Tax Credits

kinger101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My partner works in child protection. Poverty has absolutely nothing to with child abuse. Child abuse is a classless issue.

I didn't imply the poor abuse their children, or that it was only an issue associated with poverty. But I don't think you can say child abuse is strictly a classless issue. For one, although being poor does not cause child abuse, it will certainly exacerbate the problem where it exists. The parent's inability to prioritize the needs of their children over their own doesn't improve if they are further impoverished by benefit cuts.

The correlations between children being put into care and household incomes do exist, though the reasons behind it are quite complicated.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/2301-child-poverty-costs.pdf

I do think this needs to be taken into account when people think whether it is appropriate to withdraw benefits where children are involved.

Mistermeaner

I'd support compulsory sterilisation and 'fitness' tests before people are allowed to breed. If someone is unable to provide for them they shouldn't have kids in the first place (queue human rights blah blah blah)

dktreesea

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Given the challenging task he inherited. He appears to be approaching the matter in a pragmatic fashion. As there's no easy answers just difficult decisions. A better chancellor than I thought he would be.

What do you think of the opposition party contenders for Chancellor? If you are that dismissive of GO.

The opposition parties? No one - they have no chance of coming to power in England in the next election. The best they can hope for is a hung parliament. In which case SNP will "rule the waves". That would put the cat among the pigeons. The only things they believe in spending the public purse on are health, education and infrastructure. If that did happen, and Vince Cable was in government, I think he would make a better Chancellor than George Osborne. At least he understands the basics and then some of economics. I thought Darling was a far better chancellor than Osborne.


Within the Conservative party? Hard to say. I think Boris Johnson will be the next leader of the Conservative Party, after David Cameron steps down. Osborne borrows far too much money and seems to lack imagination when it comes to cutting costs, preferring to shove the boot into the relatively poorly off via his welfare cuts. So who else? William Hague perhaps?

antrobus

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I'd support compulsory sterilisation and 'fitness' tests before people are allowed to breed. If someone is unable to provide for them they shouldn't have kids in the first place (queue human rights blah blah blah)

What we as eugenicists have got to do is to "scrap" the Old Poor Law with its indiscriminate relief of the destitute as such and replace it by an intelligent policy of so altering the social environment as to discourage or prevent the multiplication of those irrevocably below the National Minimum of Fitness.

Moby

setmefree2 wrote: »

Again - this is exactly what your party under its current leadership is doing - class war. Your party's leadership are currently a bunch of haters.

Reading your post above...963........I think it is pretty clear hate fills a lot of your existence as well:eek:

gadgetmind

kinger101 wrote: »

further impoverished by benefit cuts.

I don't think the work "impoverished" really applies given the extreme largesse of our current benefits system. Those who would seem to be suffering are the poor sods who actually work for a living.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Reading your post above...963........I think it is pretty clear hate fills a lot of your existence as well:eek:

What do you mean "as well"? You are agreeing that the Labour Party's leadership are "currently a bunch of haters"?!?

I suppose that is some kind of progress in the debate.:)

kinger101

gadgetmind wrote: »

I don't think the work "impoverished" really applies given the extreme largesse of our current benefits system. Those who would seem to be suffering are the poor sods who actually work for a living.

Congratulations for stripping my comment out of all it's context.

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

What do you mean "as well"? You are agreeing that the Labour Party's leadership are "currently a bunch of haters"?!?

I suppose that is some kind of progress in the debate.:)

The Labour party leadership are not united on anything at the moment, so I think it's difficult to generalize what they stand for.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

I didn't imply the poor abuse their children, or that it was only an issue associated with poverty. But I don't think you can say child abuse is strictly a classless issue. For one, although being poor does not cause child abuse, it will certainly exacerbate the problem where it exists. The parent's inability to prioritize the needs of their children over their own doesn't improve if they are further impoverished by benefit cuts.

The correlations between children being put into care and household incomes do exist, though the reasons behind it are quite complicated.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/2301-child-poverty-costs.pdf

I do think this needs to be taken into account when people think whether it is appropriate to withdraw benefits where children are involved.

on balance, and taking all things into account, do you think the current level of support of people working NMW is about right, too low or too high?