Families need £36,800 to live acceptably.....

shoes said:
I don't dispute that but why should I pay more tax than someone who has wilfully become more of a burden by having kids? That's the point I was getting at.
Click to expand...

Because a viable, successful and fair society is not all about taking from that society, the argument that you put forward is flawed because because unless people pay proportionately their fair share (based on their relative income) then society cannot effectively support itself and we fall into a Dickensian dystopia of haves and have nots.

Children are the bedrock of a continued stable society, without them your publicly funded services will be unable to support societies needs as the costs outstrip the available taxpayers....you will be forced to work regardless of your age and only the very top earners in society will benefit from society.

No one is forcing you to have children, and parents pay taxes also, in many cases more than you do....those children also grow into taxpayers, again contributing to their services past and present and your future services. You are not funding anyone, you are funding yourself and the services you use and have used and will use in the future, just like the Parents and the Children when they become Adults.....
 
I tend to think this period in my life will do my kids some good too. They might be young, but they understand how much of a struggle things are, so im hoping this will give them an insight into a way of life they don't want to be part of when they are older, and force them to push themselves for a better life.
 
OldCoals said:
Imagine if there were methods whereby you could all but eliminate the chances of an unwanted pregnancy.

Not to mention crunching the numbers before you decided to have a baby.
Click to expand...

but what about people like me that was in a financial position when we had our kids, but have since found circumstances to change? should they get drowned or passed off to someone with money?
 
I think it depends on what you mean by socially acceptable. We live in a consumer culture where many people are judged on their ability to consume and their collection of consumables. As a result the required amount to 'compete' in that culture is probably higher than the 'need' even if people have children. It's always about what people do not have rather than what they do, gets a bit tedious in a way after a while.
 
Vtec9k said:
Nice, resorting to the ad hominem already ;)
Click to expand...
You obviously require some education on what's involved in a real ad hominem.

You are the one who insinuated that what I put across was the result of envy (politics of envy), which I may add is most certainly an ad hominem (can't argue against my point, so implied negative personality traits to discredit what I said).

I simply mocked you for making a stupid comment, you didn't present any logical or rational arguments for me to make an ad hominem attack against.

If you presented a logical & rational case against what I said, I'd most certainly would be guilty of an ad hominem attack on you, but you didn't - you just stated you don't know how it could work (because you ran off with a stupid idea without reading the thread fully).

In short, you have to be making a case or presenting an argument for it to be a logical fallacy, you have yet to present one.
 
I reckon that one person living in the south east or London would be ok on 36k after mortgage/rent (less than 1000 a month), carparking, train fares and other bills and certainly wouldn't have spare cash to flash around, but 2 people on a single 36k salary with only one working and kids? Forget it, well in the south anyway.
 
Seems about right for here, mortgage, 2 kids and living a comfortable (but not flash) lifestyle - i.e. a few day trips, can afford to go swimming etc.

We're just under that and find that a little bit more would really help :)

Biggest problems we have are not mortgage/bills, but its food and childcare costs :/
 
OldCoals said:
Deadly serious, the welfare state isn't there to provide people with gadgets.
Click to expand...

He is only claiming exactly what he is entitled to as a tax-paying citizen, there is nothing morally wrong about what gadgets he owns if he is careful with his money. There is no guideline saying someone who collects legitimate benefits while working full-time has to live according to anyone elses guidelines.

Reserve your scorn for non-working, jobless benefit scroungers who own a HDTV and multiple computers, because they are the ones who surely deserve it.
 
Last edited:
shoes said:
It does when I have to pay my full tax amount - and I'm sure that's the case for the majority on here.

I have no kids ergo I am less of a burden on the state than someone with kids. Can I has my taxes back now plz?
Click to expand...

Short term gain?

WANT, WANT, WANT?

Looking at the bigger picture and long term when you cant work who does your jobs? Oh yes, other peoples children. When you die what exactly will your contribution be?
 
paradisiac said:
I tend to think this period in my life will do my kids some good too. They might be young, but they understand how much of a struggle things are, so im hoping this will give them an insight into a way of life they don't want to be part of when they are older, and force them to push themselves for a better life.
Click to expand...


Did me and my brothers well, all of us appreciate everything and we all pushed ourselves to earn as much as possible. My mum was a single parent hold down 3 jobs and was doing various college courses to get her nursery nursing certificates with a total income of 12,000, She didnt eat some days just so we were fed. Now she earns a few K more but less mouths to feed.

One of my brothers is at college and the other brother runs a building business and i earn a decent wage of 22k in shipping.

Coming from a poor family does not always make paracites and criminals as some narrowminded folk think.
 
oldbag said:
I reckon that one person living in the south east or London would be ok on 36k after mortgage/rent (less than 1000 a month), carparking, train fares and other bills and certainly wouldn't have spare cash to flash around, but 2 people on a single 36k salary with only one working and kids? Forget it, well in the south anyway.
Click to expand...

my other halfs friend and her other half have two kids and they earn betwee nthem (about) £30k and they seem to be allive...

they live near oxford..
 
Dont currently have kids and dont see how we could afford to even if we wanted to as it stands at the moment. I bring home around £14k before tax, and girlfriend brings home around £12-13k. Both working full time.

We have 2 cars as my girlfriend travels to work, which cost her around £50 a week in fuel, unfortunatly she cant find a job closer at the moment, with being a new driver as well her insurance is £100 a month!

We have a cheap mortgage of £258 for a 1 bed house, and after all our bills and outgoings we are left with between £200 spare cash between us to last the month. And we dont drink or smoke.

Over a month £200 does not stretch far and does not allow us to do hardly anything I cant see how many people can afford to live at all with most rents/mortgages going into £400-£600 a month ranges.

But yet i see single mothers, or parents of children that are NOT working or even working part time that seem better off then me and my girlfriend! Stinks!

Makes me sometimes wish my girlfriend would squeeze one out just for the "perks" of the job

What i wish the goverment would do is make it so you only get out what you put in, this would get rid of young single mothers as most would have an abortion, or think twice about trying to live off the state. A lot of people would be having childen at a older age which would make them more mature and hopefully sort out the mess that is the current generation of youth that is growing up getting bad habbits from their young parents.

Would also make people get jobs and try harder to earn a higher wage in order to be able to have children at some point in their lifes!
 
Last edited:
I have sort of been keeping an eye on this thread. but one thing I don't fully understand if, if this is what is deemed reasonable to live on, are they going to make sure that everyone gets to near that standard of earnings, or are these just figures to make those of use that earn significantly less than those figures to feel worse than we do already?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom