I am thinking of defecting to labour. seriously.

Loughton_Monkey

MegaMiniMouse wrote: »

I understand your point, but actually there is a very simple definition of 'couple' - it's two people who live together and share everything

The problem is that in order to ascertain 'coupleship', you can no longer demand to see a marriage certificate, you actually have to go round to someone's house and TALK to people, omigod!

So many problems would simply evaporate if only 'officials' were allowed to talk to people instead of simply ticking boxes on a screen

MMM

But that's why I said "Practical" definition.

Loughton_Monkey

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Because the idea of preventing people from reproducing due to their economic status is absolutely abhorrent and inhuman? Because the poor are primarily poor due to historic discrimination and exploitation due to the capitalist classes? Because 'benefit cheats' account for a miniscule proportion of the money spent on benefits and the idea is one concocted solely to direct the anger of the lower/middle classes towards themselves rather than the capitalist class that is actually responsible for their plight?

A rather peculiar way of looking at it.

Nobody at all is 'preventing' anyone having children. Have 13 if you like, and the state will pay fully for their education (up to secondary level!) and health needs.

But why on earth do we wish to pay physically a substantial extra 'grant' to people? Even worse for the 3rd, 4th.... 13th child!

Secondly, to blame today's poor on 'historic discimination' is outdated, totally not true, and biased. I am one of (I suspect) millions of people today born and raised in a council house by a factory worker. My 5th Great Grandfather was physically removed under the Poor Laws from his village of birth. I have lost count of the number of my ancestors that died in the workhouse. Some of these may have been exploited.

Personally I have done very well for myself, despite this upbringing, but I had the same 'chance' as anyone else.

Finally, this debate is about Child Benefit. I am aware of no 'benefit cheating' of any significance in respect of child benefit. So why bring benefit cheats up? They are a different kettle of fish.

julieq

You really have to despair for this country. Cuts are necessary until they affect someone personally, at which point they throw their toys out of the pram and vote for someone else. Let's rack up another Labour deficit because you can't get child benefit shall we? Great idea, democracy.

There are plenty of "unfairnesses" in the tax system, including the tax allowances for couples not combining so that single income families pay more tax. Been there forever, didn't see you on the barricades on that one.

If you earn over the 40% threshold then you don't need state benefits. End of. If you have two earners earning the same as a single earner and getting both personal allowances and child benefit, then no, it's not really fair, but it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things unless you're so wound up into your entitlements and marginal income sources that you become blind to the slightly more important idea that paying non means tested benefits to people who don't need them is wasteful and stupid, and that we can't continue to rack up ever increasing deficits just because any spending cut affects someone. If self interest is the only reason for voting then God help us all.

globalds

julieq wrote: »

You really have to despair for this country. Cuts are necessary until they affect someone personally, at which point they throw their toys out of the pram and vote for someone else. Let's rack up another Labour deficit because you can't get child benefit shall we? Great idea, democracy.

But that is exactly how it is supposed to work.

Some places chose more mature ways of making decisions ...But this is definitely the way it works in the UK.

No point complaining that the way it was won is going to be the way it is lost ...

Rochdale_Pioneers

You all know where I stand on these things. Or maybe you don't. I am a leftie but I'm also someone who has worked very hard up from being unemployed after graduating to now being well over the 40% tax limit. I'm as angry with the workshy and !!!!less as anybody, but there is a difference between those who won't work and those who can't due to disability or lack of jobs.

Someone above said higher rate taxpayers shouldn't get state benefits. I agree - but as this thread demonstrates when you create arbitrary rules you create unfairness. And why do people on good incomes feel so squeezed when on paper they are better off? I can sum it up in one word - childcare.

Quite simply having a child and having a full time job is impossible for so many people. Putting your kid into nursery is like paying a second mortgage every month - its absolutely crippling. The cost makes it impossible for a lot of very talented women to carry on working, which keeps them out of the Labour pool, reduces the family income and suddenly people get very precious about things like child benefit. A family with one higher rate taxpayer and one mother maybe working part time is not well off. Thats why this issue has resonated so strongly as being unfair.

Ilya_Ilyich

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

A rather peculiar way of looking at it.

Nobody at all is 'preventing' anyone having children. Have 13 if you like, and the state will pay fully for their education (up to secondary level!) and health needs.

