Upcoming elections

[RetroPug]

The only problem I have with making people do them types of work is that's what you do for community service so effectively your punishing people for being on benefits.

A better thing would be stick them in a charity shop you could never do that on community service and other things you can't do on community service

I don't really view community service as a punishment given that most people's actual jobs are far more arduous.
It's only really a punishing for people too lazy to get off their arses and do something constructive as they're not used to it.

I do however see your point about it perhaps overlapping with community service, however is having a huge range of people to maintain the local community necessarily a bad thing? I'm not sure, I do admit the system I suggested would take some serious thought to implement correctly, but then what social policy doesn't I suppose?

[C.A.R.]

Secondly, I believe that a cash payment for child benefit shouldn't exist. I feel that instead of incentivising having more children by paying out more cash for having them, we should spend the same amount overall on the child benefits scheme, but give them out in different ways. Things like free childcare so that single mothers can work a couple of days a week to supplement some of their benefits or stay in education. This would prevent single parents in tough economic situations becoming 100% dependant on their benefits for well over a decade, or would help single parents to stay in education and training so that as their kids grow up they are learning skills and staying sharp, instead of raising kids for 16 odd years and then suddenly being at a total loss and having no work experience and no education.

Jeez, I hope you never have kids!

Child Benefit can be and is claimed by even the very wealthy. It is so minuscule that it won't even cover the cost of a pack of nappies or keep a child fed for a week. It is but a tiny aid to make these things more affordable, and I don't honestly believe someone could 'rely' on CB alone for anything! The more children you have the more benefit you receive - correct, however it's not 'double' what it is for 2 children what it is for 1, it doesn't work like that.

I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with the CB structure, other than it not being enough! :p

The real problem lies in people popping sprogs so they have more dependencies and overnight they become more 'entitled' to bigger houses etc.

[Niall]

Secondly, I believe that a cash payment for child benefit shouldn't exist. I feel that instead of incentivising having more children by paying out more cash for having them, we should spend the same amount overall on the child benefits scheme, but give them out in different ways. Things like free childcare so that single mothers can work a couple of days a week to supplement some of their benefits or stay in education. This would prevent single parents in tough economic situations becoming 100% dependant on their benefits for well over a decade, or would help single parents to stay in education and training so that as their kids grow up they are learning skills and staying sharp, instead of raising kids for 16 odd years and then suddenly being at a total loss and having no work experience and no education.

Jeez, I hope you never have kids!

Child Benefit can be and is claimed by even the very wealthy. It is so minuscule that it won't even cover the cost of a pack of nappies or keep a child fed for a week. It is but a tiny aid to make these things more affordable, and I don't honestly believe someone could 'rely' on CB alone for anything! The more children you have the more benefit you receive - correct, however it's not 'double' what it is for 2 children what it is for 1, it doesn't work like that.

I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with the CB structure, other than it not being enough! :p

The real problem lies in people popping sprogs so they have more dependencies and overnight they become more 'entitled' to bigger houses etc.

I don't see how you can say its not enough. Correct its not enough to raise a child on but thats not the point of it. You shouldn't be having children if you can't afford to raise them by your own means IMO. Child benefit is just a bonus that a lot of countries don't even get.
If however you have children when you are capable of supporting them but then something happens (loose your job for example) then when you go on benefits this will take into account looking after your child which i do think is fair.

[Eeyore]

Haven't read this thread and I have voted labour. I didn't really look into it but the general thing is all the other parties either want to change the EU or get us out of it. Seeing as my dad does a lot of work for the EU and being in a rural community where most of the farmers receive EU subsidies I think its best to be in it.

[Kezzieboy]

"This is UKIP's MEP candidate for the South East. She described herself as Nigel's number 2. She told us to f**k off because we stood peacefully holding placards accusing UKIP of racist policies. She offered no debate or arguments to defend her party and despite the chap in the picture asking us to pose for photos, this was her response when asked to return the favour. She made personal comments about my body size and when I told her I would quote her widely she said "I don't care where you f***ing post this, just f**k off!" Hilariously, I have just discovered she is UKIP's press advisor. This is the most rude and aggressive individual I have had the misfortune to come across and she wants to represent this country in Europe. By the way her name is Janice Atkinson."


God they're good at this PR stuff.

[Niall]

Lol just seen that on FB. They are doing well!

[Kwik]

True colours lol

[Tom]

Hahahahaha!

