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

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

Is it though? The other day some mothers her spoke heart felt-;y about how they wished they could afford to care for their own children more....if free (at point of use) childcare is being provided then a: its not free, like nothing is, and b. is it going to force people who want to be a sahp family out to work to afford the cost of living that includes stte provision of childcare? I dunno, but I see how it could. same with minimum wage......it sort of makes the numbers different, but the affordability sort of the same (and cash in hand increase) I think.

My ideal scenario, because I genuinely believe it is best for both children and parents, and therefore in the long-term the country, as happy, well-brought up children = good future citizens, is for all families to receive some sort of benefit to enable 1 parent (either) to stay at home with a child for the first 2 years of its life; followed by good, cheap and reliable state-run nurseries that provide childcare from the age of 2 onwards - all 2 year-olds to get maybe 2 to 3 half-days say, with the option of paying for more if the parents want to work longer hours. All research shows that from age 2 on, children benefit from some nursery care, as it helps them develop socially; I do know how shoddy much of the private provision is, though, having experienced it at first hand with my kids.

It annoys me intensely that we provide financial help for mothers to pay someone else to look after their children - the money is there in the system. But when the same mother wishes to access the same money to stay at home with her own kids, the money is suddenly not there.

That is a ridiculous anonomoly, and one which I think has gone some way towards destroying the social fabric of this country.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

no everyone does not get the same from the nhs. you only get treatment as you need it. if i walk into hospital and ask for open heart surgery they aren't going to provide it. if i get brought in in an ambulance with a massive coronary then i get treated. so treatment on the nhs is according to need. and the most in need get more.

In fact, its not even on need: post code lotteries, drug approvals etc etc.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

My ideal scenario, because I genuinely believe it is best for both children and parents, and therefore in the long-term the country, as happy, well-brought up children = good future citizens, is for all families to receive some sort of benefit to enable 1 parent (either) to stay at home with a child for the first 2 years of its life; followed by good, cheap and reliable state-run nurseries that provide childcare from the age of 2 onwards - all 2 year-olds to get maybe 2 to 3 half-days say, with the option of paying for more if the parents want to work longer hours. All research shows that from age 2 on, children benefit from some nursery care, as it helps them develop socially; I do know how shoddy much of the private provision is, though, having experienced it at first hand with my kids.

It annoys me intensely that we provide financial help for mothers to pay someone else to look after their children - the money is there in the system. But when the same mother wishes to access the same money to stay at home with her own kids, the money is suddenly not there.

That is a ridiculous anonomoly, and one which I think has gone some way towards destroying the social fabric of this country.

why a benefit/ why not just make it affordable on a wage for a to income family? (not a dig, a question....I have not formed one opinion) or in tax relief with a benefit for a single parent in this position?

and the age? Some women breast feed well through toddlerhood might find that age too young, I don't know who is right, or indeed if here is a right on the ages its appropriate to do things with. Our school starting age is rather young too, comparatively , isn't it? I feel that ideally, if we can afford it, there should be some element of being able to afford a choice until the child starts school....but perhaps as you say, with the ability to stage the period of time spent apart from its parent, and with opportunity for more social contact.

lynzpower

lostinrates wrote: »

why a benefit/ why not just make it affordable on a wage for a to income family? (not a dog, a question....I have not formed one opinion) or in tax relief with a benefit for a single parent in this position?

Well the question is how do you manage this without serious intervention into prices or wages.

I mean, how can you basically reduce the costs of that family ( housing, utilities) for everyone, when private companies and individuals and banks are setting these prices?

This is why so many people need to be topped up- but then it is arguable that because they are topped up and can afford more prices have risen.

The problem is how do you now reduce the costs of say electricity? This is why there are cold weather payments to support those who need but cannot afford heating.

A tough one, I dont know the answer but my fave choice is nationalisation but cant see that happening in my lifetime

JasonLVC

Immigration. We cannot stop it from the EU, but we can impose thresholds before benefits can be claimed (and I mean ANY benefits such as council tax, rent, disability benefit, etc).

Council and Business Taxes. It is raised by say 20% and then the home/business owner has to earn a discount. For homes, it'd be keeping your front lawn tidy/house in 'good' repair. For businesses, keeping their shutters graffiti free, maintaining property to a good standard, tidy bins outside, etc. Austria used to give reductions for putting flower boxes on your balcony to make the place 'look nice'.

Motobility. Set the benefit offered to the greeness of the car, encourage more smaller/greener purchases rather than big 4x4's, perhaps even only permit motobility on British built cars?

Crime. Ditch the CPS and put the power to prosecute back to the Police (I think this has just been announced in some form anyway). Increased use of community service punishments but useful ones like litter picking in public areas and other tasks to compliment the work done by local councils already.

lostinrates

JasonLVC wrote: »

Motobility. Set the benefit offered to the greeness of the car, encourage more smaller/greener purchases rather than big 4x4's, perhaps even onl.

although broadly I agree with this, I'd point out that my DH's 4 x4 was one of the few vehicles that could get around and out of our rural village this winter. I haven't been as busy in years...collecting things from the nearest town from DHS, driving bags grit and sand in, because the council vehicles couldn't, hauling people out of ditches and hedges, taking people to the doctor, and collecting prescriptions, buying puppies food or people, and people food for people. DH justified the LR purchase mainly on the basis of the floods that have annually caused some disruption (winter before we were blocked off from the field) by them....and the village cut off in much the same way, but for a very much shorter period of time.

lynzpower

You can run 4x4s on LPG though? I have been looking to buy one that is duel fuel.

