Understanding disparity around us

Altior

Lastonestanding said:

Altior said:

A woman might choose to sleep around and have five kids with five different fathers, never have an official relationship, good for her. Does that mean as a taxpayer I should be expected to fund her lifestyle and contribute to raising all of her children? Absolutely not.

It's great if the rich can fund those children to ensure that they become valuable members of society. But a percentage of that money is spent by the parent(s) on alcohol, drugs or just wasted.
So similar to benefits for all, there should be free school meals for all and public transport should be excellent and free or cheap etc. Then benefits should be frozen or cut.

The chances of those kids growing up becoming successful, and net contributors to society are quite slim. Unfortunately they exist due to being used as leverage to access welfare. A very determined kid can break the cycle, but it's not easy.

These things aren't free, it just means someone else is paying.

Imagine a dream is realised and for a year, everyone has to pay the true cost of their 'free' NHS prescriptions, but there's an option to opt out. I sense there would be an awful lot of opting out. GPs it seems to me find it easy to fob someone off with long term prescriptions, as they are perceived to be free. Rather than working on the underlying problem. 

zagfles

solidpro said:

zagfles said:

I think you're living on a different planet sometimes. Have you analysed how "well paid jobs" have changed over the last few decades? Do you think pay has gone up or down in real terms? Have you looked at how spending on the NHS has changed over the last few decades? NHS spending is massively higher now than a few decades ago, in real terms. Maybe look at some figures instead of reading doommongers on twitter etc.

And people with lung cancer in the 1970s just died. And people with a severed leg in the 1980s just sat in a chair. And people with brain cancer in the 1970s couldn't be treated. Isn't the increase in spending because things 'exist' which can now help people - and they cost money? You seem to be suggesting that spending more is just all being wasted and we should go back to refusing treatment like it didn't exist.

What?? Where have I said it's wasted? I'm saying things are better now! That was the point! The PP was implying things were better in the past!

Perhaps read and respond to what is actually written instead of arguing with strawmen?

zagfles

solidpro said:

I think the point that those in 'true' poverty would find it harder than ever to get out.

"Get a job" - zero hours contracts, pay cuts largely across the board, years upon years in a row in private or public service.
"get an education" - I got offered a subsidised University education in 1997 and I didn't take it. I can't even fathom the debt trying to do that now.
"get a bigger house" (so much 2 teenage children don't share a single bedroom) - house prices practially everywhere are crazy.

Well that's 3 strawmen blown over

MisterMotivated

zagfles said:

MisterMotivated said:

zagfles said:

Personally I don't have a downer on too many benefits, quite the opposite, I'd give everyone benefits in the form a citizen's income!

People say it'll be expensive, but that misses the point. You simply set a flat tax rate (no allowance) at whatever makes it fiscally neutral. It's a zero sum game, you're redistributing. Everyone pays more tax but everyone gets the CI. MDRs are the same for everyone. Everyone has the same incentive to work and improve their situation

I heartily endorse this idea.  As a landlord who currently works full time and lives a fairly frugal life, I look forward to giving up work altogether and living off my rental/other investment income and supplementary citizens' income

You won't necessarily be better off - depending how much tax rates would need to rise and your level of investment income. Also it would incorporate stuff like the state pension (ideally, although there'd need to be transitional arrangements).

But it won't happen, so don't get excited about it

Don't worry, I'm not getting excited about it.  This was meant in a tongue in cheek manner, to highlight that such a system would still be flawed and open to abuse.  Personally, I wouldn't need to be better off; instead I'd be happy to have far more free time to do as I please.  My investment income (a chunk of which is not taxable anyway) is about 80% of the way to the threshold that I consider as allowing me to be financially independent.  A universal basic income that is the same for everyone would surely be enough to push me over the line.  If taxes on non-salary income were increased to discourage such behaviour, your proposal would ultimately cost me more than the current system, regardless of whether I continued to be employed, in which case, why would I support it?

wmb194

Seems like the OP just wants to doom. I know people who can find an extra £4k easily e.g., skip the next long-haul family holiday, switch to a cheaper car when the lease comes up and, for a 'poor*' couple, they could quit smoking and one of them could try finding a full-time job.

*As they define themselves

mark1959

wmb194 said:

Seems like the OP just wants to doom. I know people who can find an extra £4k easily e.g., skip the next long-haul family holiday, switch to a cheaper car when the lease comes up and, for a 'poor*' couple, they could quit smoking and one of them could try finding a full-time job.

*As they define themselves

And the 'poor' couple who don't smoke and work?

zagfles

mark1959 said:

wmb194 said:

Seems like the OP just wants to doom. I know people who can find an extra £4k easily e.g., skip the next long-haul family holiday, switch to a cheaper car when the lease comes up and, for a 'poor*' couple, they could quit smoking and one of them could try finding a full-time job.

*As they define themselves

And the 'poor' couple who don't smoke and work?

Assuming that's a genuine question rather than an attempt to score points, I'd say:

Join MSE. Post their SOA on the DFW board (Debt Free board), even if they aren't it debt. They're very good at identifying potential budget savings, without judging. Plenty of examples there.

Check https://www.entitledto.co.uk to check they're claiming all the benefits they're entitled to. Ask on the benefits board here if any queries.

Check other boards here like the shopping boards, the old style board, loads of money saving tips and discussions. And other relevant boards, eg motoring if they have a car. Also the Boost your Income board.

And of course read the main site for loads of help with saving money.

If it wasn't a genuine question, then <strawman> moan endlessly on social media about it, accuse anyone who tries to help of lacking compassion or being judgemental, then join a revolutionary socialist party and work towards overthrowing capitalism so they can live in a socialist paradise like so many other countries eg Venezuela <\strawman>

The_Green_Hornet

Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Daily Mail and the Guardian?

arnoldy

The_Green_Hornet said:

Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Daily Mail and the Guardian?

Is that another way of saying shut down the debate? Plenty of differing and opposing views here - nothing wrong with that - good to be able to hear different views without the threat of the cancel culture or thought police.

The_Green_Hornet

arnoldy said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Daily Mail and the Guardian?

Is that another way of saying shut down the debate? Plenty of differing and opposing views here - nothing wrong with that - good to be able to hear different views without the threat of the cancel culture or thought police.

No it means the discussion is more suitable for those two publications as it has very little to do with money saving.

But nice try at shutting down my view by mentioning cancel culture and thought police. Definitely something out of the Daily Mail and Guardian playbooks.