But you're working on the massive assumption that that money benefits those kids.
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
No. I'm working on the assumption that most of the time, the money benefits those kids. There's always exceptions. It doesn't matter if we're talking about benefits, tax credits, or taxation. There will always be people who will abuse the system.
Most people care enough about their kids to do what they think is best. There are, of course, a minority who will look out for number one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
For the same reason we have to pay for people who develop life altering medical conditions? Same reason we foot the bill for people who smoke or drink too much. It's the right thing to do.
Everyone makes life choices and I would say on the scale of things, having children is a GOOD thing to do. Most of the financial implications of having children now aren't natural. Such as ridiculous rents and extortionate childcare costs.
They didn't come about naturally where as having children is the most natural thing on this planet you can do. None of us would be here otherwise.
Financial considerations should never be a part of deciding a topic which dictates the survival of our very own species. Think about what you are saying.
Our child benefit goes into a bank account for the kids. It's their money to help give them some sort of chance living in a country that's going down the pan.
So you're saying without child benefit the world as we know it will end? Lol. And clearly...if it's just sitting in a bank account for when they're older you don't need it which just serves to highlight how pointless it is.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
"I don't need it".... what you know know what I do or don't need. We make sure they get that payment put aside out of principle. I have gone without food some days to make sure. You sacrifice things when you have kids, not like you would know that.
Adjust my taxes so i'm not worse off, then i'm totally fine with that. I don't like the principles of state payments, but if you aren't going to move the goal posts by adjusting taxes to accommodate then what choice is there?
You come across as someone who doesn't have children or has chosen not to because you are just a selfish individual on many levels.
I want my NI lowered so I don't have to tend to your medical needs later in life. You should have saved up for them yourself. Every penny should be counted and if you are in negative figures, you should be chucked on the street with an empty bowl.
That's the sort of ideology you are pushing.
By all means do away with child benefit, but lower taxes.
Stuck you on ignore because you're a bit of a ***** tbh.
It's a bit more complicated. I haven't had any professional dealings with employment tribunals but in criminal law it works as such:
A judge's decision in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court binds no-one (despite the CC being senior to the magistrates' court). A Crown Court judge is free to ignore another CC judge and the magistrates' court is free to ignore the CC.
Both courts, however, must abide by any any judgements from a higher court - the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court (with each of those courts bound by the decisions of the court(s) above it, and the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court usually respect their own previous decisions to promote legal certainty).
A decision in the first instance (i.e. the first time a court has heard the matter) binds no one because they are so fact specific. The higher courts focus on particular points of law when they are hearing appeals and they do bind lower courts because their rulings are of general application.
We don't get child benefit because my salary is too high even though my wife's salary is way, way below the threshold. That's absolutely fine by me and I consider it fair as we don't need that money to look after the kids. I'd rather it go to someone else who needs it more than us. But if you're able to put it into an account for the future then you clearly don't need it either. So perhaps either that threshold should reduce to disqualify more people, or it should increase to allow every parent to save for their children's future and taxes increase accordingly?
Child benefit, or child tax credits? Tax credits are paid up to £65k/year of household income, depending on the number of kids and the childcare situation.
Tax credits are a bit mental really; a product of a society with too large an income gap and a tax system where people pay too much so that income can be redistributed based on assumed need.
Tax credits are a bit mental really; a product of a society with too large an income gap and a tax system where people pay too much so that income can be redistributed based on assumed need.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,159
If you can't afford kids, don't have kids. Have some personal responsibility.
And you plan on controlling this how, exactly?
Just because you know something is wrong doesnt mean you have a solution.
You disagree with the current legal/regulation around people's behaviour regarding the use of money/property, as do I. You however, would like to paint your opinion as perfect, whilst re distributive alternatives are akin to sexual or religious persecution. You present no evidence of why these are equal in any way, but genuinely believe it to be the case, despite any real evidence of such.
Rationally speaking, your fringe view based on "ideological belief" possibly feels good to write, but does show you for what you are!
The problem is you're largely barking up the wrong tree. You haven't followed your ideas through to conclusion, and as such are willfully ignorant of the flaws in your reasoning.
Limiting the birth rate to save a few quid on child benefit/tax credits might yield short term benefits. But long term it would be an utter disaster; it would accelerate the impending crisis caused by an aging population. It would lower productivity. And it would make us more reliant on immigration.
If the aim is to decrease the benefits bill (both in work and out of work) then income inequality needs to be addressed. Cameron and Osborne understood this, which is why they were open to adopting Lib Dem policies like lowering the tax-free threshold and introducing a much higher minimum wage. Unfortunately, they weren't wholly successful; the National Living Wage has given bottom-earners a ~4.5% YoY increase two years on the trot, but largely at the expense of salaried employees earning a little more than minimum wage, who have seen their pay stagnate (a real-terms fall). But it was a step in the right direction.
Last edited:
I have about as much faith in Corbyn to get a good deal out of the EU as I have in May to do so, which is none. They would approach it differently, but the EU is in a far better position than the UK and who the UK PM is won't change that in the slightest. There's no reason for the EU to give the UK a sweetheart deal and plenty of reason for it to not do so. Right now, the officially UK position is that it shouldn't pay money it's already agreed to pay and that the EU will cheerfully go against its own interests to favour the UK. Why would it do that? The main thing the UK has is banking, which could be done in Paris or Frankfurt or half a dozen other places in the EU. If the UK does a hard brexit, especially one without any kind of deal, why would transnational banking interests stay in the UK rather than move to the EU (i.e. a much bigger and much more international market)? Especially when the EU offers the banks a sweetheart deal, which it should do because that would be in its own interests. Then there's the smaller but still very significant matter of foreign business interests in the UK. Why keep them there when there's a much bigger market nearby? Of course they wouldn't immediately shut down and eat the loss that would result, but it would be in their own interests to transition to the EU over time. The UK can't even feed itself, let alone sustain its own economy against a much bigger market. We need deals with other places and the EU is the most important by far because of its size and proximity. The EU doesn't need the UK. You can't get a good deal with a bad hand regardless of how bull-headed you are and regardless of how many people think that's what strength is.
When it comes to internal government, I'd rather have a person picked at random off the street than May. Even if that person is a baby too young to even speak yet. I'd rather have Siri than May. I'd rather have an empty chair than May. China and North Korea are taking lessons in internal government from the UK now. That's how authoritarian May is and how skilled in propaganda. I think Corbyn would be rubbish at the job, but I think he'd do less harm.
Right now, I'd rather have the Queen act in her own name with her own authority than either of those two being PM acting with her authority. Queen Elizabeth II is a much better ruler than Queen Theresa I. But I'd rather have a liberal (real liberal, classical liberal, not the grossly illiberal modern corruption of liberalism that's spewed out from the USA to infect here too) PM acting with the strength of consensus and co-operation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
"But if you're able to put it into an account for the future then you clearly don't need it either."
Not sure you understood what I was saying.
I have gone days without food to make sure that money doesn't get touched. Especially on 5 week pay months. If I were to treat it normally, and not be so stern about having the money put away, then it would get put to direct use.
It's a struggle right now.... I knew what we was in for. What I didn't expect was the monthly childcare bill to rise to over £700 a month, energy bills to go up 2%, food bill to rise even buying less items all in the space of 24 months and to only get a payrise of 1% at work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,675
- Location
- Livingston
These people belong to the UK and therefor are our responsibility. If you don't have any compassion for anyone but yourself what is the point in living within a community? Wouldn't you be better off in a cave somewhere?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,675
- Location
- Livingston
You see things in black and white with no shades of grey. What would you say if you lost your job or were made redundant 3 months after your child is born?
- Status