Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Clegg calls limit on child benefit 'Chinese-style policy' 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... it-chinese

It is ridiculous the amount of social engineering the Tories seem to think they'll get away with.

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:36 pm
Profile
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
Sorry but I fully agree with the Tories on this one. It's not the tax payers job to fund people having child after child after child, in a country (and planet) that's already over populated.
If you object to budget cuts for child allowance, feel free to increase it for the first child or two so the total paid out every year is the same.

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


Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:00 pm
Profile WWW
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
It's the big picture for me - the Tories and the media rely on often unrepresentative stories and each other. Child benefit is far from cut and dry in thousands of cases, so would there be a guarantee those people wouldn't fall through the cracks*? It's all about the wider economy in the long run anyway.

* Just look at recent Team IDS fcuk-ups in the last six months :evil:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:17 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
There are many reasons why this is wrong. The problem is that every policy is done with the objective of "balancing the books" but as these cuts hit they will also impact gross aggregate demand will suffer.

_________________
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


Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:26 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
There are many reasons why this is wrong.

There are probably just as many reason why paying child benefit to every couple for every child, regardless of their own wealth, is wrong.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:10 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
There are many reasons why this is wrong.

There are probably just as many reason why paying child benefit to every couple for every child, regardless of their own wealth, is wrong.

Means testing may only add significant costs to the system. If it did not then it might be worth considering. Though many means tested benefits can cost a lot in administration.

_________________
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


Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:19 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
Sorry but I fully agree with the Tories on this one. It's not the tax payers job to fund people having child after child after child, in a country (and planet) that's already over populated.
If you object to budget cuts for child allowance, feel free to increase it for the first child or two so the total paid out every year is the same.

I agree. The world is already over populated. But there is a problem with the current financing of society in that they have essentially built a pyramid scheme to fund it and it requires ever more people coming into the system to keep it running.

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:49 am
Profile ICQ
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
Amnesia10 wrote:
Means testing may only add significant costs to the system. If it did not then it might be worth considering. Though many means tested enefits can cost a lot in administration.

+1
I hate means testing purely because so much money is wasted on paying pen pushers.

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


Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:46 am
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Means testing may only add significant costs to the system. If it did not then it might be worth considering. Though many means tested enefits can cost a lot in administration.

+1
I hate means testing purely because so much money is wasted on paying pen pushers.

True but overall I am sure you would save money esp with some of the universal benefits like Child / winter fuel allowance etc

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:34 am
Profile
Officially Mrs saspro
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Posts: 4955
Location: on the naughty step
Reply with quote
I just don't get why it's so hard to assess people's financial condition here. It seems most other countries manages to do it fine.
Might have to do with privatising and doing everything on the cheap.


Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:09 am
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
TheFrenchun wrote:
I just don't get why it's so hard to assess people's financial condition here.

It’s not - or it wasn’t in the 1980s when my work involved just that. People who claim for benefits are, on the whole, on their beam end and have little money to speak of. To speak in defence of the “pen pushers” - a lot of the delays we encountered was down to checks etc. that had to be done with outside bodies. For example, someone who had lost a job would need to provide verification of their final payment - if that wasn’t with the claim, then we’d have to check with the company. That was either a phone call or a form, depending on how easy it was to contact them. We’d also need verification of mortgages (if there was one) - again that would be a letter to the bank or a request to the claimant for statements. If that information was not included with the claim form, it slowed stuff down.

When you are dealing with the poorer end of the population, the questions boil down to “do you have a pot to piss in?”.

If you start dealing with more affluent people, then, yes, it started to get more complex as there is money stashed in more than one account, property etc.. Also you’ll start finding yourself talking too accountants who try to bend things around (this happened, especially for self employed people whose business had collapsed).

What took the time was the manly computer we had to use for new claims. Note that there was no benefit to using the computer - it was at that time a glorified adding machine which had no contact with the outside world. Data entered onto the system was never recalled from it. We always went to the paper copies, because it was a paper based system. It was faster to do the claims by hand with pen and paper.

TheFrenchun wrote:
It seems most other countries manages to do it fine.
Might have to do with privatising and doing everything on the cheap.

There seem to have been a humber of IT projects to get the benefits system computerised, and they all seem to have failed in some fashion.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:14 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
paulzolo wrote:
There seem to have been a humber of IT projects to get the benefits system computerised, and they all seem to have failed in some fashion.

Possibly because the UK benefit system (much like the tax system) is massively more complex than it needs to be. Simplify the system then that makes automation much easier.

Crediting the tories is not something I do every day but the universal benefit system is actually a good idea. However IDS is such an utterly clueless idiot that his department are making an absolute pig's ear of it and he seems far too busy trying to make cheap political points in speeches to sort any of it out.


Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:51 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
l3v1ck wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Means testing may only add significant costs to the system. If it did not then it might be worth considering. Though many means tested enefits can cost a lot in administration.

+1
I hate means testing purely because so much money is wasted on paying pen pushers.

True but overall I am sure you would save money esp with some of the universal benefits like Child / winter fuel allowance etc

With the plan to introduce smart meters it might actually be simpler to get the energy companies to administer. For example if you live abroad during the winter like many pensioners you would not be using much energy so not qualify with smart monitoring. It would also stop those who live abroad all the time claiming. Then the energy companies could target the benefit to those energy use is within normal limits so excluding the big mansions, and with a list of customers on set benefits they could reduce the bill directly.

_________________
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 Jan 13, 2014 4:12 pm
Profile
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
I tired to get a smart meter installed last year, but the mobile signal was too poor under my stairs for it to work.

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


Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:02 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 14 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 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.