Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
David Cameron indicates universal benefits face curbs 
Author Message
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm
Posts: 289
Reply with quote
bobbdobbs wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
We're onto the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have them' argument again, aren't we...

Jon


No, I think were on the "benefits should be there as a safety net to ensure a minimum standard of living" argument and those earning by any measure a good salary should not be in receipt of benefits.


OK, so surely this should be based on household income.

88K earned & still getting the benefit?

Earn 45K as a single parent .. benefit not paid. Fair?

Didge

_________________
eurotech


Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:32 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
didgeman wrote:
bobbdobbs wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
We're onto the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have them' argument again, aren't we...

Jon


No, I think were on the "benefits should be there as a safety net to ensure a minimum standard of living" argument and those earning by any measure a good salary should not be in receipt of benefits.


OK, so surely this should be based on household income.

88K earned & still getting the benefit?

Earn 45K as a single parent .. benefit not paid. Fair?

Didge

Fair.. nope.
easier to implement.. probably.
They should as you pointed out, do it on household income. Any combined income over 44K get nada, zilch, diddly squat.

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:50 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 6580
Location: Getting there
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
We're onto the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have them' argument again, aren't we...

Jon

What's wrong with that argument?

_________________
Oliver Foggin - iPhone Dev

JJW009 wrote:
The count will go up until they stop counting. That's the way counting works.


Doodle Sub!
Game Of Life

Image Image


Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:19 pm
Profile WWW
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
bobbdobbs wrote:
No, I think were on the "benefits should be there as a safety net to ensure a minimum standard of living" argument and those earning by any measure a good salary should not be in receipt of benefits.

Yes bit what is a good salary. Many backbenchers actually qualified for family credit. And they are in the top 5% of income.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:21 pm
Profile
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm
Posts: 289
Reply with quote
Fogmeister wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
We're onto the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have them' argument again, aren't we...

Jon

What's wrong with that argument?


There is nothing wrong with that argument (except maybe you'll find that many 'middle income families will not have kids - only those who sit on their arses all day doing F-All and claiming every benefit known to man will be able to 'afford' to - This will lead to kids being in 1 of 2 camps - Chinless wonders & Pikey chavs. Is that an ideal society?).

Also, many families that could just about afford it under the last government will not be able to under the current [LIFTED].

You can't exactly send them back if you find your income is cut .

Didge

_________________
eurotech


Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:35 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
Fogmeister wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
We're onto the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have them' argument again, aren't we...

Jon

What's wrong with that argument?

Unfortunately since our pensions are based on the taxes from future generations, then without children the taxes and savings on the current generation will have to go up much higher.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:43 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:06 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: IoW
Reply with quote
didgeman wrote:
Fogmeister wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
We're onto the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have them' argument again, aren't we...

Jon

What's wrong with that argument?


There is nothing wrong with that argument (except maybe you'll find that many 'middle income families will not have kids - only those who sit on their arses all day doing F-All and claiming every benefit known to man will be able to 'afford' to - This will lead to kids being in 1 of 2 camps - Chinless wonders & Pikey chavs. Is that an ideal society?).

Also, many families that could just about afford it under the last government will not be able to under the current [LIFTED].

You can't exactly send them back if you find your income is cut .

Didge

As far as benefits go, kids are a 18 year commitment. Are we to get out the crystal ball just to check if we can still afford to raise them five, ten, fifteen years down the line?

So, yes, there is a lot wrong with the " if you can't afford kids.." argument.

I'm no fan of the Chav Baby-Factory benefits scammers, but a sheepdip approach will do much more harm than good.

Basing benefit on household income makes sense to me, although there will be the argument that most people's income has risen to that level over time and small incremental increases tend to be soaked up, leaving the very real feeling that you're not all that well off despite earning £70k a year. That argument is [LIFTED] too, if you're pulling in that kind of money it must be a lot easier to tighten your belt, than it is for someone earning £20K.

