chem1st Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 All very convincing, but it doesn't stop them applying for and getting bigger houses because they are ultimately not paying for any of it we are. They are in receipt of many different types of benefits. Who can blame them if the state allows this to happen and apparently they condone it, why not take advantage of a weak system. I work to pay for what I get and struggle to pay my mortgage etc.. Yet I probably would be better off on the dole, except I couldn't live with myself if I did that. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. You work and struggle to pay your mortgage, and therein lies the problem. You have tied yourself into a contract of debt slavery, and now the benefit system looks more appealing than your (25 year?) debt. And your angry about this. What happens when interest rates rise by 4pc and so does your mortgage? Perhaps you cannot afford to pay and are repossessed, then your looking at bankruptcy, and will join the other 3000+ Sheffielders per annum filing for a form of insolvency (generally people aged 50+). Your entire debt will be passed onto the public, and it will be worth twice the value of the debt you took on for your home, even though your home may be worth less than you originally agreed to pay for it. Then my friend you shall be homeless, and we will* give you a council house. * Due to years of attacks upon the communal housing of the people for the people, you may find your ineligible for being male and intentionally homeless. However, there is a waiting list you can sign up to. However you'll be eligible for the current help given out to those whom need it. A house is not all it is cracked up to be (investment wise) it is but a consumer good. One that could be built in the 60s in under a 1000 hours of male labour. Now they can be built even quicker using prefabricated panels etc. Everyone could be housed quite quickly and cheaply in the grand scheme of things. Sad fact of the matter is, there are 12 million debt slaves like you in the UK who would object to people being housed in such a manner. If I must struggle then so must they! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 While ever we have a system that rewards spongers for having more kids, the problem will only get worse. Individuals, not the state, should be responsible for feeding their families. As for child tax credits and child benefit, I don't think they should exist. I don't see why some people's taxes should fund other people's lifestyle choice. If I'd rather spend my money on a sports car than a family, should I receive luxury toy tax credits instead of family tax credits? The system does not. If you have more kids, you will have less money per person to live on. You will have less space per person to live in. A sports car adds nothing to society, it may cause an accident and kill people. A child is something that is important to society. It could make great scientific discoveries, help to promote peace between two warring factions. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 OK, the leftys are squealing 'its not right'etc.... Lets look at it this way............ If a man is working Lets say the man is working, and his net income is £25,000 per year (good wage - just irresponsible), and the 3rd woman is pregnant and needs homing by the taxpayer. 40% of £25,000 = £10,000 per annum, or £833 a month this man pays for 3 kids 60% of £25,000 = £15,000 per annum, or £1250 a month this man pays for 4 kids For all those who think this is harsh, do you know how much it costs for a working man/woman to run just one 3 bedroomed house? I bet you would need at least £1200 a month coming in just to support ONE 3 BEDROOMED HOUSE. So, a man with a net salary of £2500, is only paying £833 a month for his children to live in 3 DIFFERENT HOMES. If he gets the 4th woman pregnant, he is still only paying £1250 a month for FOUR HOUSES !!! When you think about it, that is not a bad deal. If a working man/woman had a net salary of £25000 a year, there is no way on earth they could afford to run 4 different homes, with council taxs, bills etc..... If the man is on benefits Lets say the man is on benefits, and is on £65 a week benefits = £3380 a year in money, he now has got the 3rd woman pregnant and she needs homing by the taxpayer. 40% of £3380 = £112 a month this man pays to support 3 kids 60% of £3380 = £169 a month this man pays to support his kids This is still a very fair deal, this man pays £169 a month for FOUR DIFFERENT 3 BEDROOMED HOMES. How on earth can anyone say that this solution is not fair? And the man will be unable to afford 3 meals a day. Prison becomes an attractive option. You again, are signed up to debt slavery, I wonder whom your mortgage is with. £1200 to run a 3 bedroomed house. Get out of it. Annual heating bill of some £200 to protect the pipes over winter. Annual tax bill of around £1000 (Sheffield has a majority of Band A properties, this is above the Band A rate), this tax bill could be reduced by 50% by not living in the property, or one could live in it on their own for a £25 reduction. Annual surface water charge (a.k.a RAIN TAX) About £100 per year. Other maintenance, say £1000 avg. That's less than £200 per month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Seriously ???? you don't have to pay council tax if you are in work. How do I go about this - could do with another £100 a month to spend on the family You need to go down to Howden house and ask for a housing benefit and council tax benefit form. You should also consider applying for working tax credits and child tax credits (if and when you have one). It might take 10 hours and you might only get 50p, and your legally obliged to inform them of any changes of income or circumstances on a weekly basis, but wey, that's the system! It would depend upon your after before tax income. you might be interested to read about effective marginal tax rates, marginal deduction rates and the likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 It would not in any way stop her from having 5 children. It would mean that at least three of them would starve to death, though. Unless of course she got a job and took responsibility for them.If the grandparent has never worked, theres no reason why she couldnt help to look after them. After all she was the role model for the daughter wasn't she. Personally I think it is about time that people took responsibility for their actions, both men and women. Having children so the taxpayer can look after them is not acceptable IMO. Remember it didnt used to be like this. My Mum never had any benefits bringing up me and my brother. It didnt exist for her then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 So let me get this right. Most of you believe that people should continue to have as many children as they want, not take any responsibility and there not be a cut off point ..............while........ a man/or woman who works and gets taxed to death, many of which do not earn enough money due to the amount of tax they pay...........these people (who in many cases can't afford a one bedroomed flat - never mid a 3 bedroomed house) should continue to pay their hard earned money to support the people who take no responsibilty for their actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 And the man will be unable to afford 3 meals a day. Prison becomes an attractive option. You again, are signed up to debt slavery, I wonder whom your mortgage is with. £1200 to run a 3 bedroomed house. Get out of it. Annual heating bill of some £200 to protect the pipes over winter. Annual tax bill of around £1000 (Sheffield has a majority of Band A properties, this is above the Band A rate), this tax bill could be reduced by 50% by not living in the property, or one could live in it on their own for a £25 reduction. Annual surface water charge (a.k.a RAIN TAX) About £100 per year. Other maintenance, say £1000 avg. That's less than £200 per month. Think you are off the mark there. For one three bedroomed home, to run it, pay the bills, taxes, mortgage/rent you would need at least £1200 to cover the costs BOLT BIT HOw would that work? I buy the house but then don't live in it, where would I live instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14841/1/14841.pdf An unbiased view here. 8 Discussion and conclusions The reforms that took place in the UK in 1999 make an excellent case study for addressing the question of whether fertility responds to financial incentives, not least because of the scale of the increases. Examining evidence on the response to these reforms, this paper makes a number of contributions to the existing literature on the effect of welfare on fertility. First, we have shown that more generous government support coincided with an increase in births among the group most affected by the reforms. This increase cannot be explained by differential trends or by macro factors. We have also provided supporting evidence of a decline in use of contraception among the group affected. Our results indicate a sizeable response in childbearing among the group affected by the reform. The probability of having a birth increased by 1.3 percentage points among the low education group, equivalent to a 15 per cent increase. This equates to nearly 45,000 additional births (compared to annual births of 670,000), although some of this may be a change in the timing of births rather than in the quantity. How does this compare with previous estimates? Milligan (2005) estimated that the probability of birth increased by 17% for a $Can 1,000 increase in total support via the Allowance for Newborn Children; in the UK, the increase in annual benefits for the low-education group was around twice this level – potentially for each year of the child’s life (see Table 2). Our estimated effect is considerably smaller than this Canadian study. We do not directly estimate an elasticity, but since entitlement to benefits increased by 46 per cent among the low-education group, the implied elasticity is around 0.28. This is greater than Baughman and Dickert-Conlin found for EITC in the US, but within the range estimated by Whittington et al, 1990, and Whittington, 1992. We therefore believe our estimate of the effect to be plausible. Second, we have shown that examining the fertility effects of welfare reform must take account of potential differences across women. In-work tax credits such as WFTC and EITC have potentially ambiguous effects because they may raise the opportunity cost of having children. We argue that the pro-fertility effect is likely to be stronger for women in couples, and provide evidence to support this, consistent with earlier findings from the US. Finally, we have added some support to the growing evidence that effects vary by birth order, and are typically stronger for first births than for subsequent births. One implication of this is that the reforms had an effect on the fertility decisions of households who were not (yet) receiving the benefits. However, McKay, 2000 and 2001, shows that there was a fairly high level of awareness of the new benefits even among those who were not receiving it, which may have come about as a result of the extensive television advertising and/or through word-of-mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Think you are off the mark there. For one three bedroomed home, to run it, pay the bills, taxes, mortgage/rent you would need at least £1200 to cover the costs BOLT BIT HOw would that work? I buy the house but then don't live in it, where would I live instead? You were on a about running a 3 bedroom house. Break down the costs. You seem to be on about running the 3 bedroom house and a worker to live in it, perhaps even a family? You could live at your parents house or in a shared house, and rent out the 3 bedroom house as an hmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 this tax bill could be reduced by 50% by not living in the propertyNo it couldn't. you could request an exemption or two depending on what the property is doing or you could ask for a 10% 2nd homes discount but not living in a property you are responsible for does not mean you get a 50% discount Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.