Politics So its labor next erection then?

[Raven]

Again it comes down to living within your means. I state again, if you cannot afford to live off 60k a year then you are either retarded, living in the wrong place or both.

Benefits should not be given out to people so that they can afford more shiny things, it should be given to those who cannot afford to feed and clothe their children, let alone afford a couple of nice holidays every year. If you are on 60k a year and can't afford to look after your children then you need to seriously look at what your money is going on, where you are living and your lifestyle...or not have them in the first place!

My mum brought two kids up on a fuck load less that 60k, not even a 3rd of 60k by today's equivalent. She managed by not having to have the latest shit and being a responsible adult.

As for the poor folk with £900 a month to live after bills, mortgage and childcare. My heart fucking bleeds, it really does.

Oh wait, there are people surviving on less than that before the bills come out.

 

[Scouse]

I pay an enormous amount in taxes, both directly and indirectly

So does the single guy on an average wage.

Why should he help people with kids?

I see people who make no effort getting handouts for doing nothing

Yep. And I suspect, like the vast majority of people getting child benefit, that you don't really give a shit about them and would expect them to take a minimum-wage job.

Even when that minimum-wage job will cost them 40 hours a week for pretty much what they get on handouts....


The fact is - the entire economic system is bent and skewed in favour of the very rich. We all go to work, break our backs, struggle to bring up families (even if we're on 60k), have all the stress, disease and heartache that goes with it for one reason.

To keep the very rich very rich - whilst they spend their time at posh parties laughing at the poor - i.e. all of us who aren't stupidly rich.



But love capitalism people. LOVE it.

You fools

 

[DaGaffer]

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.

Since education and wealth are closely correlated we're arguing semantics. Fact is, people who put off having kids are usually doing it for wealth related reasons. Case in point, when I was with my ex-wife we put off trying for kids repeatedly because she and I both worked in industries with high mobility; she typically worked for maybe two years at a company before moving on, which meant she'd have to wait a year before being eligible for maternity cover. Plus, we waited until we could afford something more substantial than a 1 1/2 bedroomed flat. By the time we could afford kids, we no longer liked the look of each other (which worked out fine in the long run, but now I'm an "old" Dad). Our experience wasn't uncommon, and I hardly know anyone who had kids in their twenties.

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.

I don't think anyone expects kids to be cheap. I do think people who don't have them have completely unrealistic views on what kids actually cost.

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.

As above. No-one does. I'm just flat out disagreeing about the level certain people on here think is "wealthy".

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

Because we live in a society. He pays for everyone's kids because his taxes go on education. In civilised countries he helps pay for maternity (and paternity) care, and maybe decent public childcare, because it helps create a more economically active workforce. He pays because those kids will be paying taxes when he's relying on the NHS for oncology or meals on wheels when he's old.

For a communist you really don't get the whole means and ability thing do you?

 

[Gumbo]

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.

The problem with that though is the cost of childcare.

When my daughter was born and Clare returned to work her wages almost, but not quite, covered the cost of childcare. There is no state help with childcare costs until the kid is 3, and then it's only for 15 hours per week.

Clare came back to work, because we're a small family business and we couldn't employ anyone else to do her job who would swallow the odd hours, up and down requirements for lowish pay. Otherwise she might aswell have stayed at home.

Yes our choice to have a child, but are you really suggesting that only the super rich who can afford it should spawn? That's going to make for an odd society in the future and would that be the sort that you would really want?

 

[Nate]

I'm just going to put random numbers in this post and call it fact.

The average household income is £1/year + 4x12 Krispy Kreme Classic Iced Donuts
A plumber walks 3000 miles per year and doesn't need a van
Tony Blair killed 500 million flying demon monkeys during his research in his biography
A duck has 10 little teeth and 1 really big one
The average household income is £5million/year +2x12 Krispy Kreme Anyone you like Donuts
90% of the male population pay mortgage over 5million yen.
A train travelling at 90mph leaves Basildon at 03:33 bound for Kowloon, ten minutes later a cat licks his balls. Which will reach their final destination first?

 

[Gumbo]

So does the single guy on an average wage.

Why should he help people with kids?

