Should the UK have a 5 children cap for benefits?

[Cyclone]

There is no freemarket and the market is fixed, houseprices and rents are forced higher than they would otherwise be. In some places council housing rents exceed private sector rents.

 

Council housing pays for itself and far more, it generates incomes for councils and the state as a whole.

 

 

 

Rents are being FORCED UP and in some places now exceed private sector rents. They continue to be forced up and place upwards pressure on the PRS.

 

It ain't that simple. The state sets incomes and the rewards for certain skills. If you knew anything about capitalism, you'd understand why land has to be taxed. Adam Smith himself described land monopoly and said why it was a bad thing.

All those economics modules and I know nothing, yet you sit at home unemployed and know more, amazing.

 

Land sits idle, men are unemployed. Land monopoly exists and land ownership is unjust. To add insult to injury, the landless peasants have to pay taxes to enrich the landowners whom are paid for merely owning land.

Most of what you know comes from your fertile communist imagination though.

[chem1st]

All those economics modules and I know nothing, yet you sit at home unemployed and know more, amazing.

 

What economic modules?

 

Have you read, Smith, Keynes, Proudhon, Gessel?

 

I spend a fair part of the year unemployed because it is the rational thing to do. When I turn 25 that will change along with the effective tax rates that make working financially irrational.

 

Besides, it makes no difference whether a man has studied or not, if he works or not for him to point out what is wrong with the system.

 

It's like telling the time, if it is 3 o'clock, and somebody points out that it is 3 o'clock, it matters not if they have a qualification in mathematics, it matters not if they work.

 

So why not address the points instead of making an ad hominem which adds nothing to the discussion.

 

There is no freemarket and the market is fixed, houseprices and rents are forced higher than they would otherwise be. In some places council housing rents exceed private sector rents.

 

Council housing pays for itself and far more, it generates incomes for councils and the state as a whole.

 

 

 

Rents are being FORCED UP and in some places now exceed private sector rents. They continue to be forced up and place upwards pressure on the PRS.

 

It ain't that simple. The state sets incomes and the rewards for certain skills. If you knew anything about capitalism, you'd understand why land has to be taxed. Adam Smith himself described land monopoly and said why it was a bad thing.

 

Most of what you know comes from your fertile communist imagination though.

 

That's bull. I ain't no communist, I want inequality based upon peoples actions and their productivity, I want rid of inequality arising from landed privilege and land monopoly.

 

You deny land monopoly exists, but most economists acknowledge said monopoly including the father of capitalism. They also make the point that it is a very bad thing.

 

If you claim to have read economics, you haven't read much have you.

[Cyclone]

What economic modules?

The ones I did at university.

 

Have you read, Smith, Keynes, Proudhon, Gessel?

No, I wasn't doing an economics degree.

 

I spend a fair part of the year unemployed because it is the rational thing to do.

Developing a set of skills and being employed is the rational thing to do.

When I turn 25 that will change along with the effective tax rates that make working financially irrational.

If you considered working at more than the NMW then it would make sense to work now.

 

Besides, it makes no difference whether a man has studied or not, if he works or not for him to point out what is wrong with the system.

That's true, assuming that the things he says and the points he make are good ones.

 

So why not address the points instead of making an ad hominem which adds nothing to the discussion.

Your points are ridiculous and you constantly repeat them, I get tired of having the same half witted conversation with you over and over again.

 

That's bull. I ain't no communist, I want inequality based upon peoples actions and their productivity, I want rid of inequality arising from landed privilege and land monopoly.

You want something for nothing.

 

You deny land monopoly exists, but most economists acknowledge said monopoly including the father of capitalism. They also make the point that it is a very bad thing.

You don't even understand what the word monopoly means.

 

If you claim to have read economics, you haven't read much have you.

If you say so.

[truman]

So still accepted a benefit!!

 

.

 

Yep I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here but we didn't rely on it to bring the kids up...everyone gets child benefit no matter what your income or circumstances,well until next april anyway..

[chem1st]

Your points are ridiculous and you constantly repeat them, I get tired of having the same half witted conversation with you over and over again.

 

No they are not.

 

Land monopoly exists.

 

You denied that the inverse farm size productivity yield did not exist, when I said that it did. You said that I was wrong, when I was not, and I proved it, you accepted it, fair play.

 

You deny land monopoly. Yet is exists. I prove you wrong, you will eventually accept it when you understand it.

 

I have seemingly read more economics than you, yet you having done a module at uni believe you are an expert.

 

Now for my ad hominem - You've been outsmarted by a doley

[Cyclone]

No they are not.

 

Land monopoly exists.

 

You denied that the inverse farm size productivity yield did not exist, when I said that it did. You said that I was wrong, when I was not, and I proved it, you accepted it, fair play.

Actually I asked you to prove it, after about 10 pages you finally found some evidence which I accepted.

That's how debate works, you make an assertion and it's your job to prove that it's true.

 

You deny land monopoly. Yet is exists. I prove you wrong, you will eventually accept it when you understand it.

Unlikely as you seem to be misusing the word monopoly completely.

 

I have seemingly read more economics than you, yet you having done a module at uni believe you are an expert.

Can you point out where I claim to be an expert? Or are you assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be an expert?

[Teddybare]

Actually I asked you to prove it, after about 10 pages you finally found some evidence which I accepted.

That's how debate works, you make an assertion and it's your job to prove that it's true.

Unlikely as you seem to be misusing the word monopoly completely.

Can you point out where I claim to be an expert? Or are you assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be an expert?

 

Handbags at 10 paces.

 

mo·nop·o·ly/məˈnäpəlē/

Noun:

The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".

 

 

 

Surely monopoly is the correct word to describe a situation where the majority of land is owned/controlled by a select few individuals.

Maybe land cartel is a better way of describing it.

(I didn't do any English modules at Uni so I can't be sure:))

Pretty obvious what he was getting at though I think.

[anywebsite]

Child benefit has two rates one for first child and one for each addition child. I believe this should be income linked as not everyone NEEDS child benefit but low earners do.

 

It's actually cheaper to pay child benefit to everybody than to do any kind of means testing to make sure that it only goes to low earners, the means testing costs a lot of money & child benefit is quite a low amount.

[anywebsite]

Handbags at 10 paces.

 

mo·nop·o·ly/məˈnäpəlē/

Noun:

The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".

 

 

 

Surely monopoly is the correct word to describe a situation where the majority of land is owned/controlled by a select few individuals.

Maybe land cartel is a better way of describing it.

(I didn't do any English modules at Uni so I can't be sure:))

Pretty obvious what he was getting at though I think.

 

Land monopoly has a slightly different definition, wikipedia explains it well...

 

A land monopoly occurs when an entity or a class is able to corner the market on land. Historically, there have been many complaints of land monopoly in the United Kingdom.[1] According to Winston Churchill, "Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_monopoly

 

It doesn't have to be one person that controls all the land, it can be a class of people, or another entity. I was also taught in economics that you only need about 25% of the market to have control over it & have the ability to set prices, which is a monopoly. You don't need the majority of the supply, just a much larger percentage than any competitors. A cartel can be described as a monopoly if it's a strong cartel, all the members of the cartel are co-operating & acting as one.

 

It's always been a problem in the UK, maybe less so than it was 200 years ago, but it's still a big problem, there are still landed gentry. There are still a class of people that inherited huge amounts of land/property & live off the rents & CAP subsidies. Inheritance tax has helped to reduce the problem over the last 100 years, but I think I could give a good argument for inheritance tax to be increased so it had more effect.

[Rupert_Baehr]

No .