£12 billion in welfare cuts

RideOnTime · May 2015

Paulie W wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Some data on Welfare spending in the UK:

Which is somewhere around 16% of all govt spending.

These cuts represent around 10% of the welfare budget - effectively returning the levels of welfare spending to those seen in the latter years of the last Labour administration.

The welfare spend has of course risen in absolute terms and is about twice what it was in the mid 80s in relative terms (i.e. allowing for inflation) but it has remained relatively constant as proportion of GDP (averageof 11.6%) with a low of about 10% in the late 80s and a high of just under 14% in 2012 reflecting periods of growth and recession.

I would like to see this graph in the political colours of the ruling party.. I accept blue/goldie/yellowy stripes for 2010-2015. future is blue. winter is bleak. woe woe

Frank the tank · May 2015

Just to play devils advocate.

There has been a lot of postings about the cost of child care, what happened to looking after your own child. Mum or dad give up their employment to care for the children. You do the maths before to see if you can afford it. Some moan about "scroungers" knockimg kids out for the child benefit, whilst quite happily putting their own hand out for additional child care payments. Some of these people are on very good salaries (hence reluctance to give up their job) and they in effect are asking for others on far less to subsidize their lifestyle.

As ever, as this thread has shown cutting welfare is going to be difficult IF it is to be done fairly,which I doubt.

norvernrob · May 2015

Frank the tank wrote:

Just to play devils advocate.

There has been a lot of postings about the cost of child care, what happened to looking after your own child. Mum or dad give up their employment to care for the children. You do the maths before to see if you can afford it. Some moan about "scroungers" knockimg kids out for the child benefit, whilst quite happily putting their own hand out for additional child care payments. Some of these people are on very good salaries (hence reluctance to give up their job) and they in effect are asking for others on far less to subsidize their lifestyle.

As ever, as this thread has shown cutting welfare is going to be difficult IF it is to be done fairly,which I doubt.

Considering those on higher salaries pay more tax, then no I don't think they're asking others to subsidise their lifestyle.

For instance, my wife gives up work and she stops paying approx £9,000 per year in tax and NI. On top of that she would no longer be paying back her student loans to the government at the rate of £2,000 per year. And we'd still get 15hrs per week 'free' childcare anyway. So the state would be well over £10k per year worse off.

You might as well say it's selfish to be ill, because the taxpayer is subsidising your treatment on the NHS.

sloppyschleckonds · May 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

People's wages are in effect being subsidised through childcare by the tax payer. People seem ok with this.

I'm not so sure they are.

ballysmate · May 2015

Frank the tank wrote:

Just to play devils advocate.

There has been a lot of postings about the cost of child care, what happened to looking after your own child. Mum or dad give up their employment to care for the children. You do the maths before to see if you can afford it. Some moan about "scroungers" knockimg kids out for the child benefit, whilst quite happily putting their own hand out for additional child care payments. Some of these people are on very good salaries (hence reluctance to give up their job) and they in effect are asking for others on far less to subsidize their lifestyle.

As ever, as this thread has shown cutting welfare is going to be difficult IF it is to be done fairly,which I doubt.

I know this has come up before and I remember it well because it was the first time Frank and I were in 100% agreement.

Frank is spot on.
I would extend it further by pointing out that this 'Free' childcare is also helping to drive up the housing market.

Frank the tank · May 2015

NorvernRob wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Just to play devils advocate.

There has been a lot of postings about the cost of child care, what happened to looking after your own child. Mum or dad give up their employment to care for the children. You do the maths before to see if you can afford it. Some moan about "scroungers" knockimg kids out for the child benefit, whilst quite happily putting their own hand out for additional child care payments. Some of these people are on very good salaries (hence reluctance to give up their job) and they in effect are asking for others on far less to subsidize their lifestyle.

As ever, as this thread has shown cutting welfare is going to be difficult IF it is to be done fairly,which I doubt.

