Mister M Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 OK, the cap at 2 children maximum, people have asked "what about people who have worked and suddenly found themselves out of work?" The answer is this. The benefit system would be flexible and look into each case in turn, we would need people employed in the benefit system who would judge each case on merits and decide accordingly, so for example case 1 Overseas migrant into the country, never contributed has 5 kids and needs accomodation as well as money to maintain a lifestyle case 2 male or female aged 25 (regardless of race) worked for 7 years, paid tax and national insurance into the system.. Recently been made redundant, fully intends to return to work but is struggling finacially at present case 3 layabout, refuses work, antisocial behavior, breeds kids like a rabbit on viagra, in the pub or on the x-box Now, you have to look at each case in turn and decide where best the money would be spent. If you have 3 cases like these people, I would allocate money (8k) and perhaps a little extra. Case 2, society would have to decide if allowing them to lose everything benefits the country in the long run, perhaps a defered loan until they get back on their feet to be repaid at a very low rate of interest It sounds like you'd only want this system if the benefit panel agreed with your ideas. And the above examples are rather extreme.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I agree with your comments, but I did laugh at number 3! 'Women should stay at home freeing up jobs'! Jobs for whom? For the immigrants that the OP is clearly in favour of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 By the way just watch all the benefit scroungers come on now and give it some,lol.just ignore the stick your going to get,those who dont pay in should take nothing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 That post by me was a silly comment, I retracted it as I don't mean it Sorry, it's there in Black n White...no u-turns as this loses you credibility. Not that you have any to start with but some are warming to you and you must treat them with respect and consistency. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Don't agree with the 3rd one I'm afraid. Another option is this The minimum income guarantee - for a full time worker a guarantee of a minimum income of £250 a week for a full time worker (part time worker would be £125 a week). Lets say someone earns £220 a week, the state would top them up to £250 by giving £30, someone earning £190 each week would get £60 etc..... This would be funded by a cut to benefits to people who refuse work, foregn aid would also be cut to fund this. There would also be the raising of the tax threashold to £12000 a year so work always pays Cuts to drug addition programmes as well as alcohol abuse victims - this money would be diverted to people suffering illnesses that are not lifestyle choices (illnesses through sheer bad luck, cancer dementia etc....) The retirement age would be cut back to 60, which would free up jobs for our young. So in effect, instead of funding young people to not work, we now fund old people to not work (and the young would pay taxes - on earnings after £12000 per annum -) This money would allow people to retire at 60. People in specialised jobs who are 55, would then be given a youth who they would train up so they can do the job when they reach 60. Money would be cut from the FE system, and diverted into training young people to do real jobs. For example, a plumber approaching retirement would be given funding to teach up to 5 young people a trade, passing on his skills. The young people would be learning on the job. Accepted they would not get a nice qualification, but they would gain hands on trade skills which they could then use for paid work in the future. Grammer schools to be funded and only the best (regardless of background) be given scolarships. The current system of favouring the rich is not fair (internships - not good if you don't have rich parents), good schools in good areas and lets not forget private schools for the truely rich. But you do know that by cutting drug and alcohol programmes you would potentially increase the crime rate. Lots of research points to a genetic component to alcoholism, which although doesn't reduce their choices, does make them victims of circumstance to an extent too. Some people would like to carry on working past retirement age, however your ideas on apprenticeships and grammars are worthy of consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Sorry, it's there in Black n White...no u-turns as this loses you credibility. Not that you have any to start with but some are warming to you and you must treat them with respect and consistency. :hihi: Oh I don't know, nothing wrong with admitting you've changed your mind! But when you change your mind as often as Cameron has, you stop taking him seriously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Money we spend on foregn aid would go to the elderly. Petrol cut by 50p a litre, which would give car owners/familys additional spare cash to spend in the economy, more money in businesses means more money for businesses - the chancellor gets more money because the business has greater takings and pays more tax as a consequqnce. As it stands now, a huge chunk of peoples spare cash goes on petrol/fuel - money which cannot be spent elsewhere Fuel duty raises nearly £30billion a year. Much of this wouldn't be raised. Where would you make up the shortfall? The way you say business will pay much more in tax implies that the fuel-cost savings aren't being passed on to the customer. I'm sure shareholders would like this, but I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Fuel duty raises nearly £30billion a year. Much of this wouldn't be raised. Where would you make up the shortfall? The way you say business will pay much more in tax implies that the fuel-cost savings aren't being passed on to the customer. I'm sure shareholders would like this, but I wouldn't. Well said ash, that's the problem with knee jerk policies, they rarely address the problems of modern society from a 3 dimensional point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Oh I don't know, nothing wrong with admitting you've changed your mind! But when you change your mind as often as Cameron has, you stop taking him seriously! :hihi: He didn't change his mind, he admitted to a retard statement, but hell, you go and vote for him. A u-turn in an hour or so takes some beating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Well said ash, that's the problem with knee jerk policies, they rarely address the problems of modern society from a 3 dimensional point of view. Especially when you knock policies out in adverts time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.