Cyclone Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 The state also gives pensioners a pension. I mean, what have they done to deserve that? Worked all their life? Means testing small value benefits costs more than it can save. It's simply not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liam1412 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 What your post demonstrates more than anything is that the system doesn't work. Your friend got benefits for the children before the unfortunate incident occurred, whilst her husband worked and could be expected to financially support his family. The solution isn't to give a blanket benefit for everybody but to gear the benefit system so it only arrives at those that need it most. I have no problem knowing that our tax money is used for your friend in her situation, I have got a problem knowing that it is used for people I know that are earning a pretty solid income and have five children. They safe the benefits for the kids up so they can send them to Uni, why should they get that advantage over people that genuinely need it? Do you have any evidence that suggests that this kind of thing happens on a large scale though? This just demonstrate how good a job of branding all benefits claimants as work shy scum, or thieves the tories are doing. I don't know the exact figures but this article about how the Joseph Rowntree Foundation caught IDS out as a blatant liar, gives some indication of the real "scale of the problem". http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths ---------- Post added 17-12-2013 at 15:01 ---------- I think it is appropriate as part of an overall package to change the way benefits work. As WeX said: Why should those with fewer children pay for those that choose to have more than 2. Having children is a choice after all. If you can't afford them, don't have them. What frequently gets left out in discussions like this is that the government is also lifting the tax-free allowance of all our incomes to 10K. Like this government or not, they are putting a stop to a culture whereby the population can expect to hold their hand up and where working is appropriately rewarded. Working isn't appropriately rewarded though until you get some way up the food chain. The cost of living is larger than the amount you can earn until you are either skilled/qualified, or in a management role. Id say a supervisor wage in a call centre, shop or similar wouldn't even cover the basic cost of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 What thing? Claiming child benefit? Until recently it was a universal benefit, there was no scam involved. Even now, if both partners individually earn no more than 50k then full CB is available. The household income could be 98k and CB would still be available. That's a pretty solid income isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liam1412 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 And I only just realised they were both your posts I replied to TZ. I'm not a stalker honest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza80 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 As the saying goes "if you want to be safe and you want to be randy then always keep......a...... condom handy" Perhaps something to be considered in future if benefits are to be cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 And I only just realised they were both your posts I replied to TZ. I'm not a stalker honest! Quoting this as it is shorter Imagine the following situation: Everything you earn up to what is considered a decent living wage is tax exempt, in exchange we get rid of all benefits that apply to working people and seriously scrutinise all other benefits. Tax above the living wage starts at a higher point than what the rate is now, this is to compensate for loss of revenue. People that can genuinely not work (disability, age) get higher benefits, people that become unemployed get up to a 100% living wage for six months (or a year or whatever else is feasible) until they have found a new job so they don't fall off the cliff when unemployment hits. This means people are responsible themselves for how they earn and spend their money, a far healthier situation than what we have now, which is open to abuse. I haven't run maths on the above, so don't scrutinise it, what I am saying is that the current system is not appropriate and needs a complete overhaul rather than this tinkering in the margins that seems to be going on all the time and takes years to have an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 What really gets on my peanuts regarding this is that the state is also providing free money to pensioners in the shape of a free bus-pass and winter fuel allowance. Fine for those that need it, but my father in law sure doesn't (he donates the fuel allowance to a local homeless shelter) and there are plenty other well-off pensioners that just take it 'because they worked all their life for it'. Blanket benefits are silly, they make no sense at all and the only reason they exist is to create a veiled sense of social state whilst there are other areas that need the money a lot more. (Schools, libraries, NHS, social care, sure start centers etc. etc.) but diverting the blanket benefits to those areas upsets voters. Easy solutions.... Child benefit moves to new regime for births after the 1st Jan 2014. All previous arrangements honoured to prevent sudden problems. New children after jan 1sy come under the new rules viz... Claims are to be made by mothers only. Benefit is universally applied regardless of income (it's cheaper to pay than police it that way). Benefit is withdrawn from personal allowance once you hit a generous income level - say for every £3 over £25000 you earn you lose £1 off your tax code. Not sure what income figure that should be set at. If you have a baby and the next one is twins, then you can claim three lots. (similarly if first baby is actually triplets etc... you can still get them) Winter fuel allowance - ditto - if you have enough income as a pensioner to pay tax then the WFA is taxable income, and it also gets withdrawn at a high income level from the personal allowance. That's all easy to implement and doesn't adversley affect people if the thresholds are set at appropriate levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I'll take the same stance I have with the bedroom tax, nothing against it as long as it's brought in and not applied respectively (which unfortunately the bedroom tax has been) So, for example, if they say this is going to apply for any new births Jan 1st 2015 onwards that's ok to me, but if they apply it to older children then that's wrong. Agree wholeheartedly. Except I'd say if it was introduced in this manner, it would be a long overdue necessary move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Claims are to be made by mothers only. In practical terms there may be problems if the father has custody. It also sends out a message that fathers are second class parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 We're becoming Chinese. People can still have as many children as they like. As long as they can afford them. That sounds sensible and prudent to me. It's not the business of the taxpayer to subsidize reckless procreation by the feckless. The last 20 years have shown us what kind of chavscum this kind of reverse eugenics produces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.