Considering those on higher salaries pay more tax, then no I don't think they're asking others to subsidise their lifestyle.

For instance, my wife gives up work and she stops paying approx £9,000 per year in tax and NI. On top of that she would no longer be paying back her student loans to the government at the rate of £2,000 per year. And we'd still get 15hrs per week 'free' childcare anyway. So the state would be well over £10k per year worse off.

You might as well say it's selfish to be ill, because the taxpayer is subsidising your treatment on the NHS.

No one I know has ever CHOSEN to be ill, I know many who have chosen to have children though. So you cannot compare the two issues.

As I point out, you wouldn't need any free child care if your wife was looking after your off-spring; so while missing out on her tax and NI they wouldn't be paying for the free child care either.

Call me old fashioned but I believe the best people to bring up baby are mum and dad.

gaffer_slow · May 2015

Mr Shapps, we all appreciate your enthusiasm to help out, but you are no longer Chainrman. You should spend your time doing your DfID rather than trying to get into Cabinet's good books by trying to solve the problem of where to make cuts by using BikeRadar as a font of ideas. Regards, Dave.

ballysmate · May 2015

NorvernRob wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Just to play devils advocate.

There has been a lot of postings about the cost of child care, what happened to looking after your own child. Mum or dad give up their employment to care for the children. You do the maths before to see if you can afford it. Some moan about "scroungers" knockimg kids out for the child benefit, whilst quite happily putting their own hand out for additional child care payments. Some of these people are on very good salaries (hence reluctance to give up their job) and they in effect are asking for others on far less to subsidize their lifestyle.

As ever, as this thread has shown cutting welfare is going to be difficult IF it is to be done fairly,which I doubt.

Considering those on higher salaries pay more tax, then no I don't think they're asking others to subsidise their lifestyle.

For instance, my wife gives up work and she stops paying approx £9,000 per year in tax and NI. On top of that she would no longer be paying back her student loans to the government at the rate of £2,000 per year. And we'd still get 15hrs per week 'free' childcare anyway. So the state would be well over £10k per year worse off.

You might as well say it's selfish to be ill, because the taxpayer is subsidising your treatment on the NHS.

The tax man would be no worse off. I assume someone else would take her position and therefore pay just as much tax.

Pross · May 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I am not talking about keeping people in such hardship, but maintaining a safety net not a way of life on benefits. There has to be some incentive to get people to try to help themselves. If, as one poster said earlier, personal pride is not enough, there must be other incentives to lure people into jobs.

and that incentive needs to be a decent wage, child and working tax credits encourage employers to keep salaries low, housing benefit encourages landlords to keep rent high, the return to social housing would save the state a fortune.
As for the 30 hrs free childcare, dream on, there isnt enough child care providers at present and tbh if people got paid enough, they would nt need all this state intervention, which i am against.
So, why do we give the tax free allowance to people who dont need it? my neighbour, laughed when he heard it would go up to 12k, he said it will go towards his next ski holiday.
Stevo has shown a graph on state benefits, this has risen so much because of low wages, emplyers that can, should be made to pay a decent wage and employers that cant should be allowed to either recover the extra through the tax system or the state makes up the difference, it cannot be right that companies make billions in profit, yet some of their staff, claim so much in benefits.

So are you saying that there should be no tax free allowance? Can't see that being a vote winner with the low paid.
As regards how you neighbour spends the money from the increased tax threshold, it is his business. Ski holiday? Why not? Would you feel differently if he used it to set up a food bank or similar?

Not to mention that if he was at or around the previous 40% tax bracket most / all of the increase in tax free allowance gets removed thanks to a reduction in the amount you pay 20% on. It's why increasing the tax free limit is seen as a way of benefitting the low paid. The tax system is a pretty good way of 'discriminating' between people on different levels of earning.

mamba80 · May 2015

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So, why do we give the tax free allowance to people who dont need it? my neighbour, laughed when he heard it would go up to 12k, he said it will go towards his next ski holiday.
Stevo has shown a graph on state benefits, this has risen so much because of low wages, emplyers that can, should be made to pay a decent wage and employers that cant should be allowed to either recover the extra through the tax system or the state makes up the difference, it cannot be right that companies make billions in profit, yet some of their staff, claim so much in benefits.

