A Question for Tory Supporters

Arklight

People in poor countries have a lot more children for financial reasons than those in rich ones.

I find it hard to believe that any of the antagonists on here are actually parents. Pretty cold hearted ones if they are.

babyblade41

Green_Bear wrote: »

Asset protection.
For every hour spent earning money, spend a minute thinking about how you will protect it.

Very difficult in a divorce

Doozergirl

I'm shocked at how much focus is put onto money being spent on 'scroungers'.

For every £1 you pay in as a tax payer, 0.25p goes to unemployment benefits. Even if you lump in all the disabled people to bring in the 'scroungers' in that category, it's 4.6p in the pound. It's not the biggest spend and most of those people will be absolutely genuinely in need of support.

Fact is, the children of those people are the ones that need help to be lifted out of those situations. Those are the ones that need sure start workers, pastoral staff at school, attendance officers to keep them in school, support workers, social workers to help lift them out of that situation. If you cut those people, those children do not get help and the cycle perpetuates. Those children, without proper attention, also disrupt your children's learning.

Schools are underfunded. Per pupil spend isn't increasing and there have been a multitude of back door cuts that put new bills into schools' laps all of the time.

The schools who are oversubscribed are increasing their intakes to try and cover the shortfall. It increases class sizes, dilutes teacher to pupil ratio and removes support staff who help to diminish the difference in achievement in disadvantaged learners. The schools who are less popular end up further undersubscribed because they've had their base eroded and are struggling to cope. Guess which children go to those schools.

There aren't enough places for children with complex special needs and disabilities, placing further burden on mainstream school and increasing the need for teachers to be social workers.

We will never get entirely away from bad people - they exist at all levels. People who work for cash, people who exploit massive loopholes and those who simply evade tax, they all actually fall under the same bracket of people taking advantage and they exist throughout society.

What isn't right is that children who need help to bring them up to the best of their ability are talked about on this forum as if they aren't even human because of a penny in the pound in income tax, if that.

If those children stay in education and are allowed to succeed, we will not only erode the benefit baddies that people are so very concerned about, but those children will pay for our pensions.

As a rich and ageing economy, we need all the tax income we can get. Creating a successful workforce benefits all of us far more than hunting down the poor people who don't want to work. It's spending money, not investing it.

It's a rule for all of us for life. Make yourself better.

Two party politics doesn't work any more. FPTP isn't working anymore. What angers me most is that my UK vote doesn't count. It's wasted.

My EU one does.

lisyloo

For every £1 you pay in as a tax payer, 0.25p goes to unemployment benefits. Even if you lump in all the disabled people to bring in the 'scroungers' in that category, it's 4.6p in the pound.

I agree and I believe the majority are genuine.
However I think there is an element of fairness. A lot of us have a strong sense of fairness that this goes against. There is zero tolerance on theft so why would we be ok with someone stealing even 0.1p in the £?


For me the genuine people not getting what they need is a bigger issue.

Doozergirl

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree and I believe the majority are genuine.
However I think there is an element of fairness. A lot of us have a strong sense of fairness that this goes against. There is zero tolerance on theft so why would we be ok with someone stealing even 0.1p in the £?


For me the genuine people not getting what they need is a bigger issue.

I am not okay with it. No one is okay with it.

The whole point of my post is talking about changing the children's lives in disadvantaged families so that they are different to their parents. Enabling social mobility in the future. Having foresight rather than knee jerk reactions and rants that go on and on. Put a face to a child of these people.

You can't ignore that element of society, cut money off and expect them to go away and their children to be different. It's far easier to mould a child before they become the broken adult. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child.

But we also have to remember that there are people at all levels doing this. Is there £2 billion of tax being evaded? (That's how much gets spent on unemployment benefits). No doubt it is far more. Those people are also taking from the system because they aren't paying for their use or towards your own use of the NHS, contributing back to state education, pensions etc.

There isn't just one issue to be dealt with, but I feel very strongly that children's education, development and mental health should not be suffering in any way, equally when they are poor or have parents that lack aspiration. Those children are capable of succeeding and making a positive contribution to your pension pot.

We take from society too.

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

There is zero tolerance on theft

No there isn't.

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

There is zero tolerance on theft

No there isn't.

Shops would need to strip search you every time you leave to have a zero tolerance. The difference is that they know customers would go somewhere that doesn't do that.

Sick, disabled and unemployed don't get a choice of where they claim benefits. The government do their best to stigmatize all claimants, hoping that the infinitesimally small amount of fraud will disappear. But the fraudulent claimants are better at playing the system than people who are unable to work. Authentic claimants dying is also a good outcome for the government.

