Economic impact of a Labour win

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Not true. Family Allowance was introduced to provide women with children with an income if their husbands failed to provide for them. It's a ridiculous anachronism.

Known as the Family Allowance, the 5 shillings a week payment was given to parents only for their second and subsequent children

I got the number wrong, it started at the 2nd rather than 3rd. It should be noted that it was, soon after being implemented, changed so that benefits were larger for 3rd and subsequent children.

Clearly it is, in fact, true that

Child benefit was originally created to help large families

I await your apology.

N1AK

James_B. wrote: »

I'd favour doubling it for the first child, and then paying zero for subsequent ones.

This way you remove 100% of the incentive for people to keep having extra ones that they can't afford.

How exactly isn't that a preposterous idea? Why on earth would we want a system that bribes people to have 1 child they can't afford but punishes them for having more?

If child benefit is intended to stop children from living in poverty then it is irrational to pay it for some children in poverty and not others. If it's some backwards attempt to force a particularly regressive view of the 'correct' family onto people that it has no place in a modern country.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

I await your apology.

1. You have no source
2. I am right.

No apology.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

1. You have no source

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

The system was first implemented in August 1946 as "family allowances" under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s (= £0.25) per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s (= £0.40), and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s (= £0.50) for the third and subsequent children.

The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/oct/04/child-benefit-a-potted-history

The case for a universal family allowance was made as early as the 1920s by social reformers such as Eleanor Rathbone, who saw it as a way to alleviate poverty in big families.

The family allowance was introduced at a rate of five shillings for each child after the first – Beveridge had wanted eight shillings – and was paid direct to the mother after a protest led by Rathbone

The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8041636/Child-Benefit-history.html

Known as the Family Allowance, the 5 shillings a week payment was given to parents only for their second and subsequent children

Generali wrote: »

2. I am right.

Keep telling yourself that, who knows maybe the rest of the world will change to suit you

Forget about the apology, there was something satisfying about watching you so succinctly dig yourself deeper into a hole instead.

ruggedtoast

Labour or the Tories. What is the difference? Not much. Two neo liberal governments blowing a fanfare for bankers and corporate welfare while they watch working peoples' wages fall in real terms every year.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit


The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/oct/04/child-benefit-a-potted-history


The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8041636/Child-Benefit-history.html




Keep telling yourself that, who knows maybe the rest of the world will change to suit you

Forget about the apology, there was something satisfying about watching you so succinctly dig yourself deeper into a hole instead.

Your post agrees with me, it was payable to women! The Telegraph post was wrong. I wrote an undergraduate essay on Family Allowances and met a woman on the train when I was returning from the library who saw the book I was reading and told me stories about how her Mum used to put suffragettes up.

The family allowance was introduced at a rate of five shillings for each child after the first – Beveridge had wanted eight shillings – and was paid direct to the mother after a protest led by Rathbone

The original Movement for Family Allowances begat the Suffragette Movement.

Apologies don't bother me much.

cepheus

I doubt if this will make it onto the front pages of the Tory press

Britains credit rating safer under Labour, says S&P

Britain’s triple-A credit rating would be safer under a Labour government than under the the Tories, according to one of the leading credit ratings agencies.

Standard & Poor’s said the biggest threat to Britain’s rating was not the state of the public finances but the risk of leaving the European Union. Labour has pledged to remain in Europe, but the Tories are promising a referendum in 2017 if they win the election.

‘Asked if Labour’s spending plans, which allow up to £28 billion more borrowing a year than the Tories, would jeopardise the UK’s rating, Moritz Kraemer, chief sovereign ratings officer at Standard & Poor’s, said: “Whether it’s faster or slower, we have no strong opinion — so long as the general direction of travel is sustainable.”

‘He added: “In the UK, we are more concerned about the European Union referendum.”’

Generali

cepheus wrote: »

I doubt if this will make it onto the front pages of the Tory press

Leaving the EU would be calamitous, economically but it is a binary event: it'll either happen or it won't. Once it doesn't happen the danger is passed.

The problem with Labour Governments is that they leave behind them a horribly bloated state which is almost impossible to unwind again.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Your post agrees with me, it was payable to women!... I wrote an undergraduate essay on Family Allowances...

Where have I ever said that it wasn't paid to women, what on earth does that have to do with my point, and why are you still digging further into the hole of denial caused you by your initial, entirely incorrect, assertion that I was wrong to say it was originally created to help large families?

I've got literally no idea why you've decided to fall on your sword over this one when you're normally pretty rational. My best guess is that you perceive it as an area of expertise and thus are too invested in defending your own imagined reputation to accept it.

Generali wrote: »

The Telegraph post was wrong.

As you're so keen on sources from others, perhaps you'd care to provide one.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

Where have I ever said that it wasn't paid to women, what on earth does that have to do with my point, and why are you still digging further into the hole of denial caused you by your initial, entirely incorrect, assertion that I was wrong to say it was originally created to help large families?

I've got literally no idea why you've decided to fall on your sword over this one when you're normally pretty rational. My best guess is that you perceive it as an area of expertise and thus are too invested in defending your own imagined reputation to accept it.



As you're so keen on sources from others, perhaps you'd care to provide one.

I think we're arguing about 2 completely different things. You seemed to me to be saying I was wrong in saying it was paid to women and I was saying the point of FA was to pay child benefits to women rather than to support large families although it may also be true that it was paid to support large families.

Let's leave it. Life's too short.

If you're interested in family allowances, the classic book on the subject is, 'The Movement for Family Allowances: 1918-1945. A Study in Social Policy' by John MacNicol. It's an interesting read if you have even a passing interest in female emancipation, social history or the history of the welfare state.