Some facts:
1. The tax free allowance is progressively withdrawn as an individuals income exceeds £100k pa, at the rate of approx. £1 of allowance for every £2 of income above that limit. So by time you are on around £120k pa, you get no personal allowance. So people who don't need the personal allowance don't get it
2. Nearly 50% of welfare spending is on the state pension, so a large proportion of it has nothing to do with employers paying too little.

It's also worth pointing out that higher wages all feed through to the cost of goods and services, or discourage companies from hiring people at all because they are too expensive. So it's not as simple as imposing artificially high wage rates and thinking that all will be well.

You blanket assumption that 'companies make billions' is massively inaccurate - the majority of people in the private sector are employed by small businesses, many of which are fighting to survive and make a profit.

And as for your neighbour, he has earned it so he can spend it how he damn well wants as Bally said. Moaning about people who are doing OK is the politics of envy and I have no time for that.

you tell me stevo, where would YOU make the cuts? you dont want to increase wages, so working benefits have to stay, you dont want the rich to pay more/or get less as thats the politics of envy, free childcare is going UP and Cameron is on rec as promisng no cuts in child benefit either, so unless he wants to do a Clegg.....
But as you pointed out, pensions account for 50% of total welfare spending @114bn and you dont seem to want to cut that either, so whats left? education has been promised MORE, NHS protected and MORE money.

that leaves defence but the Tories are committed to Tridents replacement, so no savings there.

Working benefits may well be only 1/2 the welfare budget, but thats still way over 100bn and paying the living wage would help reduce that bill, as would more social housing and curbs on rent but you dont want any of that either

norvernrob · May 2015

Frank the tank wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Just to play devils advocate.

There has been a lot of postings about the cost of child care, what happened to looking after your own child. Mum or dad give up their employment to care for the children. You do the maths before to see if you can afford it. Some moan about "scroungers" knockimg kids out for the child benefit, whilst quite happily putting their own hand out for additional child care payments. Some of these people are on very good salaries (hence reluctance to give up their job) and they in effect are asking for others on far less to subsidize their lifestyle.

As ever, as this thread has shown cutting welfare is going to be difficult IF it is to be done fairly,which I doubt.

Considering those on higher salaries pay more tax, then no I don't think they're asking others to subsidise their lifestyle.

For instance, my wife gives up work and she stops paying approx £9,000 per year in tax and NI. On top of that she would no longer be paying back her student loans to the government at the rate of £2,000 per year. And we'd still get 15hrs per week 'free' childcare anyway. So the state would be well over £10k per year worse off.

You might as well say it's selfish to be ill, because the taxpayer is subsidising your treatment on the NHS.

No one I know has ever CHOSEN to be ill, I know many who have chosen to have children though. So you cannot compare the two issues.

As I point out, you wouldn't need any free child care if your wife was looking after your off-spring; so while missing out on her tax and NI they wouldn't be paying for the free child care either.

Call me old fashioned but I believe the best people to bring up baby are mum and dad.

You don't seem to understand. EVERYONE gets the 15hrs per week childcare for 3-4 year olds. If my wife gave up work to stay at home we would still get the 15hrs but contribute nothing to the state.

2 year olds can now get free nursery places too, but that is means tested. The less you have, the more you get from the state.

And yes, you're old fashioned. Let's all give up work when we have kids and struggle for money, but hey we'll all be happy sat around the fire in a tin bath.

ballysmate · May 2015

NorvernRob wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Just to play devils advocate.

