BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

dtsazza

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Cutting the fraud and dealing with those that commit it may go someway into minimizing the cuts that need to be made ?

Undoubtedly, reducing the amount of money lost to fraud would improve the public finances.

But then, is the benefits question really primarily about affordability? Looking at the posts above, the gist doesn't seem to be "it's a shame, but I don't think benefits are cost effective so we'll reluctantly have to cut them."

Rather, it's a question of fairness, and I suspect many people (myself included) would want to see a very fundamental reform - and broadly a reduction - in benefits, regardless of budgetary constraints. The state of the public finances makes it more feasible to get these changes through, but I believe they ought to be done regardless.

The_White_Horse

as someone said - the benefits for children should come from the tax an individual pays. If someone earns 50k and is single, they should pay X rate. If someone earns 50k and has to support a wife and 2 kids, then their tax should be adjusted so that they keep more of the money THEY EARN.

therefore, the people who do not work get no financial benefit for having more and more kids.

Why not just add on an extra 4000k per child to your non taxable allowance, up to a max of 3 children. Plus, you should be able to transfer a non-working spouses allowance.

it is just common sense.

help the workers, and no help for the shirkers.

ILW

Why should those that choose to have children pay less tax?

The_White_Horse

ILW wrote: »

Why should those that choose to have children pay less tax?

they are not paying less tax - they are just getting the benefits they would have been paid deducted from tax. so only tax payers get the benefits.

why do public sector workers pay PAYE? absolutely pointless. it's just a pony show, because it makes public sector workers think they are tax payers and important, rather than simply a drain on the economy. I am not saying they are all bad drains, but they all take out rather than contribute to the fund that pays them.

zagfles

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Im not comparing people to dogs.

Its just the same principle.

You do not have a child if you cant afford to feed it.

You do not get a dog if you cant afford feed it.

In this country if you want to breed dogs you will need to apply for a licence.

If you want to breed little babies you go right ahead and breed and the government forces the working population to pay for a baby whos parents cannot afford to put food in its mouth.

Thats great britain for you.

The difference is of course that in 30 years time it's not dogs who are going to be paying the taxes to support our ageing population.

It's going to the be mainly the children of today and the children yet to be born.

I doubt the hypocrites who object to supporting other peoples' childrens today will object in a generation's time when the roles are reversed and those "children" are paying the taxes to pay their state pension and their healthcare etc.

nomoreboomandbust

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

Personally I would have allowed Turkey into the "Common Market" 20 something years ago. But the Greeks would never agree.
Has the opportunity passed - I think so.

Given the Turkish rate of increase and the size of the Turkish diaspora, I doubt the EU could deal with the influx now; and there has been a nasty swing away from the ideals of Ataturk.
Time for the prostitutes to wear a veil again I think.

We have a family friend married to an ambitious Turkish waiter and a lovely little family they make too.

http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

How deliciously ironic,its a shame noone vetoed Greece's entry in the Euro seeing as they have made such a mess of things

dtsazza

ILW wrote: »

Why should those that choose to have children pay less tax?

That's a very good question.

Should you pay less tax if you get a pet, which will increase your outgoings?
Should you pay less tax if you get a car, which will increase your outgoings?
Should socialites pay less tax due to having to go to so many parties and spend money on drinks?

To what extent do we choose to subsidise lifestyle choices that increase expenditure? And do we really want to give financial encouragement to further breeding - it might help economic demographics but it's a bit of a Ponzi scheme...

zagfles

dtsazza wrote: »

That's a very good question.

Should you pay less tax if you get a pet, which will increase your outgoings?
Should you pay less tax if you get a car, which will increase your outgoings?
Should socialites pay less tax due to having to go to so many parties and spend money on drinks?

To what extent do we choose to subsidise lifestyle choices that increase expenditure? And do we really want to give financial encouragement to further breeding - it might help economic demographics but it's a bit of a Ponzi scheme...

It's completely a Ponzi scheme - but it's one that's worked since Adam and Eve. Or even the first "social" animals. And one without which none of us would be here now.

The only difference between us and our ancestors is we do it more on a national basis rather than a family basis. In the old days before social security people had to have children as insurance (if they couldn't work through accident/disability) and for their pension (someone to support them when they were too old to work).

People who couldn't have kids and had an accident/got too old to do the typical hard manual labour which most people did then tended to starve, unless they could convince a more distant relative to look after them.

The_White_Horse

dtsazza wrote: »

That's a very good question.

Should you pay less tax if you get a pet, which will increase your outgoings?
Should you pay less tax if you get a car, which will increase your outgoings?
Should socialites pay less tax due to having to go to so many parties and spend money on drinks?

To what extent do we choose to subsidise lifestyle choices that increase expenditure? And do we really want to give financial encouragement to further breeding - it might help economic demographics but it's a bit of a Ponzi scheme...

if you have no kids, should you get a state pension paid for by your contemporaries kids?

ILW

The_White_Horse wrote: »

if you have no kids, should you get a state pension paid for by your contemporaries kids?

Or of your kids do not pay taxes, should you get a state pension?