Cakeguts

Doozergirl wrote: »

I am not okay with it. No one is okay with it.

The whole point of my post is talking about changing the children's lives in disadvantaged families so that they are different to their parents. Enabling social mobility in the future. Having foresight rather than knee jerk reactions and rants that go on and on. Put a face to a child of these people.

You can't ignore that element of society, cut money off and expect them to go away and their children to be different. It's far easier to mould a child before they become the broken adult. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child.

But we also have to remember that there are people at all levels doing this. Is there £2 billion of tax being evaded? (That's how much gets spent on unemployment benefits). No doubt it is far more. Those people are also taking from the system because they aren't paying for their use or towards your own use of the NHS, contributing back to state education, pensions etc.

There isn't just one issue to be dealt with, but I feel very strongly that children's education, development and mental health should not be suffering in any way, equally when they are poor or have parents that lack aspiration. Those children are capable of succeeding and making a positive contribution to your pension pot.

We take from society too.

Disadvantaged families are not the problem. You can have poor families who look after their children extremely well and give them a good start in life. On the other hand you can have well off families who are claiming every benefit available who don't care about their children at all. Have too many and don't look after them. You can also have abusive parents.

The biggest problem lies with parents who neglect their children. The ones who don't care where they are, don't potty train them, and generally leave them from a very early age to fend for themselves.

You can get parents who neglect their children in all income brackets. You can also get abusive parents in all income brackets. Not just children whose parents receive benefits.

You cannot expect schools to deal with child neglect and child abuse when the parent is at fault. Neglect and abuse can start as soon as the child is born. No amount of money in the family will make any difference if this is how the parents view their children.


I think what annoys people though is the thought that there are parents who neglect their children when they are being paid benefits by tax payers to help them give those children a good start. So having more children than you can afford if you are not working is a problem because although the benefit system will pay for you to have 2 it may not for you to have 5. If you have 5 when you can't afford 5 you are not thinking about your children at all you are only thinking about what you want. That bit about what you want is an indication of how good you are going to be as a parent. If you only think about what you want then children can get in the way of that and it is easier if that happens to neglect their needs.



On the other hand there can be a young working couple who have budgeted very carefully to only have two children because that is all they feel they can afford to give the children a good life paying tax for benefits to someone who has had 5 none of whom they really want.



That is what annoys me. I don't see why ordinary young working people should pay more tax than they would need to so that some selfish person somewhere else can have 5 children who they neglect.



The feral children that people near me were complaining about were neglected. It doesn't cost any money to teach children manners.


Neglected and abused children can suffer poor mental health as adults. Neglect and abuse is not anything to do with family income it can happen in wealthy families as well as poor ones.

For example I am seriously against the use of IVF simply because my mother was an abuser and only ever thought about what she wanted. Any parent who concentrates only on what they want is a bad sign. (If you really love children you don't care if they are not biologically related to you.) No amount of money would have changed the way that my mother was. In a family where you have the kind of parent that my mother was it doesn't matter how much money you pour into the family the children will still be neglected. A child who has all the latest toys and gadgets can be neglected. It isn't about money it is about attitude. Some parents prioritise expensive things bought for their children for Christmas and Birthdays over paying rent. If you give them more money they will just buy more of the expensive things. Often the expensive things aren't for the benefit of the children anyway they are so the parent can tell everyone else what their child has. Someone who buys a mobile phone for a 6 year old who can't take it to school because the school doesn't allow mobile phones isn't buying the phone for the benefit of the child they are buying it so that they can tell their friends that their child has the latest model.


As a landlord we have had examples of working tenants who are never in arrears over all of the rest of the years who get into arrears at Christmas. Why? Christmas is one day a year is it worth risking your home for one day?

There is much too much entitlement in the UK at the moment. Too many people wanting to have everything they want with no regard to a) how they will pay for it b) whether they need it in the first place.


Planet earth does not need anyone to have more than two children. Even that may be too many one might be a lot better and none at all the greenest of all.

Doozergirl

The rants are just getting longer. This is about why people vote blue.

No government is going to stop people having sex and making babies. No government is going to stop people from everyone from being idiots.

We've had a Conservative government for nearly 10 years. People still misbehave but more people struggle, including more of the people that have previously had life awards of disability benefits that totally deserve them.

You try to catch bad people in the net and you catch as many good people, if not more. It's like going to catch the pieces of foil at the end of the Crystal Maze.

parking_question_chap

Arklight wrote: »

I mean, what would it would actually take?

What will it take? It will take the formation of a significantly more competent alternative than Comrade Corbyn and Abacus Abbott