_________________
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!


Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:34 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5836
Reply with quote
didgeman wrote:
Also, many families that could just about afford it under the last government will not be able to under the current [LIFTED].

Does that argument stand up though?

If you're on £45k, you're earning more than twice the average salary. Therefore you can afford it.

_________________
Jim

Image


Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:43 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 6580
Location: Getting there
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
didgeman wrote:
Also, many families that could just about afford it under the last government will not be able to under the current [LIFTED].

Does that argument stand up though?

If you're on £45k, you're earning more than twice the average salary. Therefore you can afford it.

My boss at work is moaning because she won't have the extra money to put into her son's university fund.

I reckon she earns at least 3 times what I earan and both her kids (a son and a daughter) go to private school which she pays ridiculous fees for, she has a nice big expensive house and three cars in the household and has just splashed out over £5000 on a private number plate for one of them.

How can she complain about £20 a week!?!?

_________________
Oliver Foggin - iPhone Dev

JJW009 wrote:
The count will go up until they stop counting. That's the way counting works.


Doodle Sub!
Game Of Life

Image Image


Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:58 pm
Profile WWW
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm
Posts: 289
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
didgeman wrote:
Also, many families that could just about afford it under the last government will not be able to under the current [LIFTED].

Does that argument stand up though?

If you're on £45k, you're earning more than twice the average salary. Therefore you can afford it.


Well now that depends doesn't it.

45K a year in london is a VERY meagre salary for a family of 4 to live off.

45K a year, in say Stoke, is a very healthy salary for that same family. It all depends on you necessary outgoings.

23k a year may be average but is doesn't take into account cost of housing / employing tradesmen (ie how much an hour for a mechanic / plumber etc in central London .. how much in scotland / northern ireland / northern england.)

Question .. if you divide your income by 4 .. (4 people in my family) would it still seem adequate?

Didge,

_________________
eurotech


Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:29 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
Fogmeister wrote:
My boss at work is moaning because she won't have the extra money to put into her son's university fund.

I reckon she earns at least 3 times what I earan and both her kids (a son and a daughter) go to private school which she pays ridiculous fees for, she has a nice big expensive house and three cars in the household and has just splashed out over £5000 on a private number plate for one of them.

How can she complain about £20 a week!?!?


Strikes me that she's the exact category of person that these cuts are aimed at.

In related news, Osbourne has also introduced a cap on the maximum amount of benefit any one family can claim, which should help with those that pop out sprogs as a form of income generation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11463435

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:30 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
Why don't they halve it?
£10 per parent rather than £20 per couple. If one parent earns over £40k, they lose that £10. It they both earn over £40k, they lose both lots of £10.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:41 pm
Profile WWW
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
Why don't they halve it?
£10 per parent rather than £20 per couple. If one parent earns over £40k, they lose that £10. It they both earn over £40k, they lose both lots of £10.

A little too complex for civil servants to implement. :D

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:04 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
l3v1ck wrote:
Why don't they halve it?
£10 per parent rather than £20 per couple. If one parent earns over £40k, they lose that £10. It they both earn over £40k, they lose both lots of £10.

A little too complex for civil servants to implement. :D


Ah yes, reminds of the famous Find Arse with Roadmap Act 1927.

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:14 pm
Profile WWW
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm
Posts: 289
Reply with quote
Source: http://www.conservatives.com
Speech
George Osborne: We will lead the economy out of crisis
Rt Hon George Osborne, Tuesday, October 6 2009

"We will never mend our broken public finances unless we start to fix our broken society.

The cost of broken families and broken communities is paid for by every hard working taxpayer.

That is why we are going to support marriage in the tax and benefit system.

That is why, as you heard yesterday, we are going to devote an enormous effort to help the unemployed and get Britain working.

Along with our reforms to incapacity benefit, we also have to take a realistic look at the benefits the rest of society receives.

We will preserve child benefit, winter fuel payments and free TV licenses. They are valued by millions."

Nice one George.

Didge,

_________________
eurotech


Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:15 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.