There has been a lot of postings about the cost of child care, what happened to looking after your own child. Mum or dad give up their employment to care for the children. You do the maths before to see if you can afford it. Some moan about "scroungers" knockimg kids out for the child benefit, whilst quite happily putting their own hand out for additional child care payments. Some of these people are on very good salaries (hence reluctance to give up their job) and they in effect are asking for others on far less to subsidize their lifestyle.

As ever, as this thread has shown cutting welfare is going to be difficult IF it is to be done fairly,which I doubt.

Considering those on higher salaries pay more tax, then no I don't think they're asking others to subsidise their lifestyle.

For instance, my wife gives up work and she stops paying approx £9,000 per year in tax and NI. On top of that she would no longer be paying back her student loans to the government at the rate of £2,000 per year. And we'd still get 15hrs per week 'free' childcare anyway. So the state would be well over £10k per year worse off.

You might as well say it's selfish to be ill, because the taxpayer is subsidising your treatment on the NHS.

No one I know has ever CHOSEN to be ill, I know many who have chosen to have children though. So you cannot compare the two issues.

As I point out, you wouldn't need any free child care if your wife was looking after your off-spring; so while missing out on her tax and NI they wouldn't be paying for the free child care either.

Call me old fashioned but I believe the best people to bring up baby are mum and dad.

You don't seem to understand. EVERYONE gets the 15hrs per week childcare for 3-4 year olds. If my wife gave up work to stay at home we would still get the 15hrs but contribute nothing to the state.

2 year olds can now get free nursery places too, but that is means tested. The less you have, the more you get from the state.

And yes, you're old fashioned. Let's all give up work when we have kids and struggle for money, but hey we'll all be happy sat around the fire in a tin bath.

I too share Frank's 'Old fashioned' view. Kids are the responsibility of the parents. Don't have kids and then look around for people to look after them or more pertinently, people pay to look after them.

Stevo_666 · May 2015

mamba80 wrote:

you tell me stevo, where would YOU make the cuts? you dont want to increase wages, so working benefits have to stay, you dont want the rich to pay more/or get less as thats the politics of envy, free childcare is going UP and Cameron is on rec as promisng no cuts in child benefit either, so unless he wants to do a Clegg.....
But as you pointed out, pensions account for 50% of total welfare spending @114bn and you dont seem to want to cut that either, so whats left? education has been promised MORE, NHS protected and MORE money.

that leaves defence but the Tories are committed to Tridents replacement, so no savings there.

Working benefits may well be only 1/2 the welfare budget, but thats still way over 100bn and paying the living wage would help reduce that bill, as would more social housing and curbs on rent but you dont want any of that either

Seems like I touched a raw nerve there when I put you straight on a few basic facts

BTW you seems to be putting words into my mouth - where did I say that I did not want to touch pensions? And you are assuming that I automatically agree with everything Cameron is proposing.

Since we are on a thread about welfare, where would I cut welfare?
- Pensions is the largest item and most likely to grow in future as people live longer and are healthier later into their life, so means test the state pension, scrap gold plated final salary pension schemes for civil servants and increase the age at which the pension can be claimed.
- Make sure that welfare is a genuine safety net by (a) making sure it is not lucrative enough to be a lifestyle choice as it clearly is for too many these days (b) cutting out more of the obvious abuse.
- Restrict the max that a household can claim in total benefits (already on the agenda).
- Restrict child benefit to a certain number of kids. If you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

There is more to it than cuts however. The other half of the equation of course is improving the UK as a business friendly environment - not just tax but reducing red tape, increasing ease of starting and doing business etc. As you will know this attracts/encourages investment and businesses - that go on to pay tax and employ people who - guess what - pay tax and VAT and excise duty etc. This also improves the unemployment rate, so reducing welfare payments and by reducing the number of available employees, increases wages (I assume you understand the law of supply and demand?) - again reducing welfare payments. It is a virtuous circle, although the principle always seems rather counter-intuitive for lefties.

rick_chasey · May 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

I too share Frank's 'Old fashioned' view. Kids are the responsibility of the parents. Don't have kids and then look around for people to look after them or more pertinently, people pay to look after them.

