Happy New Year - New topics to Bicker About?

tailwindhome

prawny wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I've got no clue about child benefit actually. How much is it worth to someone a month?

Me either and I get it!

We need it though. Although probably only to keep up with the benefit non working types that live round here that all have better cars, holidays and TVs than me. If we didn't get child benefit I'd just make sacrifices to make ends meet. I'd miss the poor litle beggars though :twisted:

£20.30 per week for the eldest and £13.40 per week each other.

So for a family with 2 kids that £1752 a year.

A months take home pay for someone on £30k a year (give or take)

tailwindhome

Where's CIB? He normally posts sensible stuff in these discussions...

Wallace1492

Child benefit is an easy target, obviously plenty get it that dont *need* it, and use it just to add to their dispoable income. Personally I would say scrap it. Should it leave families in need, then money can be made available by other means - family tax credit etc. That way only those in real need get the help and support that they *really* require.

The whole tax/benefits systems needs a dam good overhaul. The rich/corporates avoid tax while the lazy poor (there are those in real need) find it better to be on benefit than actively seek work.

The amount of benefit that must be wasted on drug addicts, criminals and DHS fraudsters simply beggers belief. I am all in favour of a caring, sharing society, but in some area's we need to toughen up.

The Rookie

Trouble is we have too many benefits that are so fiendishly complex they cost almost as much to administer as the amount they give out, so while simplifying the criteria may be a backward step to some, it at least means more of the budgets goes to those who get the benfits and less to civil servants!

For the record, the argument about combined income was allegedly so that couples weren't forced to reveal to each other what they earnt, which is somewhat dubious given the number of situations were they have to anyway!

walkingbootweather

Wallace1492 wrote:

The amount of benefit that must be wasted on drug addicts, criminals and DHS fraudsters simply beggers belief. I am all in favour of a caring, sharing society, but in some area's we need to toughen up.

Go on then I'll bite.

So Wallace what do you suppose would happen if we were to withdraw all support to say drug addicts?

Kieran_Burns

The Beginner wrote:

Trouble is we have too many benefits that are so fiendishly complex they cost almost as much to administer as the amount they give out, so while simplifying the criteria may be a backward step to some, it at least means more of the budgets goes to those who get the benfits and less to civil servants!

For the record, the argument about combined income was allegedly so that couples weren't forced to reveal to each other what they earnt, which is somewhat dubious given the number of situations were they have to anyway!

My best mate made an interesting suggestion some time ago. Every adult in the UK gets a citizens allowance. EVERY adult, whether working or not; and that's it.

It would be enough to keep you, but if you want anything more you have to earn it. Flat rate income tax so everything is the same (no NI: all integrated). So one tax, one benefit. That would remove a MASSIVE administration cost in one fell swoop and remove a huge amount of civil servants at the same time again reducing the cost of government.

It also means no pensions: you keep the allowance until you die. Again: if you want more you can set aside your own pot or keep working. Your choice.

I personally thought that there was some mileage in this.

walkingbootweather

^^ so what happens if the citizen's circumstances change or they have used up their allowance?

Wallace1492

walkingbootweather wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The amount of benefit that must be wasted on drug addicts, criminals and DHS fraudsters simply beggers belief. I am all in favour of a caring, sharing society, but in some area's we need to toughen up.

Go on then I'll bite.

So Wallace what do you suppose would happen if we were to withdraw all support to say drug addicts?

I dont have a total answer to the issue, if I did I would be a politician! However, I see lots of folk round Glasgow that spend their state aid on drugs and the like. Is that a good way to spend our tax's? As I mentioned some kind of earned benefit might just help some of these people get off the habit and become contributors to society rather than just leeches. Maybe proving they are trying to kick the habit, attending counselling, workshops, help groups. Yes, cutting their benefit completely would force then to turn to crime further (most probably are involved in some kind of crime anyway over and above the drug misuse)

I am sure that you are not happy that your money gets spend on drug users and benefit fraudsters and that many do not contribute fully to society.

Kieran_Burns

walkingbootweather wrote:

^^ so what happens if the citizen's circumstances change or they have used up their allowance?

Allowance = benefit. As in everyone gets a certain amount of money a month. Say £15K PA (as an example NOT a suggested amount)

walkingbootweather

Kieran_Burns wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

^^ so what happens if the citizen's circumstances change or they have used up their allowance?

Allowance = benefit. As in everyone gets a certain amount of money a month. Say £15K PA (as an example NOT a suggested amount)

So how do you deal with somebody that is born with a birth defect, or has an accident which means that they can't work and require support that would cost more than an average allowance?

Kieran_Burns

dunno - run with it....

notsoblue

walkingbootweather wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The amount of benefit that must be wasted on drug addicts, criminals and DHS fraudsters simply beggers belief. I am all in favour of a caring, sharing society, but in some area's we need to toughen up.

Go on then I'll bite.

So Wallace what do you suppose would happen if we were to withdraw all support to say drug addicts?

No money for drugs = rehabilitation = problem solved!

/s

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't even need child benefit

Need?

If you still are eligible for this 'benefit' and don't feel you 'need' the money what you should to TODAY is set up an saving account/ISA and pay in the equivalent sum each month....

18 years of child benefit would be a pot of c£20k when DDD minor is due to start university.