[RetroPug]

Secondly, I believe that a cash payment for child benefit shouldn't exist. I feel that instead of incentivising having more children by paying out more cash for having them, we should spend the same amount overall on the child benefits scheme, but give them out in different ways. Things like free childcare so that single mothers can work a couple of days a week to supplement some of their benefits or stay in education. This would prevent single parents in tough economic situations becoming 100% dependant on their benefits for well over a decade, or would help single parents to stay in education and training so that as their kids grow up they are learning skills and staying sharp, instead of raising kids for 16 odd years and then suddenly being at a total loss and having no work experience and no education.

Jeez, I hope you never have kids!

Child Benefit can be and is claimed by even the very wealthy. It is so minuscule that it won't even cover the cost of a pack of nappies or keep a child fed for a week. It is but a tiny aid to make these things more affordable, and I don't honestly believe someone could 'rely' on CB alone for anything! The more children you have the more benefit you receive - correct, however it's not 'double' what it is for 2 children what it is for 1, it doesn't work like that.

I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with the CB structure, other than it not being enough! :p

The real problem lies in people popping sprogs so they have more dependencies and overnight they become more 'entitled' to bigger houses etc.

I'm undecided as to whether or not I have children, but if I do decide to have them, I will have them when I am financially able to, and I am in a position where I am as sure as I reasonably can be that I can take care of them and give them a wonderful home. Having children is a huge commitment and is not to be done on a whim. I think that as I am aware of this and will only have children when I am 99% certain I can give them an amazing life that I would be well set-up to be a good parent!

Yes, child benefits are a small amount of money to each person, but it costs a lot of money to give relatively wealthy families across the entire nation an allowance for their children even when they could otherwise afford them.

We have become a nation of do/buy first, justify financially later, as evidenced by 40 pound per month phone contracts, buying 50" TVs on finance, buying brand new cars on finance that cost a full year's wages in many cases etc. etc. The same applies to children, they should not be had unless you can provide for them and look after them properly.

In my opinion, child benefits exist to help people who are in difficult situations, such as single parents, not to just give people money for having children.
I agree, having some extra money when you have children is nice, even if you are relatively well-off, but to have people who are earning well in excess of the national average recieving monetary assistance from the government is simply insane from a financial point of view!

[Kwik]

I and all my family live within our means. The problem is a lot of people don't. I have even gone as far as buy my mobile outright and giffgaff.

The problem is the system now relies on buy now pay later lol

[Niall]

Yeah unfortunately Labour led everyone to the mindset of you can have what ever you want now, regardless of if its outside of your means. I hate to say that i was guilty to that but have almost paid all of that back now and certainly won't be getting into that situation again!

[Kwik]

It was in fact the neoliberal policies that a certain Iron Lady introduced and are still followed today that lead to that mindset. You do know she was asked what her greatest achievement was and she said new labour.......

[Kezzieboy]

Yeah, lulwut Naill? How are Labour to blame for debt culture?!

[C.A.R.]

Secondly, I believe that a cash payment for child benefit shouldn't exist. I feel that instead of incentivising having more children by paying out more cash for having them, we should spend the same amount overall on the child benefits scheme, but give them out in different ways. Things like free childcare so that single mothers can work a couple of days a week to supplement some of their benefits or stay in education. This would prevent single parents in tough economic situations becoming 100% dependant on their benefits for well over a decade, or would help single parents to stay in education and training so that as their kids grow up they are learning skills and staying sharp, instead of raising kids for 16 odd years and then suddenly being at a total loss and having no work experience and no education.

Jeez, I hope you never have kids!

Child Benefit can be and is claimed by even the very wealthy. It is so minuscule that it won't even cover the cost of a pack of nappies or keep a child fed for a week. It is but a tiny aid to make these things more affordable, and I don't honestly believe someone could 'rely' on CB alone for anything! The more children you have the more benefit you receive - correct, however it's not 'double' what it is for 2 children what it is for 1, it doesn't work like that.

I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with the CB structure, other than it not being enough! :p

The real problem lies in people popping sprogs so they have more dependencies and overnight they become more 'entitled' to bigger houses etc.

I'm undecided as to whether or not I have children, but if I do decide to have them, I will have them when I am financially able to, and I am in a position where I am as sure as I reasonably can be that I can take care of them and give them a wonderful home. Having children is a huge commitment and is not to be done on a whim. I think that as I am aware of this and will only have children when I am 99% certain I can give them an amazing life that I would be well set-up to be a good parent!

Yes, child benefits are a small amount of money to each person, but it costs a lot of money to give relatively wealthy families across the entire nation an allowance for their children even when they could otherwise afford them.