Those children will be the ones looking after you in your old age so it would make sense to give 'em a good start in life.

Society needs people to reproduce so it makes sense government steps in to help.

ballysmate · May 2015

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I too share Frank's 'Old fashioned' view. Kids are the responsibility of the parents. Don't have kids and then look around for people to look after them or more pertinently, people pay to look after them.

Those children will be the ones looking after you in your old age so it would make sense to give 'em a good start in life.

Society needs people to reproduce so it makes sense government steps in to help.

What?????
You want Cameron shagging his way around the country?

ballysmate · May 2015

On a more serious note, what better start in life is there than being reared by loving parents who brought you into this world?

Stevo_666 · May 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

On a more serious note, what better start in life is there than being reared by loving parents who brought you into this world?

Yep, and shockingly I find myself agreeing with Frank :shock:

That's the way we have done it.

FatTed · May 2015

OMG I also agree with Frank.

ballysmate · May 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Just to play devils advocate.

There has been a lot of postings about the cost of child care, what happened to looking after your own child. Mum or dad give up their employment to care for the children. You do the maths before to see if you can afford it. Some moan about "scroungers" knockimg kids out for the child benefit, whilst quite happily putting their own hand out for additional child care payments. Some of these people are on very good salaries (hence reluctance to give up their job) and they in effect are asking for others on far less to subsidize their lifestyle.

As ever, as this thread has shown cutting welfare is going to be difficult IF it is to be done fairly,which I doubt.

Considering those on higher salaries pay more tax, then no I don't think they're asking others to subsidise their lifestyle.

For instance, my wife gives up work and she stops paying approx £9,000 per year in tax and NI. On top of that she would no longer be paying back her student loans to the government at the rate of £2,000 per year. And we'd still get 15hrs per week 'free' childcare anyway. So the state would be well over £10k per year worse off.

You might as well say it's selfish to be ill, because the taxpayer is subsidising your treatment on the NHS.

The tax man would be no worse off. I assume someone else would take her position and therefore pay just as much tax.

Sounds like your missus has a very well paid job, so the answer is easy, YOU look after your kids whilst your missus works.

mamba80 · May 2015

Stevo 666 wrote:

Since we are on a thread about welfare, where would I cut welfare?
- Pensions is the largest item and most likely to grow in future as people live longer and are healthier later into their life, so means test the state pension, scrap gold plated final salary pension schemes for civil servants and increase the age at which the pension can be claimed.
- Make sure that welfare is a genuine safety net by (a) making sure it is not lucrative enough to be a lifestyle choice as it clearly is for too many these days (b) cutting out more of the obvious abuse.
- Restrict the max that a household can claim in total benefits (already on the agenda).
- Restrict child benefit to a certain number of kids. If you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

There is more to it than cuts however. The other half of the equation of course is improving the UK as a business friendly environment - not just tax but reducing red tape, increasing ease of starting and doing business etc. As you will know this attracts/encourages investment and businesses - that go on to pay tax and employ people who - guess what - pay tax and VAT and excise duty etc. This also improves the unemployment rate, so reducing welfare payments and by reducing the number of available employees, increases wages (I assume you understand the law of supply and demand?) - again reducing welfare payments. It is a virtuous circle, although the principle always seems rather counter-intuitive for lefties.

i dont disagree with a lot of what you say, however, the uk is already jobs rich BUT tax poor and that is what is causing any Governments problems.
the growth in employment has not lead to an increase in tax receipts has it? what it has lead too, is an increase in working benefits, which if cut by 10% would pretty much give Osbourne his 12bn.
As for means testing pensions, good luck with that, and many civil servants (and teachers and police come under that banner) have already lost their final salary schemes and seen big increases in contributions, would it be fair to say to someone aged 58 lets say, that you ve lost your 35yrs of contributions and you can have a 1/3rd of what you thought you d retire on?

