Deal struck for £9bn bonfire of the benefits

mbga9pgf

No she wouldnt. That gets raised by state taxes. Unless you want a return to a true autocracy?

The crown estates belong to the CROWN, not the state. The fact she lets government raise revenue through its use is a gift, one that I personally believe she should take back to counter the whingeing that goes on every year from the guardian when the bill comes in for the monarchy.

Kenny4315

iamana1ias wrote: »

So how would you pay for the NHS is tax and NI were just savings accounts for individuals?

I didn't say NHS treatments, although I'd make people pay for insurance that covered it. I'm essentially talking about workshy individuals with loads of sprogs getting a ton of cash out of a system they have but nothing into in the first place.

Obviously, the rules would not apply to someone with a serious handicap. But a general principle should be nothing in equals nothing out. That'll certainly cut down on Britains disgraceful amount of siblings with multiple fathers and a mother who is barely out of school. Using the system as a nice little earner to stay home and watch TV all day.

Radiantsoul

Kenny4315 wrote: »

I'm essentially talking about workshy individuals with loads of sprogs getting a ton of cash out of a system they have but nothing into in the first place.

So the children should be disadvantaged?

Kenny4315

Yes, in short.

flashnazia

Radiantsoul wrote: »

So the children should be disadvantaged?

The children are already disadvantaged by being born to parents who see children as meal tickets.

olly300

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I think people can teach until they are older, but what about hod carriers, hairdressers, supermodels, premier league footballers, etc.

With the increase in older people hairdressers and supermodels can work until they are 70. For example catalogues would want older models to model clothes.

Premier league footballers like lots of sports people normally retire at 35 so have to find a second profession anyway.

The only jobs that an older person can't do full-time would be heavy lifting or drilling for 8 hours a day, day-in day out. So while I don't expect an older worker to be a hod carrier, miner or to be drilling up the road they can quite easily cope as plumbers and electricians particularly if they don't aren't working full-time and have a mate.

Radiantsoul wrote: »

Even party political leaders
are in their 40s these days with their being a lot of emphasis on youth.

That's because young = new political ideas.

StevieJ

olly300 wrote: »

So while I don't expect an older worker to be a hod carrier, miner or to be drilling up the road they can quite easily cope as plumbers and electricians particularly if they don't aren't working full-time and have a mate.

Especially one like this

mbga9pgf

Radiantsoul wrote: »

So the children should be disadvantaged?

Their children should never have been born. If the state didnt give the option, we wouldnt have as many disadvantaged kids, would we?

zarazara

the major problem in all his is low pay.

Jowo_2

zarazara wrote: »

the major problem in all his is low pay.

Yes, I get the concept in the govt wanting employment to pay but pay is low, rent is high and childcare availability is patchy and expensive.

A single parent of 2 will receive £200 per week in state benefits and their council tax and rent paid. There is no requirement for them to seek work until their youngest child reaches 7 (this changes to 5 next year).

A full time national minimum wage job will pay around £200 after tax.

Therefore kids are cash cows for some, giving them a higher standard of living and higher quality of life, than the menial employment they may be suited to?

How is the balance adjusted that means a single parent is encouraged to take up employment when they lose 40 hours a week with their kids, travel expenses, the loss of much of their means tested benefits, child care issues, etc?