We have become a nation of do/buy first, justify financially later, as evidenced by 40 pound per month phone contracts, buying 50" TVs on finance, buying brand new cars on finance that cost a full year's wages in many cases etc. etc. The same applies to children, they should not be had unless you can provide for them and look after them properly.

In my opinion, child benefits exist to help people who are in difficult situations, such as single parents, not to just give people money for having children.
I agree, having some extra money when you have children is nice, even if you are relatively well-off, but to have people who are earning well in excess of the national average recieving monetary assistance from the government is simply insane from a financial point of view!

This is he same opinion I had years ago. It's naive, but you'll grow to understand the world better.

The fact is, nobody will ever be financially stable enough to bring children into the world until they are in their late 30s - early 40s. That's too late, not only biologically but what kind of life would a child have when their parent can't keep up with them? It's physically and financially exhausting, but until you're old enough to appreciate the other reasons for parenthood it's hard to see the justification for having children young.

We don't rely on Child Benefit - we couldn't! It's a tiny token we get back from paying our taxes every month. It helps go someway to keeping her in supply of fresh nappies and food and clothing.

Cutting it would just be another pain in the ass. I'm raising the next generation - yes through my own free will, but I deserve a comparatively little tax break for that. It's amazing how people from the outside looking in can help decide who 'needs' benefits in any measure with no prior experience or knowledge whatsoever. I pay in many times more what I get back, put it that way!

[RetroPug]

This is he same opinion I had years ago. It's naive, but you'll grow to understand the world better.

The fact is, nobody will ever be financially stable enough to bring children into the world until they are in their late 30s - early 40s. That's too late, not only biologically but what kind of life would a child have when their parent can't keep up with them? It's physically and financially exhausting, but until you're old enough to appreciate the other reasons for parenthood it's hard to see the justification for having children young.

We don't rely on Child Benefit - we couldn't! It's a tiny token we get back from paying our taxes every month. It helps go someway to keeping her in supply of fresh nappies and food and clothing.

Cutting it would just be another pain in the ass. I'm raising the next generation - yes through my own free will, but I deserve a comparatively little tax break for that. It's amazing how people from the outside looking in can help decide who 'needs' benefits in any measure with no prior experience or knowledge whatsoever. I pay in many times more what I get back, put it that way!

A comparatively little tax break adds up to a large amount of money if given to every single household with children in the entire country. Yes it would be a pain in the ass to cut, but then so is cutting back on vital services such as the NHS and emergency services because of a large budget deficit. Correct, you don't rely on child benefit, it is a nice addition to your income, but you do not need it, hence it is something that can be removed instead of cutting back on essential things during tough economic times such as...well now. I'm sure you contribute a lot to public funds through taxation, but it's not like you get nothing in return, and your children also benefit from tax as presumably they go to school and recieved free healthcare etc.

It absolutely is possible to be able to afford children before the age of 40. On one hand you find it 'amazing' that people can assess the needs of others when it comes to benefits, but you also know for a fact that nobody will be able to save up and pay for their own children before reaching their 40s? Like anything that must be saved up for, it requires financial sacrifices in other areas. Being unable to fathom that someone might financially plan to have children doesn't mean that nobody can nor will.

I resent my opinion being called naive simply because you disagree with it, let's just keep the discussion light and friendly even if we disagree?

[Kwik]

You do know all these cutbacks are so the richer can get richer. The deficit is the bit between dept and spend. The country's debt has quadrupled since the coalition.....

Also if the government got the tax we the nation are owed there would be no need for cutbacks. But that will make the rich leave so get it off the less well off.......

---

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZMwp1elXw

Watch this this is the legacy of neoliberalism and that's why I can't vote for ANY of the main 3 or Ukip. My vote is for alternative to try change the twisted system......

[C.A.R.]

This is he same opinion I had years ago. It's naive, but you'll grow to understand the world better.

The fact is, nobody will ever be financially stable enough to bring children into the world until they are in their late 30s - early 40s. That's too late, not only biologically but what kind of life would a child have when their parent can't keep up with them? It's physically and financially exhausting, but until you're old enough to appreciate the other reasons for parenthood it's hard to see the justification for having children young.

We don't rely on Child Benefit - we couldn't! It's a tiny token we get back from paying our taxes every month. It helps go someway to keeping her in supply of fresh nappies and food and clothing.

Cutting it would just be another pain in the ass. I'm raising the next generation - yes through my own free will, but I deserve a comparatively little tax break for that. It's amazing how people from the outside looking in can help decide who 'needs' benefits in any measure with no prior experience or knowledge whatsoever. I pay in many times more what I get back, put it that way!

A comparatively little tax break adds up to a large amount of money if given to every single household with children in the entire country. Yes it would be a pain in the ass to cut, but then so is cutting back on vital services such as the NHS and emergency services because of a large budget deficit. Correct, you don't rely on child benefit, it is a nice addition to your income, but you do not need it, hence it is something that can be removed instead of cutting back on essential things during tough economic times such as...well now. I'm sure you contribute a lot to public funds through taxation, but it's not like you get nothing in return, and your children also benefit from tax as presumably they go to school and recieved free healthcare etc.

It absolutely is possible to be able to afford children before the age of 40. On one hand you find it 'amazing' that people can assess the needs of others when it comes to benefits, but you also know for a fact that nobody will be able to save up and pay for their own children before reaching their 40s? Like anything that must be saved up for, it requires financial sacrifices in other areas. Being unable to fathom that someone might financially plan to have children doesn't mean that nobody can nor will.

I resent my opinion being called naive simply because you disagree with it, let's just keep the discussion light and friendly even if we disagree?

I didn't suggest you were naive because I disagreed with what you said, I believe you are misinformed because you lack personal experience / education in the point in discussion.

Financial planning for parenthood would be futile anyway, ask ANY parent - including your own. Whatever you may account for, double it, then double it again. It's an insane commitment, not one to be taken lightly. The benefit is open to anyone with an individual income not exceeding £50k. That's most of the working public right there. You could have a joint family income of nearly £100k and they would get the same as everybody else.

I think you need to do a little more research into what Child Benefit really is.

[RetroPug]

This is he same opinion I had years ago. It's naive, but you'll grow to understand the world better.

The fact is, nobody will ever be financially stable enough to bring children into the world until they are in their late 30s - early 40s. That's too late, not only biologically but what kind of life would a child have when their parent can't keep up with them? It's physically and financially exhausting, but until you're old enough to appreciate the other reasons for parenthood it's hard to see the justification for having children young.

We don't rely on Child Benefit - we couldn't! It's a tiny token we get back from paying our taxes every month. It helps go someway to keeping her in supply of fresh nappies and food and clothing.

Cutting it would just be another pain in the ass. I'm raising the next generation - yes through my own free will, but I deserve a comparatively little tax break for that. It's amazing how people from the outside looking in can help decide who 'needs' benefits in any measure with no prior experience or knowledge whatsoever. I pay in many times more what I get back, put it that way!

A comparatively little tax break adds up to a large amount of money if given to every single household with children in the entire country. Yes it would be a pain in the ass to cut, but then so is cutting back on vital services such as the NHS and emergency services because of a large budget deficit. Correct, you don't rely on child benefit, it is a nice addition to your income, but you do not need it, hence it is something that can be removed instead of cutting back on essential things during tough economic times such as...well now. I'm sure you contribute a lot to public funds through taxation, but it's not like you get nothing in return, and your children also benefit from tax as presumably they go to school and recieved free healthcare etc.

It absolutely is possible to be able to afford children before the age of 40. On one hand you find it 'amazing' that people can assess the needs of others when it comes to benefits, but you also know for a fact that nobody will be able to save up and pay for their own children before reaching their 40s? Like anything that must be saved up for, it requires financial sacrifices in other areas. Being unable to fathom that someone might financially plan to have children doesn't mean that nobody can nor will.

I resent my opinion being called naive simply because you disagree with it, let's just keep the discussion light and friendly even if we disagree?

I didn't suggest you were naive because I disagreed with what you said, I believe you are misinformed because you lack personal experience / education in the point in discussion.

Financial planning for parenthood would be futile anyway, ask ANY parent - including your own. Whatever you may account for, double it, then double it again. It's an insane commitment, not one to be taken lightly. The benefit is open to anyone with an individual income not exceeding £50k. That's most of the working public right there. You could have a joint family income of nearly £100k and they would get the same as everybody else.

I think you need to do a little more research into what Child Benefit really is.

Well in my opinion it is absolutely insane from a public finance view to give cash payouts to households where BOTH parents earn almost double the national average in some cases directly from the public's money.

There are people running households on a single income which is way below the national average who may well need significant assistance. A household with a 90k+ income does not need social assistance. It is more ridiculous that they DO get the same assistance with childcare that someone earning 16k does.

It is simply not a sensible way to spend public money at all, as much as those recieving it each year may like it. If anything, the same child benefit budget could be spent on helping those who need assistance raising children.

Thinking that a family with a net income of 90k+ shouldn't be recieving any public money as cash payouts is not due to ignorance of what benefits are. Social assistance is for those in need, not for everyone.

