Because unfortunately if they didn't, then the child would be the one losing out.
Although I'm all for some kind of shared accommodation provision for teen mums, which incorporates compulsory education, etc.
Tory Government to take from the poor to give to the old?
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
Because unfortunately if they didn't, then the child would be the one losing out.
Although I'm all for some kind of shared accommodation provision for teen mums, which incorporates compulsory education, etc.
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
850 billion now its 1.5 trilion looking at 650 increase in less than 5 years.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/
Not really, however it is a fine balancing act. If wages and spending just increases by inflation rate year on year then as a net amount it is still the same, so inflation 'shouldn't' change that much if at all.
Interest rates keep inflation in check. I'm guessing you already know this though.
On topic, pensions is always a tough area. People have saved up all their life to have a pot. Going after people's retirement funds is suicidal.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Tough luck then, I would have forced abortions if you cannot provide for your mistake.
Why should I pay for someone that has given nothing to society or paid there way to earn the benefits in later life?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,383
- Location
- Darwen
So teenagers shouldn't be able to take advantage of the fact they live in a first world country who looks after their own?
If someone gets kicked out of their house at the age of 16-18, has no family or place to live they should just shut up and walk the streets because they haven't "paid in"?
The primary motivation is pride, and social respect. Those are actually much stronger motivators than money. You do, however, get much more money from most jobs than you get from being solely dependent on benefits. The best way to improve that margin, of course, would be to make work pay better by, say, raising the minimum wage or improving the bargaining power of unions.
I'd point out that the majority of the benefits which will be frozen by Osborne are paid to people in work.
As usual I'll point out that "16-year old single mum" is not a significant proportion of welfare claimants. You might want to educate yourself about who actually receives benefits at some point.
As to your question: because the alternative is that the children of 16-year old single mothers get to grow up on the streets. Society doesn't support young, single, mothers because it likes young, single, mothers; it supports the children so that the next generation - who are blameless for their circumstances - gets to stand some chance of becoming a productive member of society.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,114
Let's be clear here the OP has pointed out the facts in terms of working poor.
We are now top heavy in terms of OAP's and those who are working however we have ring fenced a section of the community who are immune from the cuts which the rest of us are feeling.
It is a very cynical ploy buy the government to win the next election.
No-one in GD has mentioned the 10% pay rise our MP's are due which they will accpet begrudgingly
We are now top heavy in terms of OAP's and those who are working however we have ring fenced a section of the community who are immune from the cuts which the rest of us are feeling.
It is a very cynical ploy buy the government to win the next election.
No-one in GD has mentioned the 10% pay rise our MP's are due which they will accpet begrudgingly
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
YES, exactly, they should find work quickly to unlock a low level of benefits so they can access some sort of government work house. Also the parents who kicked them out should be "taxed" in some additional way to pay for the kids they through out.
I am for a building your own pot. When you pay tax on your earnings a portion of that gets credited against you. Basically saying that you are a contributor. When tie comes that you may need the help, you can withdraw from this credit you have earnt. However, I do realise that some people, through various disabilities, will never be able to work, and they should be able to claim much in the same way they do now.
However, if you just decide to become a baby machine, you get the child credits up to two children, then you are on your own. If you have made contributions before children and earnt credit, you can use it.
A variation of this is that maybe everyone when born gets £5k credit. (number made up) when you hit 18 you can either work, and add more to your pot. Or waste your life and live off this £5k. But once it's gone that is it.
Last edited:
Low levels of inflation is preferable to zero inflation. There are various reasons for that but, in simple terms, it keeps spending and investment "ticking over".
It's an imprecise science, managing the money supply/inflation, and a zero-target would risk slipping into deflation, which is very destructive (people save instead of spending - because of the increase in spending power that brings - which increases deflation, and it's a hard cycle to break)
And what of the more-than-50% of the households who are affected by this freeze who are working families? "hard-working-families", if you are a right-wing soundbite fan. What is their incentive?
They are working as hard as they can, and are relying on tax credits to top up their low incomes to afford to live in a country where prices are pushed up by means outside their control (and often to the benefit of wealthier members of society)
And why are we giving "incentives" to people to stop working at 65 anyway? What benefit does that give?
We're talking about the state pension "benefit" here. Private pensions are, somewhat, a different issue.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2012
- Posts
- 515
UKIP
Have you seen the size of Germany's army?
Are they noncompetitive? Un-influential? Powerless?
(I don't necessarily subscribe to too much of a reduction in military spending, but your argument is nonsense)
Ty. My mistake. Does seem a little off that state issued benefits get the freeze but state issued pensions don't.
My only thinking is that the vast majority of 65+ won't and probably can't go back to work.
However changes might swing some of the younger people abusing the system (JSA, etc.) into actually getting a job?
Something else I had read in the news this morning, the Tories are trialling a benefits pre-paid card so that it can only be used for essential things like buying food, paying bills, clothing children.
I've been saying for years that we should have a system like that in place. I'm sorry but if you're claiming benefits you should not be able to buy life's luxuries such as smoking and drinking. The whole point of benefits is to allow you to survive, not lead a cushy lifestyle.
I've been saying for years that we should have a system like that in place. I'm sorry but if you're claiming benefits you should not be able to buy life's luxuries such as smoking and drinking. The whole point of benefits is to allow you to survive, not lead a cushy lifestyle.
Is there an age cut off for your policy here, or is it a catch all?
What about someone who was previously in a relationship and supporting their own child, only for the relationship to break down and for them to find themselves with no income?
Shall we just kill their child and tell them to get a job? Sounds lovely...
How do you propose someone finds work when they already have the full time job of looking after a child?
I can tell you from first hand experience that the govt. has absolutely no interest in helping people who actually want to get back into work to do so.
How do you propose to tax parents for the actions of their adult "children"? I can really see that working out!
All of this is of course ignoring the fact that single teen mums make up a small minority of the benefits spend. As already pointed out by others, a far larger proportion is on tax credits for low earning, hard working families, but that doesn't make as good Daily Mail headlines as "ERMERGERD LERZY DRERGGIES TERK ER BERNERFERTS!!!"
At least your username is consistent with the content of your posts!
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,383
- Location
- Darwen
I agree, they should take all the children born out of wedlock by drunk teenagers and burn them to provide power and the teenagers should be put into a sweat shop to make things that benefit society.
Are you for real?
The actual amount of people who diddle the system like this is single figure percentages, they are barely a blip on the scale compared to people who are actually working AND claiming benefits as well to top up their wages.
It's amazing how much the government and media brainwash people into believing.