How would you help George Osborne distribute the cuts in spending?

Malcolm.

A._Badger wrote: »

I'm still not sure why anyone should get any money simply for breeding. If people want children, as people always will, let them pay for the pleasure, as they do most other things in life.

The money is intended to help the children have food, clothes e.t.c.

To bring children up in the state system (foster homes e.t.c.) is far more expensive.

I believe it's a case of weighing up the associated moral hazzards, expense and outcomes.

lostinrates

chucky wrote: »

don't be so stupid.

and how about those unfortunate people that can't have children - give them tax refunds?

Actually I think there is a strong argument for better social cohesion. You can't madate people to have children or be foster parents: but if all had contact with children, we might understand a little more. It seems common in my social circle in UK to have had little or no contact with young children...nuclear familes and what not. Similarly...its hard for children to learn social limits when either with other people who don't know those limits (their peers) or with people who indulge them (close family).

A._Badger

Malcolm. wrote: »

The money is intended to help the children have food, clothes e.t.c.

To bring children up in the state system (foster homes e.t.c.) is far more expensive.

It's a case of weighing up the associated moral hazzard, expense and outcomes.

Yes, I know what you think the money is for. I simply fail to see why anyone should pay you to have them.

Malcolm.

A._Badger wrote: »

Yes, I know what you think the money is for. I simply fail to see why anyone should pay you to have them.

Because the moral hazard of not supporting children financially is worse...

lostinrates

Malcolm. wrote: »

The money is intended to help the children have food, clothes e.t.c.

To bring children up in the state system (foster homes e.t.c.) is far more expensive.

I believe it's a case of weighing up the associated moral hazzards, expense and outcomes.

Agreed, but I think it could be means tested. If on say, £60k a year you can't find whatever it is to feed or cloth a child then the likely hood is that the extra bit given might ''lose'' itself too. (good to see you Malcolm.)

daveyjp

The Government have their answers as to what they are going to do already. Whatever ideas they get from those who can be bothered to respond is bound to cover most of what they are going to do anyway. A clever way of blaming those who responded when it all goes belly up.

I wonder if means testing MPs salaries is on their list.

A._Badger

Malcolm. wrote: »

Because the moral hazard of not supporting children financially is worse...

Prove it. It's simply an assertion.

In passing, note how 'not paying for' undergoes the magic translator of socialism and becomes transformed into 'not supporting children financially'.

chucky

A._Badger wrote: »

Yes, I know what you think the money is for. I simply fail to see why anyone should pay you to have them.

because there would be children in the UK in a very bad way if it were not the case. i for one don't think that this is a good thing.

Malcolm.

lostinrates wrote: »

Agreed, but I think it could be means tested. If on say, £60k a year you can't find whatever it is to feed or cloth a child then the likely hood is that the extra bit given might ''lose'' itself too. (good to see you Malcolm.)

Hi lir,

It depends on the amount of benefit, I'm in general against means testing, because of the associated moral hazard and expense in administering and policing.

As an example, I know wealthy individuals who have in the past gone to great lengths be able to claim monies that they wouldn't ordinarily be entitled to.

Sandrock

Cuts will be tough, no doubt about it.

My personal list of cuts are:

1/ Huge redress of the benefits system, talking maybe 25% here. Make it really hard to claim benefits with a limit per family unit. The attempt here would to reduce the number of families that rely on the state for 100% of their income in the long term. Existing benefits should be massively reduced in order that it certainly pays to work rather than rely on benefits for sole income, even in a minimum wage job.

2/ Cut all public sector pay by 5% for those earning over £25k for a fixed term period of 24 or 36 months. (In the interests of fairness, I'm a public sector worker and earn over this and would be happy to take a pay cut)

3/ Close final salary pension scheme to new entrants. (I wouldn't be adverse to removing the scheme itself, but not in addition to a pay cut also - that would be a step too far).

4/ Pull all 'non neccesary' departments and merge those that can be merged within the civil service.

5/ Raise VAT to 20%.