[C.A.R.]

Thinking that a family with a net income of 90k+ shouldn't be recieving any public money as cash payouts is not due to ignorance of what benefits are. Social assistance is for those in need, not for everyone.

Precisely. I'd love to be able to turn around and cancel the payments but the reality is that the cost of living has far out-stripped the rate at which wages went up. Until very, very recently I was on the same money I was earning 5 years ago.

And if it grinds your gears that the wealthy are entitled to these benefits, what if I told you I know of somoene who owns their own house which they rent out privately (circa £850 a month) yet they themselves live in social housing subsidised by the government?

Aaaargh!

[RetroPug]

Thinking that a family with a net income of 90k+ shouldn't be recieving any public money as cash payouts is not due to ignorance of what benefits are. Social assistance is for those in need, not for everyone.

Precisely. I'd love to be able to turn around and cancel the payments but the reality is that the cost of living has far out-stripped the rate at which wages went up. Until very, very recently I was on the same money I was earning 5 years ago.

And if it grinds your gears that the wealthy are entitled to these benefits, what if I told you I know of somoene who owns their own house which they rent out privately (circa £850 a month) yet they themselves live in social housing subsidised by the government?

Aaaargh!

Unfortunately there are lots of annoying cases, but then it is very difficult to administer a whole system nationwide that can't possibly be tailored to each individual perfectly whilst keeping it fair.

That does sound completely ridiculous!

[Kezzieboy]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse...cle-contd/

Some more good analysis in here, it all looks rosy for Cameron's wonderful Tories...until you see the last graph and realise that a huge number of those jobs are zero-hour or forced self-employed jobs, still reliant on majority benefit payouts.

[nominous]

Child benefit is a payment to the mother of the child, not to the family unit. The intention is for the other to use it to look after the child with. That's the history.
Modern reality might be different.
But I do question why those earning higher wages should be punished by not having the benefit for their child.
Doesn't seem particularly moral that the more you earn because you are a success that somehow you are not entitled to something which is targeted at the child not the family income - historically.


If you're self employed (or small firm and can set policy) there is quite a good dodge for paying for child care out of income tax commitments.
If you're a 40% or 50% tax payer, effectively you can offset the entire child care against income tax depending on it's cost and as long as your take home doesn't go below minimum wage. But it's open to anyone that meets the T&C, just less savings.
By assigning the child care as the provision for the workplace.


Kezzieboy: well apart from forcing people to work sounds a bit like a 'work camp' to me

So you're happy for people to doss about, contribute nothing to society but be a burden on it ?
You're thinking about it the wrong way. It's not a work camp. It's a guarantee of payment in lieu of work. ie It's a job.
It's not compulsory. It's not "slave labour". It pays, just like a job.
But if you choose not to do the job, then we choose not to give you any money.
Please explain why you feel that is somehow unfair ?


RetroPug: We have become a nation of do/buy first, justify financially later, as evidenced by 40 pound per month phone contracts, buying 50" TVs on finance, buying brand new cars on finance that cost a full year's wages in many cases etc. etc.

I saved hard for a decade to buy a house, having seen that we were heading for a crash as things got out of control.
Only to find when the crash did come that the govt did all they could to prop up the housing market as it was realised just how far down this debt road the nation had truly gone. I've effectively been punished for doing the right thing and saving up.
The house we bought the previous owners earned 10k a year in equity in the 9 years they owned it. That's ridiculous and it clearly a sign things were out of control. But debt made a nation happy and the govt played along to be popular.

It's an ex council house. Some of the houses in the road are still council owned.
Including one with a family that drive a 13 plate Q7 and just got a 14 plate Skoda as the second car.
Good to see the council in recent weeks fitting new double glazing and boilers to all these houses.
Glad I'm subsidizing these fsckers whilst having to pay for my own boiler (which I legally have to pay someone else to do a piss poor job of fitting) and glazing too.

Round the corner they built a slew of new houses over an old nursing home. All of them are local authority rentals.
All of them have newer (as in fairly recent, most likely on finance) cars as the daily.
Priorities seem a bit odd really.

[C.A.R.]

Priorities seem a bit odd really.

Basically, if you do the 'right thing' you're a complete mug, it seems.

Cambelt kit turned up the other day, thanks very much

[nominous]

Good to hear.

The cambelt that is

[Kwik]

Priorities seem a bit odd really.

Basically, if you do the 'right thing' you're a complete mug, it seems.

And that is where society as a whole should change. The wrong thing should make you a mug not the right thing.......