Politics So its labor next erection then?

Jeros

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
1,983
Tories are burning their bridges again.

People don't seem happy.

Laughing my ass off myself.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
They are all dicks but people on decent wages moaning about the loss of a benefit can go jump off a bridge. If you can't afford to have horrible little scrotes then don't fucking have them.
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
Jeros - what are you actually referring to with burnt bridges?
 

Punishment

Resident Freddy
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
8,604
50k seems like a more than reasonable cut off point, over here we have been trying to get means testing for ages for child benifit
 

Aada

Part of the furniture
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
6,716
Someone earning 60k a year should not be getting child benefits so they can put it away in their savings like they probably fucking do or using it to pay for their car service etc.

60k a year and moaning because they are missing out on about £80 a month if they have 1 child? You are having a fucking laugh.

Best thing that has happened for years.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Ukip actually..until they get in power and fuck it all up
 

Deebs

Chief Arsewipe
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 1997
Messages
9,076,920
Child benefit should have been scrapped years ago. As for the Tories, they are simply paying back/reducing the debt the Labour Government put this Country in.
 

soze

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
12,508
Every benefit should be means tested. A benefit should be to bring you off the poverty line not to top up your Au-pairs pay packet.

I thought even after a lot of very painful very unpopular cuts designed to shrink the national debt but it is still getting bigger?
 

Poag

m00?
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
2,411
Bring back to work houses!

Compete with China for bare minimum fabrication facilities!
 

Deebs

Chief Arsewipe
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 1997
Messages
9,076,920
Every benefit should be means tested. A benefit should be to bring you off the poverty line not to top up your Au-pairs pay packet.

I thought even after a lot of very painful very unpopular cuts designed to shrink the national debt but it is still getting bigger?
To start paying back the debt we need to reduce the deficit first which is what all these cuts are about reducing.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Deebs said:
To start paying back the debt we need to reduce the deficit first which is what all these cuts are about reducing.

It also needs an economy thats growing though - I personally think the current plan isnt working.

Serious infrastructure upgrades should be the plan - stimulates economy and will more than pay for itself over time.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,398
A few things:

  • The UK child allowance was barely worth it anyway (In Ireland its a different matter, its a material benefit). Having said that, the UK has a terrible child-care system that actually harms economic growth (as it reduces economic mobility).
  • Means testing benefits ends up costing far more than means testing is worth, especially in large economies. You just end up creating yet another public sector bureaucracy. Better to use the existing setup to audit instead.
  • Anyone who thinks £60K is a lot of money is an idiot. Or living in 1957.
  • Austerity alone is not the answer to reducing the debt. Its been proven time and again that stimulus along with prudent spending is the better option (and God knows, the UK has plenty of worn-out infrastructure to fix), but public spending is anathema to the Tories and it will prove their undoing. Having said that, a Milliband-led Labour isn't exactly an enticing prospect either.
 

andeh

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
156
Every benefit should be means tested. A benefit should be to bring you off the poverty line not to top up your Au-pairs pay packet.

I thought even after a lot of very painful very unpopular cuts designed to shrink the national debt but it is still getting bigger?

In reality, few of the proposed cuts in public sector spending (excluding infrastructure) have actually materialised. Social security & health spending equates to approximately 46% of government expenditure and with health 'ringfenced' and to now very minor cuts to social security it is no surprise that the deficit isn't falling quickly enough (with national debt increasing more quickly as a result). The fact of the matter is that spending on social security (including pensions) needs to be cut back significantly, the government that takes this up will make themselves nigh unelectable, so they'll be a few token cuts but nothing truly significant in this term.

The real issue is that tax receipts have never exceeded ~38% of GDP, yet government expenditure rarely falls below 40% (it is now ~47%, with tax receipts of ~36%), the one period in which it was sustained below this was 96-00, where it could be argued that although Blair was in power, the economic policy was very much that of Major's government (the implementation of a new govt's policy takes years). Once Labour had 'bedded in', it romped beyond 40% and has stayed there ever since.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Who gives a fuck who gets in next? I mean, does anyone really think that the political parties will make any meaningful changes?

Our political system is here to keep the status quo. Period.

As for the "national debt". Rofflecopter, tbfh. Bent economic system is bent.
 

Zenith.UK

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,913
I have to disagree with you on a couple of points DaGaffer.
The UK child allowance was barely worth it anyway (In Ireland its a different matter, its a material benefit). Having said that, the UK has a terrible child-care system that actually harms economic growth (as it reduces economic mobility).
It's better than nothing if you're on less than the average wage. It's not meant to make life luxurious. It's meant to make it that bit easier to put food on the table for your family.
Means testing benefits ends up costing far more than means testing is worth, especially in large economies. You just end up creating yet another public sector bureaucracy. Better to use the existing setup to audit instead.
Completely agree
Anyone who thinks £60K is a lot of money is an idiot. Or living in 1957.
Now this one I have to disagree with you. £60k is more than double my household income and we would have *no* problems on that level of income.
Austerity alone is not the answer to reducing the debt. Its been proven time and again that stimulus along with prudent spending is the better option (and God knows, the UK has plenty of worn-out infrastructure to fix), but public spending is anathema to the Tories and it will prove their undoing. Having said that, a Milliband-led Labour isn't exactly an enticing prospect either.
Absolutely agree about the stimulus. Not so sure about your analysis of the political groups.

