Girlfriend's pregnant...

pjcox2005

Guest101 wrote: »

If you pay tax then you'repaying 'your way', that's the tax rate that's been set.

Even if you claim more than you pay.

My opinion of course.

I think that's a perfectly valid view point as not everyone can have the opportunity or ability to be a high earner. I just thought it was interesting that people got so worked up, stating they were paying for it, when in practice the majority of people in the country are subsidised in some way for their standard of life.

Jhoney_2

I'll be honest. I pay my taxes as it's a legal requirement and I do hope some of it is doing some good as well as providing much needed services etc. It's not an act of altruism in that sense.

However, should someone need the services of the NHS e.g diabetes, I am not going to be p!!!ed off because their poor diet choices caused it.

And hopefully, I will never have need of the service myself!

Not everyone has the opportunity/ability to be employed either. I have a friend with a tech masters degree who was unemployed for 2 years due to being 'over qualified' - they were devastated and that is a disgrace! What a waste of resources. both Human and financial.

We all subsidize each other.

moneyistooshorttomention

Though there is somewhat of a difference between someone who can't pay their way and someone who isn't even trying to pay their way imo.

I don't mind if I'm subsidising category 1 people (as any of us could end up with a "one of those things" type illnesses that couldn't have been avoided or lower earning power than they themselves merit one way or another). People who aren't even trying to pay their way on the other hand....

Jhoney_2

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Though there is somewhat of a difference between someone who can't pay their way and someone who isn't even trying to pay their way imo.

I don't mind if I'm subsidising category 1 people (as any of us could end up with a "one of those things" type illnesses that couldn't have been avoided or lower earning power than they themselves merit one way or another). People who aren't even trying to pay their way on the other hand....

I won't discriminate - they can have my NHS services too!:)

The OPs gf has not yet embarked upon a discernible route to employment. She has to al intents and purposes just left school. She may yet do so. The OP is not 'paying his way' as he has a job and has created a 'family' or put another way 2 dependants to be subsidised.

If they had planned for a baby, his thread would be moot and she would not be sofa crashing.

mumps

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I've read that before now and thought "On the face of it - that would make me a 'net taker' - as I've always been on a poor salary - darn it". I'm never quite sure on that though - as they don't say what the position is for different categories of people. Obviously, they will include the standard family of mum, dad, 2 kids as being net takers unless they are well-paid (and...yes...I don't see any difference between paying for other peoples child benefit to paying for other people claiming ALL their income from the State courtesy of having had children).

But I don't know whether poorly-paid people who have always been in full-time employment (apart from involuntary spells of unemployment) and have never had children are "net takers", "net givers" or "paying their way" - so I've never been able to figure out where I personally stand in that equation. I hope I'm in the "paying my way" category and not either a "net taker" or a "net giver" - but have no way of knowing. I assume I'm a "net giver" - darn it - because of being childless, so well entitled to complain.

But look at it the other way, those of us who have maybe had to struggle to bring up children are providing your nurses, doctors, policemen, bin collectors etc. I have four who all work, all pay taxes and you might end up being cared for by the one who is a nurse. You might find I have subsidised you even if you contributed to my CB.

mumps

I know a couple who had an unplanned pregnancy when she was 18 and he was 21, back in the days when that meant you "had" to get married. Forty years later they are still together, he has built a business and she went to university when her kids started school. They are millionaires a few times over. I think they are paying back quite alot for the help they had for a few years.

Jhoney_2

mumps wrote: »

I know a couple who had an unplanned pregnancy when she was 18 and he was 21, back in the days when that meant you "had" to get married. Forty years later they are still together, he has built a business and she went to university when her kids started school. They are millionaires a few times over. I think they are paying back quite alot for the help they had for a few years.

The main thing is they did it together. OP is 'i'm alright jack, where's she going to live! Didn't mind sharing a bed for the conception so he should get a place and look after them on his wages until such time as gf can do exactly that. In time they will achieve a lot more, than the current situation will ever do.

First_Trouble

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Having an unplanned pregnancy at the age of 17, when unemployed and not even living with the father, isn't a good predictor of great role model potential in the future.

Just because they are young doesn't mean they won't make great parents. My mum had me at 17 (an unplanned pregnancy), went into full time employment when I was just 8 weeks old and got a mortgage a few months later. Due to their age my mum and dad felt pressured into marriage and unfortunately it didn't last long less than a year actually but I couldn't ask for more caring and loving parents. They just don't live in the same house. I also have the added bonus of step parents who are amazing people and I love them just as much.

Both my parents now own there own successful businesses I think they are great role models.

Mrs_pbradley936

Jhoney wrote: »

Not sure if this somehow referred to my last post, but I was wondering if anyone knows if,when and how much of a tax cut we should expect as a result of the cuts to benefits? I recall the millionaires getting one or two over the last 5 years or so. That's just as much the definition of a handout and a slap in the face as any benefit scrounger in my book - but GO always takes care of his own.

I did agree with the Business rates cut, but GO cannot force the employers to hire more people (or pay them more than minimum wage) - he can only hope, so although unemployment is down, there is no measure of value added by a blanket cut for all businesses. We are probably still propping up a lot of those workers with WTC etc at the other end too. I may well be wrong, just a view.

We have never been in a position to choose where our taxes go so the sharing of our wealth via taxes as now, has always been the case.

Benefits have never been 'limitless', but eligibility has certainly been very lax and as unemployment goes up the coffers go down. It's a numbers game which is constantly shifting.

If you don't make anything, you don't make anything, imv.

That's the reality, but these goldfish politicians of whatever party just keep betting the same way:- the financial sector and services. It will not succeed, but maybe it's too late to fix anyway.

I can assure you that sharing of wealth vis taxes has not always been the case. We have only had our current benefit system since the early 80s. It may have been in place before then but the uptake was not there because there was still a stigma attached to claiming.

Before tax based benefits we had charity and faith based aid. People were indeed free to give where they saw the greatest need or not give at all.

Jhoney_2

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

I can assure you that sharing of wealth vis taxes has not always been the case. We have only had our current benefit system since the early 80s. It may have been in place before then but the uptake was not there because there was still a stigma attached to claiming.

Before tax based benefits we had charity and faith based aid. People were indeed free to give where they saw the greatest need or not give at all.

Hold on, people started being taxed in England and Wales from as recently as the 1980's?....

I was speaking of tax deductions for whatever purpose, not specifically with regards to benefits. There was also a lot of industrial and manufacturing jobs so less unemployed too.

I note however that you add a caveat to say it perhaps was there, but no-one/less people bothered to claim it,
but I have no knowledge or personal experience of the benefits system so I do not dispute the rest of it

As I said previously, the more unemployed, the more the public purse shells out and it shifts constantly. Add more people and it potentially escalates beyond sustainability.

E.g: Free movement within EU countries. People can work straight away if they apply and get a job in europe (UK for our purpose here) however people complain that they are taking 'our jobs', - people complain that they are taking advantage of 'our free healthcare and putting pressure on the NHS (yet they are paying tax). EU residents can also claim and even transfer benefits from one EU country to another so it is not necessarily even an 'our taxes' factor. That's what that element of EU policy has signed up for and as such we have not be unfairly put upon as it is reciprocal.

Getting back to the general benefits discussion, sensible checks and balances were not put in place so a small but characterless demographic are milking the system.

I would like to see them to quietly and diligently weeded out, give the ones who need it a bit of help (preferably into work) and stop the hysteria about benefit cheats altogether.

Lack of foresight in policy making for a generation is the cause.