As for benefits being a lifestyle choice? perhaps for some with big families, this is the case but what would you do, cut their benefits,make them homeless, have them begging on the streets? the poor house ? they often are unemployeable and the only hope is to try and stop their kids becoming like their parents.
basic unemployment benefit is about £57 per week and as i said earlier on, we are already moving families out of london at the rate of 500 per week, according to some figures.

but what underlines yours and many others pov is that the poorest in society have to have the cuts but wealthy, well they can just keep getting richer and anyone who challenges that, is a leftie who is envious of anyones success, which is b0ll0cks, anyone working is worthy of their hire and to get a suitable reward, be that a city accountant or a tescos shop worker.
the problem now, is that the shop worker on working benefits cannot better themselves because the moment they earn more, it comes off their benefits in one form or another.

as for children being bought up in a loving 2 parent family? yes of course but far from the reality of life.

diy · May 2015

Reduce corporation tax to 10% and land all those bad boy tech firms out of dublin, Luxemburg and Denmark. We'd easily increase net receipts.

Scrap the deposit protection scheme on rentals, it doesn't work for either party. The ability to cap rent already exists - tenant can take his land lord to a tribunal or simply stop paying rent for a month and half. The cost to get a non paying tenant out is huge.

Landlords are not all money grabbing gits, a lot of people are using buy to let to prop up pensions and investments given that interest rates are so low.

Graduate stamp duty - its just daft the way it works

scrap road tax and collect it from fuel. That way people pay as they use.

Increase motorway speed limit to 80mph

Tax incentive to invest in FTSE firms.

hmmm... what else? something for the long term unemployed?? oh yeah - link benefits to voluntary/work experience. No more sitting at home watching your 50" sky tv all day.

ballysmate · May 2015

diy wrote:

Reduce corporation tax to 10% and land all those bad boy tech firms out of dublin, Luxemburg and Denmark. We'd easily increase net receipts.

Scrap the deposit protection scheme on rentals, it doesn't work for either party. The ability to cap rent already exists - tenant can take his land lord to a tribunal or simply stop paying rent for a month and half. The cost to get a non paying tenant out is huge.

Landlords are not all money grabbing gits, a lot of people are using buy to let to prop up pensions and investments given that interest rates are so low.

Graduate stamp duty - its just daft the way it works

scrap road tax and collect it from fuel. That way people pay as they use.

Increase motorway speed limit to 80mph

Tax incentive to invest in FTSE firms.

hmmm... what else? something for the long term unemployed?? oh yeah - link benefits to voluntary/work experience. No more sitting at home watching your 50" sky tv all day.

Totally agree, but people would claim it breached Article 4 HRA.
Perhaps that will be changing soon. Step forward Michael Gove.

rick_chasey · May 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

On a more serious note, what better start in life is there than being reared by loving parents who brought you into this world?

Having a roof over your head

.

But this argument that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford it is pointless. It's like saying drugs are bad so don't take them mmmkay?

People will have sex and will have children, regardless of their current economic situation.

The solution isn't to punish the family.

ballysmate · May 2015

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

On a more serious note, what better start in life is there than being reared by loving parents who brought you into this world?

Having a roof over your head .

But this argument that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford it is pointless. It's like saying drugs are bad so don't take them mmmkay?

People will have sex and will have children, regardless of their current economic situation.

The solution isn't to punish the family.

It isn't about punishment, it is about taking responsibility.

ballysmate · May 2015

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

On a more serious note, what better start in life is there than being reared by loving parents who brought you into this world?

Having a roof over your head .

But this argument that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford it is pointless. It's like saying drugs are bad so don't take them mmmkay?

People will have sex and will have children, regardless of their current economic situation.