But why on earth do we wish to pay physically a substantial extra 'grant' to people? Even worse for the 3rd, 4th.... 13th child!

Secondly, to blame today's poor on 'historic discimination' is outdated, totally not true, and biased. I am one of (I suspect) millions of people today born and raised in a council house by a factory worker. My 5th Great Grandfather was physically removed under the Poor Laws from his village of birth. I have lost count of the number of my ancestors that died in the workhouse. Some of these may have been exploited.

Personally I have done very well for myself, despite this upbringing, but I had the same 'chance' as anyone else.

Finally, this debate is about Child Benefit. I am aware of no 'benefit cheating' of any significance in respect of child benefit. So why bring benefit cheats up? They are a different kettle of fish.

People are advocating coercing the poor and disadvantaged into limiting their reproduction and giving little reason other than disdain for their economic class. Why shouldn't we provide subsidies for people to have children? As I said above, does Britain have a problem of a too-young population and need to cut down on the number of children being born?
I congratulate you on doing well for yourself. However just because you were able to succeed doesn't mean those of your socioeconomic class have "the same 'chance' as anyone else". Social and economic mobility is very limited in this country; the capital-holding classes are doing a very good job of retaining capital for themselves and (as can be seen in this thread) turning the lower classes' anger inwards upon themselves. When people say "I'm struggling to get by because poor people are receiving too many benefits" it helps deflect them away from the real reason they're struggling.
I mentioned benefit cheats in response to the person I quoted, I agree it's not the exact issue under discussion here but it's just another example of an issue created to demonise the poor.

leveller2911

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

You all know where I stand on these things. Or maybe you don't. I am a leftie but I'm also someone who has worked very hard up from being unemployed after graduating to now being well over the 40% tax limit. I'm as angry with the workshy and !!!!less as anybody, but there is a difference between those who won't work and those who can't due to disability or lack of jobs.



Think we would all agree with that but its just a shame Labour had 13 years to see the difference and sort out the problem but chose not to......

Quite simply having a child and having a full time job is impossible for so many people.

It hasn't been impossible to do both under the previous Government due to WTC, CTC,Childcare vouchers etc.I don't see it changing under the Condems either.What does society gain from a single parent working 30 hours a week and getting up to £1300 PM in benefits? I would also ask what benefit is there to the child to.Its a lifestyle choice whether to have children or not.





Putting your kid into nursery is like paying a second mortgage every month - its absolutely crippling.


Much of which was/is paid for through the benefits system.


The cost makes it impossible for a lot of very talented women to carry on working,

At the other end of the spectrum there are many single parents working 30hrs a week earning the minimum wage but receiving £Thousands each year in Benefits who will carry on working due to the fact that they are massively subsidised by the taxpayers.

People who have worked for a living, had children and then found themselves unemployed should get the help they need but the Lefties in our Society fail to see the large minorrity of people who have never worked and con the taxpayers.If they address this unfairness then many in society would be more sympathetic to other measures such as Child benefit.Your average hardworking Joe is fed up with being taken for a ride.

leveller2911

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

People are advocating coercing the poor and disadvantaged into limiting their reproduction and giving little reason other than disdain for their economic class. Why shouldn't we provide subsidies for people to have children?

What you advocating is a form of Social Engineering in that its Human Nature to "want" and when people see they can have what they want for doing Sod all they will grasp the oppotunity.

What happends then is we have an ever increasing reliance on benefits and the more this increases the need for more taxation.What happends then? the rich will leave or find even more novel ways to avoid paying tax and it will be left to those who earn average incomes to pay the Tax to subsidise the poor.

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush

Coeus wrote: »

Gooooooooooooooooooood......

Use your anger, strike Cameron down and your transformation to the dark side will be complete!

Wait, since when was striking down Dave and Gideon considered worthy of the dark side?

The_White_Horse

julieq wrote: »

You really have to despair for this country. Cuts are necessary until they affect someone personally, at which point they throw their toys out of the pram and vote for someone else. Let's rack up another Labour deficit because you can't get child benefit shall we? Great idea, democracy.

that is not my point at all. i am not saying i want the child benefit (although anyone will take free money) - i am saying couples on over 80k should NOT have it either.