To come back to the point of the OP, I would never EVER vote Labour. It's either the least worst alternative or spoiling my ballot paper.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
60K is more than enough to afford kids, if you can't manage on 60k then you are clearly an idiot.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
60K is more than enough to afford kids, if you can't manage on 60k then you are clearly an idiot.

I agree.

My sister lives in one of the nicest parts of the wirral, Caldy. You can see Rafa Benitez' house from her garden. Her husband is a partner in a large law firm.

It makes me sick when she says she can't afford things and that she's worried about money.

People with cash lose all perspective. It's why the rich are totally unsuitable for government.
 

Vae

Resident Freddy
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,181
One effect of removing this child benefit is that it will make the people effected less likely to have children whereas there's only encouragement for the people at the lower end of the social/financial spectrum to churn out some more to receive more benefit. So you will see more of the demographic change you're currently seeing. In other words the chavs are going to take over and the country is going to rely on immigrants to fund future pensions and social security. Except that we're also going to cut down on immigration so no-one will be left to fund future pension liabilities. Oh well everything's going to hell.

And speaking as someone directly affected by this change it is annoying, both the way it has been implemented (through the tax system breaking the system of taxpayer confidentiality which has been established since the 1870's or so) and the fact that is affects dis-proportionally households with 1 high income and 1 low or no income but other households with 2 incomes under the limit can end up earning much more. Other issues it fails to take into account are regional living costs (London particularly being that much more expensive) and it also causes issues in situations where a high earner is living with someone who has kids but is not their father/mother and they also have kids by a previous partner and other similar scenarios.

I bet this limit won't rise in line with inflation either so other people (who are probably now the ones claiming that the "rich" don't need this benefit) will be gradually dragged into this net as well.

I carefully calculated and planned our finances when assessing if we could afford to have a child and we will be able to cope but it does make it that much more difficult. Other families in a similar situation with more kids will be worse affected with marginal tax rates potentially passing 100% in some situations! With the cost of childcare being so high as well it makes the decision to have children that much more difficult.

Also Raven was so close to becoming the first person on my ignore list which is saying something given that even Toht, Scouse and Wazz haven't managed to achieve that!
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
One effect of removing this child benefit is that it will make the people effected less likely to have children

Stopped reading at this sentence*.

No it won't. It'll just make their lives harder. The vast majority of people who want kids will have kids.


As for people on 60 grand. What's it like £20 a week? x52 weeks? So, a grand a kid? If you're on 60 grand you won't notice it.


*read the rest now ;)
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,398
60K is more than enough to afford kids, if you can't manage on 60k then you are clearly an idiot.

Average mortgage in London = £1240
Average cost of childcare in London = £5668 pa per child, or £944 per month for two kids
Average Council Tax London per month £100 approx
Average Domestic Bills (water, utilities, insurances etc.) per month = £355
Net Income on 60K (with no pension) = £3451

Net = 3451-2639 = £812 per month. For clothes, oyster cards, cars, food etc. Yeah, £60K is a fortune. If you live in the cheaper parts of the UK, and if you have relatives for childcare or if you completely remove one of the potential income earners from the equation to stay at home (which penalises you on tax, see Vae's point above) then yes, 60K is OK, but in big cities? Not so much.
 

Nate

FH is my second home
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
7,454
Vae, go sit on 60k+ and try to relate yourself to the people who earn 15k. Absolute joke.
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
Average mortgage in London = £1240
Average cost of childcare in London = £5668 pa per child, or £944 per month for two kids
Average Council Tax London per month £100 approx
Average Domestic Bills (water, utilities, insurances etc.) per month = £355
Net Income on 60K (with no pension) = £3451

Net = 3451-2639 = £812 per month. For clothes, oyster cards, cars, food etc. Yeah, £60K is a fortune. If you live in the cheaper parts of the UK, and if you have relatives for childcare or if you completely remove one of the potential income earners from the equation to stay at home (which penalises you on tax, see Vae's point above) then yes, 60K is OK, but in big cities? Not so much.

Average mortgage? That's massively skewed by the £4m house brigade. Just live at least 10 miles from central and you'll find you can live for far less. It's shit, but that's life. £60k is significantly over the national average, it's plenty to live on. You don't HAVE to live in an expensive part of London.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981

Your example is a single parent with two kids in London. Nice pick.

Also:
sit on 60k+ and try to relate yourself to the people who earn 15k.

This.