An alternative suggestion is to phone up HMRC and agree what your personal allowance 'should' be to reflect what you 'need'. This option may only be open to foreign coffee shop owners.....

rjsterry

This might adjust the usual race to blame "scroungers"

The two biggest chunks by far are State Pensions (£74bn) and Tax Credits (£30bn). The latter is mostly paid to low income working families, so not exactly scroungers, or not contributing fully. The spending on each of the other benefits is tiny in comparison.

SteppenHerring

rjsterry wrote:

This might adjust the usual race to blame "scroungers"

The two biggest chunks by far are State Pensions (£74bn) and Tax Credits (£30bn). The latter is mostly paid to low income working families, so not exactly scroungers, or not contributing fully. The spending on each of the other benefits is tiny in comparison.

Tis true. Also most housing benefit goes to people in work.

If we really want to reduce the benefits bill, the solution is to raise the minimum wage to £15 per hour.

UndercoverElephant

SteppenHerring wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This might adjust the usual race to blame "scroungers"

The two biggest chunks by far are State Pensions (£74bn) and Tax Credits (£30bn). The latter is mostly paid to low income working families, so not exactly scroungers, or not contributing fully. The spending on each of the other benefits is tiny in comparison.

Tis true. Also most housing benefit goes to people in work.

If we really want to reduce the benefits bill, the solution is to raise the minimum wage to £15 per hour.

Or kill off all the old people... :twisted:

jds_1981

SteppenHerring wrote:

If we really want to reduce the benefits bill, the solution is to raise the minimum wage to £15 per hour.

I fear that if this was implemented we'd rapidly run into the wall of unintended consequences.

I tihnk a more realistic approach would be large scale building projects of high density housing blocks around cities. Think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Hong_Kong. Sucks, but there you go.

First.Aspect

jds_1981 wrote:

SteppenHerring wrote:

If we really want to reduce the benefits bill, the solution is to raise the minimum wage to £15 per hour.

I fear that if this was implemented we'd rapidly run into the wall of unintended consequences.

I tihnk a more realistic approach would be large scale building projects of high density housing blocks around cities. Think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Hong_Kong. Sucks, but there you go.

Can I suggest that you visit Springburn and have a bit of a re-think? The "unintended consequences" of your proposal would by the plethora of concentrated and self perpetuating social problems. Its been tried. In lots of UK citites. It was a disaster.

mudcow007

you lot have changed.....

where have the arguments gone about helmets and Mr Armstrong?

cyclingprop

mudcow007 wrote:

you lot have changed.....

where has the commentary on Armstrong's helmet gone?

Filth.

spen666

UndercoverElephant wrote:

SteppenHerring wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This might adjust the usual race to blame "scroungers"

The two biggest chunks by far are State Pensions (£74bn) and Tax Credits (£30bn). The latter is mostly paid to low income working families, so not exactly scroungers, or not contributing fully. The spending on each of the other benefits is tiny in comparison.

Tis true. Also most housing benefit goes to people in work.

If we really want to reduce the benefits bill, the solution is to raise the minimum wage to £15 per hour.

Or kill off all the old people... :twisted:

And the sick, and the ill, and anyone unemployed, anyone needing medical help, and anyone convicted of or cautioned for a criminal offence, politicians, thosewith an IQ below 100 or with an IQ above 150 and anyone else I have forgotten

jds_1981

First Aspect wrote:

Can I suggest that you visit Springburn and have a bit of a re-think? The "unintended consequences" of your proposal would by the plethora of concentrated and self perpetuating social problems. Its been tried. In lots of UK citites. It was a disaster.

I take your springburn & raise you the barbican estate.

notsoblue

jds_1981 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Can I suggest that you visit Springburn and have a bit of a re-think? The "unintended consequences" of your proposal would by the plethora of concentrated and self perpetuating social problems. Its been tried. In lots of UK citites. It was a disaster.

I take your springburn & raise you the barbican estate.

Do you think the Barbican estate would be in the state it is now if it was social housing populated by people moved out of slums?

kelsen

jds_1981 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Can I suggest that you visit Springburn and have a bit of a re-think? The "unintended consequences" of your proposal would by the plethora of concentrated and self perpetuating social problems. Its been tried. In lots of UK citites. It was a disaster.

I take your springburn & raise you the barbican estate.

The last time I walked through the Barbican estate, I didn't get the feeling that a junkie would jump out at me any minute, jab me with a hypodermic syringe and steal everything and the shirt off my back. Only the possibility that a bearded culture vulture might whack me over the head with a theatre brochure for walking straight past the art gallery without visiting.

There are infamous tower blocks in Glasgow where the postmen refused to deliver letters and the police wouldn't enter without riot gear as standard procedure!

rubertoe

kelsen wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Can I suggest that you visit Springburn and have a bit of a re-think? The "unintended consequences" of your proposal would by the plethora of concentrated and self perpetuating social problems. Its been tried. In lots of UK citites. It was a disaster.

I take your springburn & raise you the barbican estate.

The last time I walked through the Barbican estate, I didn't get the feeling that a junkie would jump out at me any minute, jab me with a hypodermic syringe and steal everything and the shirt off my back. There are tower blocks in Glasgow where the postmen refused to deliver letters and the police wouldn't enter without riot gear as standard procedure!

and those are the nice parts...

rjsterry

Um, The Barbican was built as middle class/young professional housing from the start. There is a waiting list to get in there. A slum it is not, unless you are talking about some other Barbican.