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

fc123

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

We need less people.



Limit families to 2 children. And do it retrospectively

GG

:eek::eek:

jonewer

lynzpower wrote: »

I ask again, how much would this citizens income be?

Havent got a figure for that one yet, but enough.

jonewer

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Limit families to 2 children. And do it retrospectively

There are some familys that need retrospective limiting to zero parents.

carolt

LydiaJ wrote: »

Secondly, lower earners do not "get some of their tax back in tax credits". In many cases they get much more in tax credits than they have paid in tax. "Tax credits" are a very misleading name. They are a benefit, usually payable to the parent with primary care of the children, and have absolutely nothing to do with tax, beyond the fact that they are administered by HMRC.

That is the situation at the moment, I agree - but I'd like to see a return to the situation where benefits were much more minimal - except for the few genuinely deserving cases - and where those on low incomes really were better off based on their incomes alone, with no demeaning/pointless top-ups. That could be achieved by many means other than giving tax credits.

As I said in the OP, we need to make work pay - part of that is through reducing tax esp for the low paid; part of that is also by reducing benefits.

carolt

Re the OP - where I included a reasonable policy, that I thought might appeal to the Tories (or Frank Field?), there are other changes I'd like to see, but certainly couldn't see this govt putting into action.

I'd like to see familes who work entitled to (how I hate that phrase!) the same 'rights' that those who live on benefits take for granted. In particular, I would like to see minimum housing standards applied - familes on benefits are entitled to a set number of rooms, according to the number/ages/genders of the family members; families who work and pay their own way, however, are not entitled to anything and many are forced to live in very overcramped conditions that no-one on benefits would be expected to put up with.

It is outrageous that such basic human rights are only available to those who don't work.

Don't ask me how this should be organised - I haven't got a clue. Maybe one of you lot can suggest a way?

But I think it desperately needs addressing.

globalds

If the minimum wage was raised to say £8.00 an hour. Then working tax credits would not be needed.
It would also make that genuine step up between living on benefits and earning a wage.

carolt

You and the Green party both.

If only...

I suspect that might be a blue sky thought too far for the Tories.

LydiaJ

globalds wrote: »

If the minimum wage was raised to say £8.00 an hour. Then working tax credits would not be needed.
It would also make that genuine step up between living on benefits and earning a wage.

Not sure how well a 38% increase in wage costs would be received by small businesses (or large ones either).

£8.00 an hour would make work worth it for childless people, but not for people paying for childcare. Nursery fees are typically over £200 per child per week for full time.

Oh dear. I seem to have ended up defending current levels of benefits. That wasn't my intention. I do think the benefits bill has got to be decreased, and I do think that things have got to be changed so that work is worth it for anyone who is able to work. It's just that I can't help seeing the ways in which people's suggestions wouldn't work.

carolt

That's easy, Lydia - just introduce a network of excellent state-funded free nurseries for pre-schoolers, as they enjoy in Scandinavia.

There, problem solved.

Next?

LydiaJ

carolt wrote: »

That's easy, Lydia - just introduce a network of excellent state-funded free nurseries for pre-schoolers, as they enjoy in Scandinavia.

There, problem solved.

Next?

I thought we were supposed to be slimming down the public sector, not employing huge numbers of nursery workers in addition to all the doctors/firefighters/teachers etc... not to mention the other overheads that the nurseries would incur.

And you haven't considered the effect on businesses of a big increase in wages in the middle of a recession - lots of redundancies and failed businesses, I imagine.

That doesn't automatically mean that either of those things would be the wrong thing to do, but it's certainly not a clear cut decision.