In terms of this

Council and Business Taxes. It is raised by say 20% and then the home/business owner has to earn a discount. For homes, it'd be keeping your front lawn tidy/house in 'good' repair. For businesses, keeping their shutters graffiti free, maintaining property to a good standard, tidy bins outside, etc. Austria used to give reductions for putting flower boxes on your balcony to make the place 'look nice'.

maybe they have a different make up in terms of occupation in Austria - suffice to say:
1) this appeals to people who are already doing it anyway- the likes of my parents who constantly garden thier front garden getting a tax cut for something they do anyway? Some boroughs will be rebating almost everyone.
2) some boroughs, like where I live in Inner London, most people dont have fronts or gardens or bin areas that they control. Some dont have a balcony. Windowboxes unless you have a decent sill arnt permitted as obviously there is arisk from falling elements- so some people will be automatically be disenfranchised by a tax cut they cannot get unless they sell up and move?!?!
3) Why give people extra tax cuts at all - we to pay off the deficit, not increase it
4) some people dont pay council tax so wheres thier incentive?
5) some people dont have control over thier frontage ( painting etc) as they rent thier homes and its forbidden under AST
6) the other main issue is that you need someone to survey all these window boxes, improvements , and you need to pay for that. So you have to employ more people to find ways to reduce tax *confused*

Or did I miss the point there?

lostinrates

lynzpower wrote: »

You can run 4x4s on LPG though? I have been looking to buy one that is duel fuel.

Many years ago, when unleaded was the green option I converted my series 3 to unleaded. Big mistake. This is diesel, and we try and really plan journeys because we are environmentally conscious. (in fact the LR means we don't have to consider buying a lorry: I'd love a long range electric lorry for reasons other than green but they are as much as a house). I do not believe t is green to encourage the scrapping of cars that work well, and make NEW cars. A friend of ours who is some sort of enginee connected with green nice explained to me why it was ungreen to swap my then car for a Prius. Many of the lighter four by fours were totally unable to cope here during ''the weather''. . In fact, some of he smarter heavier ones weren't either. The defenders like ours and tractors were ok. I am constantly shocked by how many I see towing who MUST be doing so illegally on the weights of their light 4x4s. TBH, I think the environmental thing is vital, but terribly inclear ATM which is correct course of action. My guess is that it might be that a lot of us driving lighter, greener vehicles larger than we need on a day to day basis might be less green than a few heavy LRs or similar as second vehicles and lighter, less often replaced smaller cars used as primary vehicle. But tax doesn't encourage that either

eta: most of the time I'm quite anti 4x 4s. usually 50 weeks of the year I was fine in my little car, n rural roads, which lack the speed bumps that were worse in london. The pot holes I like to see, usuually as speed prevention methods, although when they are totaly unavoidable they need attention: I've bust a fair few tyres on places where you had no chice but to go through one on one side of the road. The bigest pot hole ever though was in Swiss Cottage. My whole car fitted in it at one point.

Alan_Cross

Ok, here's some 'blue skies thinking'.

It is specially formulated not to hurt those whom none of us want on any account to hurt, i.e. the medium wealthy, the outright rich and the super rich. You know - those who are [STRIKE]golf-clubbing, foxhunting, inherited wealth hooray henries[/STRIKE] entrepreneurial, go-getting captains of industry who deserve our automatic, forelock-tugging deference.

After all, these guys [STRIKE]ride out the worst of recessions without blinking[/STRIKE] are in terrible need of any support the country can give.

Oh, come on, you must know the type - those worthies who form the basis of the 6% of the population [STRIKE]which prop up the private school system and scarper off to Harley Street rather than sit next to you or me in an NHS waiting room[/STRIKE] to whom we can have every confidence in entrusting our public services.

We can also place total reliance on them to [STRIKE]laugh at us behind our backs while sunning themselves on tax haven beaches abroad[/STRIKE] 'be in this together' with all of us, of course, sharing the pain.

Here's the idea:

Let us make a few, random noises about protecting basic services from cuts and then hit EVERYONE ELSE with immediate and massive cuts in government spending and hikes in every tax imaginable.


Oh hang on - the [STRIKE]Tory Toffee[/STRIKE] coalition has already pencilled in this one. Drat. My thunder stolen. A Liberal Democrat election manifesto pledge which somehow escaped my notice, it must be.

Apologies for my [STRIKE]stating the bleeding obvious[/STRIKE] typing lapses.

Snooze

lynzpower wrote: »

Well the question is how do you manage this without serious intervention into prices or wages.

I mean, how can you basically reduce the costs of that family ( housing, utilities) for everyone, when private companies and individuals and banks are setting these prices?

This is why so many people need to be topped up- but then it is arguable that because they are topped up and can afford more prices have risen.

The problem is how do you now reduce the costs of say electricity? This is why there are cold weather payments to support those who need but cannot afford heating.

A tough one, I dont know the answer but my fave choice is nationalisation but cant see that happening in my lifetime

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. Why does everyone think that it's the tax-payer's job to subsidise the upbringing of their kids? It's complete BS and needs stopping immediately.