The solution isn't to punish the family.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I too share Frank's 'Old fashioned' view. Kids are the responsibility of the parents. Don't have kids and then look around for people to look after them or more pertinently, people pay to look after them.

Those children will be the ones looking after you in your old age so it would make sense to give 'em a good start in life.

Society needs people to reproduce so it makes sense government steps in to help.

But you seem to be saying that people are doing a public service by having kids they can't afford to raise.

rick_chasey · May 2015

No, two separate points.

1) people will have children regardless of circumstances. It's literally the most basic human instinct

2) reproduction is required to avoid children of men scenario and those children will be looking after you. It makes sense in all societies to make sure those children have as balanced an upbringing as possible to ensure they are better citizens when they are adults (and looking after your wrinkly ass).

Ergo, you don't punish parents who have children when they can't afford them, because 1) it's literally the most basic human instinct and 2) you don't want the kids to be screwed through lack of money in their family when they grow up, because screwed childhoods tend to produce screwed adults.

ballysmate · May 2015

I don't advocate keeping kids in poverty but we must get away from the dependency on the state attitude.
One guy on here was moaning that his wife would have to give up a job paying in excess of 50k to look after their kid and is moaning about the cost of childcare, as the state only pays so much. Jesus wept!

mr_goo · May 2015

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, two separate points.

1) people will have children regardless of circumstances. It's literally the most basic human instinct

2) reproduction is required to avoid children of men scenario and those children will be looking after you. It makes sense in all societies to make sure those children have as balanced an upbringing as possible to ensure they are better citizens when they are adults (and looking after your wrinkly ass).

Ergo, you don't punish parents who have children when they can't afford them, because 1) it's literally the most basic human instinct and 2) you don't want the kids to be screwed through lack of money in their family when they grow up, because screwed childhoods tend to produce screwed adults.

I agree with you on this Rick (not often that we do). However there is a flaw in your statements, and they are applicable to the UK. In continental Europe the social structure of the extended family is in general different to that of the UK. France/Spain/Italy etc tend to have larger family groups living together, ie grandparents/parents/children, and therefore there is a greater obligation/sense of family care.

The reverse can be said for the UK, where it seems we encourage our children to leave home as soon as they can, so that we as parents can get on with our lives (Wrong!). And we would rather put our elderly folks in the care of a third party than embrace them as part of a greater family and adapt our lives to suit (this can be seen from the increase development of care homes and apartment residences like Mac&Stone/Churchill).
Perhaps with the cost of care not being met by the state and housing for our children becoming out of reach then the pooling of financial resources and the extended family living under one roof will become more common in the UK. It's not such a bad thing in my opinion.

Smokin Joe · May 2015

apreading wrote:

I never understand why the Govt doesnt abolish 'road tax' (vehicle tax) and just add the money onto either the MOT fee or more tax on petrol - you could get rid of a whole department and their administration overnight. And if you put it on petrol tax then automatically more is paid by those using their cars more and/or those with less efficient engines - no complex calculations to do etc. By putting it on petrol you would also overnight do away with tax dodging (lost revenue at the moment) and enforcement (a cost to the police etc at the moment).

Because the people who do high mileages are invariably business users and increasing their costs would have a knock on effect to everybody, including non drivers. I do 20k per year, virtually all work related and I only earn a normal wage like most self employed people so such a move would hit hard.

The second point is why should high mileage drivers pay more? Nobody joy rides anymore, people drive lots of miles because the need to. If anyone should be made to pay through the nose it's the 3000 miles a year hobby motorists who clog the roads during the school run and bank holidays.

sloppyschleckonds · May 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

I don't advocate keeping kids in poverty but we must get away from the dependency on the state attitude.
One guy on here was moaning that his wife would have to give up a job paying in excess of 50k to look after their kid and is moaning about the cost of childcare, as the state only pays so much. Jesus wept!

I think she only earnt £35k.

£12 billion in welfare cuts

Comments

Categories