For the same reason that my taxes pay for him to get his broken leg treated when he's hurt himself in a Sunday League game, or falling off his motorbike, or for his testicular cancer.

Taxes go in a great big pot and get spent on stuff. My point was simply that in the scheme of things what I get back compared to what I put in is tiny. Child benefit is not big enough to make anyone have kids, it didn't factor in our decision, but it does help and I'm not ashamed of it.

 

[DaGaffer]

My mum brought two kids up on a fuck load less that 60k, not even a 3rd of 60k by today's equivalent. She managed by not having to have the latest shit and being a responsible adult.

Did you live in the hole in the road? Or the lake?

 

[Vae]

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.

Ditto. 2 bed (with 1 room divided to make a child sized box room) ex council house middle of terrace. My mortgage is £1350 pcm. It's in what I would call an affordable area between Hounslow and Twickenham. Childcare is so expensive that the only reason for my wife to go back to work is sanity rather than money.

I actually agree that in a round of austerity you have to make cutbacks and I'm willing to bear my share of them. If child benefit is chosen to be a target then it should be done in a fair way on household income not penalising families with 1 "high" earner. Equally I think there should be some encouragement of responsibility and thus should be some limit to the number of children eligible for child benefit. Maybe only introduce it for babies born after a certain date to not unfairly penalise current recipients but still discourage the practice of keeping having children for the benefits they bring.

 

[Raven]

Did you live in the hole in the road? Or the lake?

No, we lived in a house that was affordable compared to my mum's income. In an area that was affordable. Not the maximum value the bank was willing to give her, regardless of her means, in her most desired area.

 

[Chilly]

As a single male taxpayer, I'm very happy to help out with childcare costs in society. Along with education (which is pretty much the same thing) it's pretty much the most important thing our taxes go on. Without the next generation, we're nothing.

What I object to is helping people who need no help.

 

[Scouse]

Wealth/Education

I'm going to stick on it. Education > Wealth when it comes to not having kids.

I don't think anyone expects kids to be cheap. I do think people who don't have them have completely unrealistic views on what kids actually cost.

I don't have them and I reckon they cost an absolute fortune.

However, I'd much rather my taxes went on mental health care, or the NHS, or pretty much anything other than paying for children that other people have had.

I'm just flat out disagreeing about the level certain people on here think is "wealthy".

I agree with you that 60k is not a lot of money (my other posts state so). However, child benefit should be for people in (in relative terms) absolute poverty.

Because we live in a society. He pays for everyone's kids because his taxes go on education. In civilised countries he helps pay for maternity (and paternity) care, and maybe decent public childcare, because it helps create a more economically active workforce. He pays because those kids will be paying taxes when he's relying on the NHS for oncology or meals on wheels when he's old.

For a communist you really don't get the whole means and ability thing do you?

For the nth time I'm not communist - but I will concede that I never bought in to our society as you're fooling yourself if you think the "economically active workforce" does anything but keep themselves alive at a very basic level whilst funding the lifestyles of the super rich.

But that's beside the point. Why should the single guy pay taxes that get paid out in benefits to people with children who are earning more than the national average wage?

Yes, by all means, use my taxes to help people in poverty. For families on 60k? They can fuck off.

 

[Scouse]

Stuff

I hear you Gumbo. Completely. I understand it's a struggle.

However, it's the struggle you chose, knowing full well that it was going to be like that.

are you really suggesting that only the super rich who can afford it should spawn?

No, of course not.

Are your kids starving or are you coping with the struggle?

I suggest it's the latter. Therefore the limited tax money available can be better spent elsewhere rather than on childcare for people who's kids aren't malnourished.

For the same reason that my taxes pay for him to get his broken leg treated when he's hurt himself in a Sunday League game, or falling off his motorbike, or for his testicular cancer.

His taxes go on paying for your broken legs, or car crash, or your ball cancer.

AND your kids - that you chose to have and aren't life-threatening.

 

[DaGaffer]

I agree with you that 60k is not a lot of money (my other posts state so). However, child benefit should be for people in (in relative terms) absolute poverty.