The people on shit all is what child benefit should be for. Not those who are earning more than twice the national average.


The average joe wage is indeed a pittance. 60k is NOT a lot of money. But as long as these people don't seem to care about those on a lot less than them....

"Doley scum scroungers - they should be forced to work minimum-wage jobs - it costs me in my taxes for gods sake. What? Don't you dare take my child benefit away - I'm only on 60k ffs!!!!!!"

I find it hard to be concerned for the loss of a grand for the (in relative terms) "financially comfortable".


Of course, I'd be more supportive if we ran a different economic system....

;)
 
Last edited:

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,398
Stopped reading at this sentence*.

No it won't. It'll just make their lives harder. The vast majority of people who want kids will have kids.


As for people on 60 grand. What's it like £20 a week? x52 weeks? So, a grand a kid? If you're on 60 grand you won't notice it.


*read the rest now ;)

Absolutely not true. Fiscally responsible people delay. And then delay some more. Its no coincidence that the average age for a first pregnancy has gone up by a decade in the last 30 years, and that's even accounting for all the so-called gymslip mothers and the underclass etc.

Vae, go sit on 60k+ and try to relate yourself to the people who earn 15k. Absolute joke.

If you're a family of four on 60K you're on less per person than a single person on 15K. Besides, the comparison has to be to the average household income, which is 40K; comparing it someone on 15K is fatuous because most people aren't.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,398
Average mortgage? That's massively skewed by the £4m house brigade. Just live at least 10 miles from central and you'll find you can live for far less. It's shit, but that's life. £60k is significantly over the national average, it's plenty to live on. You don't HAVE to live in an expensive part of London.

No its not. The "4M" brigade tend to pay off their mortgages thanks to their fat bonuses. I had a much bigger mortgage than £1240 when I lived in London for a quite average 3-bed end of terrace in W12. Hardly Mayfair.

Your example is a single parent with two kids in London. Nice pick.

No, my example is a household income of 60K with two kids.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Absolutely not true. Fiscally responsible people delay. And then delay some more. Its no coincidence that the average age for a first pregnancy has gone up by a decade in the last 30 years, and that's even accounting for all the so-called gymslip mothers and the underclass etc

That's a feature of education, not wealth.

As educational levels around the world increase people opt to not have children. Why? Because there's so many other things to do with your life. It's quite obvious the demographic having the largest number of children at an early age, even just in Britain, are the poor, uneducated chavs.

They have them because they lack the gumption to go out and do their own thing.


I've many educated friends who've left off having kids until it becomes a "now or never" choice. They're having a ball with their well-educated lives and they don't want a pink, whinging, permanent-attention sick and poo-bag to ruin the good thing they've got going.

Then they have kids and start complaining about how their disposable income has gone. Well, duh. No shit. That was your fucking choice.

The chavs on the other hand get up the duff in their late teens and early twenties.


If you're a family of four on 60K you're on less per person than a single person on 15K. Besides, the comparison has to be to the average household income, which is 40K; comparing it someone on 15K is fatuous because most people aren't.

If you're a family of four on 60k then you've chosen to have kids - unlike the single person on 15k. You can get to fuck if you think that your kids aren't going to change your disposable income. You can't have it both ways - kids AND the disposable income to have an amazing social life.

What you certainly can't expect (any more) is to have taxpayer-funded handouts because you've taken the decision to support children.

Parents CHOOSE to have kids. With that is the lack of money that kids bring.


The single guy on an average wage pays tax - like anyone else - but doesn't have kids. Why should HE pay for YOUR kids?
 

Gumbo

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,361
We're a family with one child where we both work and bring in between us between £35k and £45k a year depending on how well the year has gone. (£35k the last 2 years, perhaps even less this year depending on how the next few months go).

The child benefit pays for most of, but not all of 1 weekly shop per month. It makes a big difference to us.

(I am aware of the slight irony of me starting a poker thread seconds before typing this, but it's the big picture you should focus on here)

We live a frugal life, we go out about once every 2 months, and spend less than £50 for the night when we do. Our daughter is clothed from charity shops and ebay. We are going on holiday next week (second time in 6 years) but that has been entirely paid for by Clare scouring car boots and charity shops for bargains which she then sells on ebay. I'm very proud of her for managing this, she's worked bloody hard on it and we wouldn't be going otherwise.

I pay an enormous amount in taxes, both directly and indirectly. I see people who make no effort getting handouts for doing nothing. I am not the tiniest bit ashamed to get child benefit. It's nice to get something back for the masses which we put in.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
What I don't get is that a couple that both earn £59,999 will get child benefit, whilst a single parent who earns £60,000 will not.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
No, my example is a household income of 60K with two kids.

Then bitch can go out and earn a living, eh?

60k suddenly becomes, say, 75k and their money worries are significantly alleviated.


What's that? She wants to be a stay-at-home-mum? Awwwwww. Tough shit. Try telling that to a family with a household income of 30k.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom