me strength. I nor anyone else as far as I can see, has ever advocated not having children

you're obviously hard of reading, because this was never posted :eek:

Snooze wrote: »

There's no rocket science needed here. If you haven't got enough income coming in for someone to stay at home and look after the kid and someone else to work a sensible amount of hours to pay for it all, then you shouldn't be having kids. Simples.

(again) this was my reason for my initial post about people thinking they're better than others

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

That's a shame though, because it seems that if you're a member of the workless class in today's society, then procreating is what people do to fill their time, but if you work, despite the fact that you would probably be a better parent, many people choose not to have children or can't afford a family.


exactly and this is why gordon brown saw it as so important to keep child tax credits as they go some way to helping the slightly better off and those who consider the consequences have children rather than just leaving it to the poor and the very rich.


Well, I think for some people, having children is so important that they would rather scrimp and save than get older and regret not having children later in life. I suppose it depends how important material wealth or going out a lot is to people's lives compared to parenthood. There's definitely been some big changes in lifestyles like you say in recent times.

true but the consequences of this are creating children who will have less advantages in life. you state 'material wealth' as being prioritised but i don't consider myself very wealthy.

we live in a one bed flat in a cheaper part of london and run a cheap second hand vehicle. i don't buy many things such as clothes, we cook from scratch rather than eat out and we go on cheap holidays. my OH earns less than 25k and as someone who is self employed i would only be eligible to minimum maternity pay of around 120 quid a week. we would struggle to pay the bills on my OH's wages and the only way i could go back to work would be to have a full time nanny as my hours are irregular and i sometimes have to be away from home. we would struggle to pay the bills and mortgage on my OH's salary. now is that really prioritising 'material wealth' over having children or just being sensible, responsible and realistic?

ninky_2

Aspiring_Writer wrote: »

No, he meant that the Labour Govt created an environment where people thought
they had a right to anything and everything, often without any merit at all. There was and isnt any link between children and politics, just circumstance and perception.

thank goodness we have cleggeron to the rescue to make people realise they have a right to absolutely nothing and a responsibility merely to provide fodder to a system of helping the rich get richer.

JasonLVC

How off-topic can a thread get? Thinking the unthinkable and focusing on just the ideas, not the detail......

Scrapping child benefit entirely in its current form - it was first brought about in 1942 post war as the family allowance. It has served its purpose in that past and current form.

Tax threshold increase for individuals/couples who do not have children (to be fair to non-parents and to encourage a reduction in actual births) and a new form of child benefit either linked to salary/earnings (like the tax credits) or for those not in work, a flat benefit paid on a decreasing level as the child gets older.

Asheron

Good luck, sorry to tell you...

The same people in power 100 years ago are still in power today.

And they don't care about you or your family.

carolt wrote: »

I thought the wealth of creative, brilliant minds on this forum could help our new government along with a few suggestions for how/where to make changes in the system.


My suggestion first, to get the ball rolling:

I'd like to see the disparity between the tax and benefit systems removed, whereby benefits are awarded on the basis of family needs (eg size, disability etc), but tax is taken on an individual basis only.

This means that, currently, a typical family with 1 parent who works and gets a good salary pays the same tax as someone with no dependents. Tax allowances are not transferable betwen spouses, even if 1 parent is a low/no earner, and having extra needs eg dependents is ignored.

But if the same family don't work, their needs are taken into account, and they are rewarded financially for every additional child - leading to the situation where for many families, it's just not worth bothering to work - particularly larger families - as by the time they've added up the free accomodation costs they get through LHA, free council tax, child benefits and tax credits, income support and other extras like free prescriptions, free milk, extra child trust fund payments, EMA, etc, as well as work-related costs saved (like transport and clothing), it just makes no sense for either of them to work.

Even for those on lower incomes who do get some of their tax back through child tax credits, would it not make more sense (and vastly simplify the admin costs and the opportunities for large-scale fraud that have been reported) if instead they just got taxed less in the first place, so they could actually live off their earnings themselves, rather than the ludicrous system of taking with 1 hand and giving back with the other?

We need to MAKE WORK PAY - surely this would be one way to help make this happen?


Anyone else - what do you think would be a good suggestion to help restore our lovely country to its former glory?

Kohoutek

Asheron wrote: »

Good luck, sorry to tell you...

The same people in power 100 years ago are still in power today.

They must be pretty old by now then!

JasonLVC

Asheron wrote: »

Good luck, sorry to tell you...

The same people in power 100 years ago are still in power today.

And they don't care about you or your family.

Sorry, are you saying Cameron and Clegg are more than 100 years old?......how can "the same people" be in power today as they were 100 years ago?

This is a Think the unthinkable thread......so sell sell sell gold - it's about to crash:D

Asheron

JasonLVC wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying Cameron and Clegg are more than 100 years old?......how can "the same people" be in power today as they were 100 years ago?

This is a Think the unthinkable thread......so sell sell sell gold - it's about to crash:D

You need to research 'de Rothchild Family'

They have kept power for many years.

Cameron Is controlled and funded by them.

Cameron is just a puppet, the shadow government you never see!

Wake up