And as I said in my first post, child benefit in the UK is immaterial to people on 60K anyway. But, I don't agree that that means supporting families via taxes is wrong for all but those on the breadline. I would actually spend more of the public purse, but I'd spend it on subsidised day care so people can afford to go back to work (because the people likely to use it earn more than the chavs and will supply higher tax receipts). The UK still behaves like we all live in nuclear families with extended family relationships (grandparents nearby etc.) like its still the 1950s, but of course we don't. I'd also give fathers the same paternity rights and obligations as mothers. That way you stop women being discriminated against because bosses are worried about employing 30-something women in case they're about to disappear off to have a couple of nose-miners. If a father has to share the leave as well, the problem goes away (this is law in a lot of Scandinavia and Germany I believe).

 

[Vae]

This more or less covers the entire argument for and against Child Benefit and taxing or means - testing it. Particularly page 15 onwards. Interestingly both the Conservatives and Labour appear to have switched their opinions on it since the change in government!

 

[Embattle]

While voting at all is questionable I certainly don't think Labour will help in any way beyond a short boost to the feel good factor, the reality is the debt is already too big and shouldn't of been aloud to get so big but then brining the public for votes costs money and means you can ignore the inconvenient truth.

The whole problem with means testing is the really ineffective way nearly everything is done when it comes to public services etc, as for child benefit to me there is no argument and it should never of been a universal benefit.

 

[MYstIC G]

lets face it they're all fucking idiots so we're screwed however we vote.

Indeed. We're fucked until the debts are gone.

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.

So basically you could afford a house worth more than £350,000.00 then? (lowest price 3 bed house currently listed on Zoopla)

Frankly (in rough numbers) £1240pcm x 12 months x 25 years = £372,000.00 and anyone in a house worth over £250,000.00 need not be moaning about their £60,000.00 a year salary to me.

 

[Vae]

Indeed. We're fucked until the debts are gone.So basically you could afford a house worth more than £350,000.00 then? (lowest price 3 bed house currently listed on Zoopla)

Frankly (in rough numbers) £1240pcm x 12 months x 25 years = £372,000.00 and anyone in a house worth over £250,000.00 need not be moaning about their £60,000.00 a year salary to me.

So this calculation ignores the slightly minor issue of interest....
A mortgage of £1240pcm is more likely to be for a £250k property with 85% mortgage

 

[DaGaffer]

Indeed. We're fucked until the debts are gone.So basically you could afford a house worth more than £350,000.00 then? (lowest price 3 bed house currently listed on Zoopla)

Frankly (in rough numbers) £1240pcm x 12 months x 25 years = £372,000.00 and anyone in a house worth over £250,000.00 need not be moaning about their £60,000.00 a year salary to me.

Well, as I sold it in 2006 and interest rates were completely different then, your comparison is a bit irrelevant, but yes, my house was worth more than 350K. I bought it for 375K and sold it for 500K. But what's your point? To buy a house inside the M25 you'll probably have a big mortgage. I was responding to claims that the average London mortgage figure was skewed upwards by multi-million pound mansions; it isn't really; the average house is fucking expensive, simple as that, and sucks up a big chunk of that so-called "rich" 60K a year. (If anything the average mortgage in London is dragged down by the number of people living in flats rather than up by the number of people living in mansions).

And just to be clear, at no point did I moan about my 60K a year salary. That's not what I earn.

 

[MYstIC G]

So this calculation ignores the slightly minor issue of interest....
A mortgage of £1240pcm is more likely to be for a £250k property with 85% mortgage

I'm sorry should I put (in rough numbers) in size 80 next time?

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm sorry should I put (in rough numbers) in size 80 next time?

Wut?

 

[MYstIC G]

Well, as I sold it in 2006 and interest rates were completely different then, your comparison is a bit irrelevant, but yes, my house was worth more than 350K. I bought it for 375K and sold it for 500K. But what's your point? To buy a house inside the M25 you'll probably have a big mortgage. I was responding to claims that the average London mortgage figure was skewed upwards by multi-million pound mansions; it isn't really; the average house is fucking expensive, simple as that, and sucks up a big chunk of that so-called "rich" 60K a year. (If anything the average mortgage in London is dragged down by the number of people living in flats rather than up by the number of people living in mansions).

And just to be clear, at no point did I moan about my 60K a year salary. That's not what I earn.

To be equally clear then I didn't mention you, not once. I said I wouldn't want anyone on £60k a year with a quarter of a million pound house moaning at me because, frankly, I wouldn't be listening.

 

[DaGaffer]

To be equally clear then I didn't mention you, not once. I said I wouldn't want anyone on £60k a year with a quarter of a million pound house moaning at me because, frankly, I wouldn't be listening.

Even though as you've just pointed out yourself, the cheapest house you could find in London suitable for a family cost 350K? You don't see that gross earnings have very little to do with disposable income?

 

[MYstIC G]

Even though as you've just pointed out yourself, the cheapest house you could find in London suitable for a family cost 350K? You don't see that gross earnings have very little to do with disposable income?

Don't be a dick, that's the cheapest house in W12.

 

[dysfunction]

The way this is being implemented is stupid.

If you have a family of 4 and one earner and they earn £54k they lose out on £700.

If you have two earners in the family (say one earns £20k and another £35k you get the full benefit.

Now that sounds fair. Not.

 

[DaGaffer]

Don't be a dick, that's the cheapest house in W12.

Fine. Quick search on Zoopla for 3 bed houses in "London" you get 8771 returns. Only 1550 in all of London are below 249,950 (18%-ish). The median price is 325K, the W12 350K is slightly above median, but not by a lot. Any way you slice it, If you live in London and would rather your children werent' kept in a cupboard, its going to cost you.

 

[Aada]

The people earning 60k a year and looking for sympathy are having a laugh, seriously if our household earned 60k a year our money worries would be GONE in a second.

We earn about 30k a year between us and by the time the bills have been paid we are lucky to have £300 a month between us for disposable money.

60k and your moaning? Fuck off just fuck off and live in the real world where most family's household income is around the 30k mark.

I'm so sorry you can't use that child benefit to put into your savings anymore, twats.

 

[Scouse]

Whilst I know you're not applying it to you Gaff:

I bought it for 375K and sold it for 500K. But what's your point?

You've a 500k house.

When you retire, if you own an asset like that, you can buy a similar-sized house up north for 100k and have the 400k to blow on hookers and coke.

Same goes for someone who bought a 250k house and sold at 350k. Even if they spend 200 grand on a nice big house in a nice area outside their ideal living area they've got a whacking great amount of money to spunk on.

None of these people need child benefit. They just want it.

Quick search on Zoopla for 3 bed houses in "London" you get 8771 returns. Only 1550 in all of London are below 249,950 (18%-ish). The median price is 325K, the W12 350K is slightly above median, but not by a lot. Any way you slice it, If you live in London and would rather your children werent' kept in a cupboard, its going to cost you.

From that I see:

A) There's 1550 houses available in London for less than 250k.
B) If you want to live in London and have a problem with your children living in a small house you should move the fuck out - NOT expect the taxpayer to fund your house size increase.

You don't see that gross earnings have very little to do with disposable income?

You don't seem to be able to see that nobody gives a fuck about good-earner's disposable income. If they earn well they have *options* - and one of them, if they're struggling, is to downsize to increase the level of disposable income, or move further out to get a bigger house for the same money.

People who earn 20k and have children don't have that option - and deserve a bit of help.

People who earn 60k and have children are capable of helping themselves...

 

[Gwadien]

I find this thread funny, because it's the plebs supporting a tory idea, whilst the Eton bum boys are against it.

 

[Scouse]

I find this thread funny, because it's the plebs supporting a tory idea, whilst the Eton bum boys are against it.

Nobody here went to Eton - or they wouldn't be wasting their lives on the internet.

If they did they'd probably be getting their dick sucked on a multi-million pound yacht in Georgetown whilst us plebs work like slaves in the company that they bought with their inheritance - keeping them in hookers and coke whilst us plebs struggle with paying for childcare and argue about the scraps that are thrown us.

 

[Gwadien]

Nobody here went to Eton - or they wouldn't be wasting their lives on the internet.

Nor is anyone here a 'pleb'