Hold on Dave, I'm confused....

#1
Now y'see I've given this an lot of thought, it used to be my job after a fashion so.....

I largely approve of Dave's vision of welfare reform, it appears to be "carrot to work" rather than "stick for wasting" which is the only (financial) method of changing benefit culture.

However... He claims he is "a friend of child benefit" and that the savings from the welfare budget will not come from that sector. He also claims that nobody will lose benefit entirely.

There's my confusion.... The only sector of the welfare state that I can see being chopped, realistically, is child benefit.

Soooo... I'm forced into drawing the conclusion that he's not actually going to cut anything... If anything he's going to increase the welfare budget with the promise of being able to significantly reduce it in the future once the reforms "bite".
 
#2
That's the plan. It's called investment, generally speaking.
 
#3
All does seem to be smoke and mirrors, but then he is a politician. It would take someone with more balls than DC to sort the mess out.
 
#4
Surely it makes sense in an increasingly aged popoulation to encourage couples to have children?
 
#5
Surely it makes sense in an increasingly aged popoulation to encourage couples to have children?
No, more immigrants is what is needed. Someone has to pay the welfare bill for our uneducated 'yoofs'
As we live in a sophisticated society, someone, somewhere, must have a master plan that explains why the majority of a generation of the last ten or so years are very very uneducated. It's no good cutting off their benefits, the majority have never worked, and would be a burden to any small business that took them on. I suppose they could always get a job in the public sector and then learn to milk the cashcow like the rest of them do.
 
#6
Surely it makes sense in an increasingly aged popoulation to encourage couples to have children?
Economically-speaking, only if they're productive instead of just reproductive.

As to it being an investment, I'd say there are a lot of other investments that would pay off more in the long term - infrastructure in particular - yet that's not on the cards as there's apparently no money for investment.

We've been told since before the election that the budget has to be brought under control now, now, now and that only massive public spending cuts now, now, now would hack it. Now that he's got himself safely into No.10 we're to believe that there's suddenly no pressing need for cuts on that scale?

It's almost as if a politician was lying for political advantage or something...
 
#7
Economically-speaking, only if they're productive instead of just reproductive.
Child benefit is the only benefit paid to the parents who raise their children properly.

The useless parasites who raise equally anti-social children get many other child related benefits, it is these benefits that should be cut/abolished.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
Historically, child benefit was seen as a way of ensuring that children could be given a decent start in life, and it was paid thorough out the life of the child, to ensure that it was adequately clothed and fed. For that reason, it has always been paid to the mother (to stop feckless fathers taking the money from the govt and "wasting" it on drink). It has always been a universal benefit because all other types of benefit are notoriously low in take up (if a benefit is to be means tested, then the targetted group feel that they are being stigmatised and will not apply for it. This applies equally to so called dole scroungers and veterans trying to better themselves alike). This is why each year you will see campaigns by various councils and charities to ensure the take-up of benefits.

You might argue that the middle and upper classes don't need the benefit because hubby/wife/partner of choice brings home £Xty thousands. It doesn't always follow that some or any of that money is spent on the child.
 
#9
You might argue that the middle and upper classes don't need the benefit because hubby/wife/partner of choice brings home £Xty thousands. It doesn't always follow that some or any of that money is spent on the child.
The same applies to Child Benefit payments though.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
Surely it makes sense in an increasingly aged popoulation to encourage couples to have children?
Quite possibly but if the parents can't afford to have children, why I should I pay for them? No-one has a right to have children.
 
#11
Historically, child benefit was seen as a way of ensuring that children could be given a decent start in life, and it was paid thorough out the life of the child, to ensure that it was adequately clothed and fed. For that reason, it has always been paid to the mother (to stop feckless fathers taking the money from the govt and "wasting" it on drink).
ly the stupid and naive have believed this would be so and said drunken oaf doesn't give his wife a bunch of fives when he wants the CB money.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
ly the stupid and naive have believed this would be so and said drunken oaf doesn't give his wife a bunch of fives when he wants the CB money.
I only explained the rationale. It's also the reason that the money was paid on a Tuesday. If the feckless oaf had been paid on the friday and drunk all the money by monday, at least the mother would have money for food for the rest of the week.

You might think that the rationale was "stupid and naive" but hundreds of thousands of mothers and children didn't/don't.
 

Boldnotold

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
I only explained the rationale. It's also the reason that the money was paid on a Tuesday. If the feckless oaf had been paid on the friday and drunk all the money by monday, at least the mother would have money for food for the rest of the week.

You might think that the rationale was "stupid and naive" but hundreds of thousands of mothers and children didn't/don't.
That was all stopped many many years ago, when Family Allowance (as it was known then) was frozen, and changes to tax codes introduced to reflect the fact that more women were working.

Now it's paid into bank accounts, to either parent (although you're right that it's still mostly mothers who claim it). And the majority of people are paid monthly, so either parent can spend it all before the end of the month if they are that irresponsible.

I have no problem with it disappearing from families where at least one parent pays Higher Rate Tax, nor do I have a problem with the withdrawal of Working Tax Credit for the same families.

The principle seems like common sense to me. However, the way the BBC reports it, you'd think it was going to be the end of the world for poor single mothers, paid for by the ill-gotten gains of families where both partners earn just below Higher Rate Tax. Poor single mothers will still get both benefits until they reach the level of taxation, and families on that level of joint income will still be taking far less out of the system than the average MP (see other thread about Ed Milliband's tax arrangements, MPs still whingeing about their second homes, etc.)

The execution of it will be interesting as we see all the IT outsourcing companies making a fortune out of the programme changes, training, documents, standard letters, contract adjustments and anything else they can charge for. I hope it's wrong, but the cynical part of me thinks that more taxpayers money will be squandered through that exercise than will be gained by withdrawing this benefit from a minority of people.
 
#14
Quite possibly but if the parents can't afford to have children, why I should I pay for them? No-one has a right to have children.
No sir, they have a perfect right to have children, and by that same right they have a right to feed and clothe them, BUT, by their own efforts not yours or mine. Conversely, if they cannot feed them, they should eat them.
 
#15
Let's have a bit of lateral thinking here. Children don't get full rights as an adult until 18. But we also allow abortion. So, let's solve the problem by making it permissable to abort a child up to age 18. If the little shitbags don't learn to behave themselves by, say 12, someone can apply to have them aborted and thrown back into the recycler.

The Romans had a similar system, with the father having the absolute right of life and death over his children. If they stepped out of line, curtains, with no legal comeback. And they ended up ruling most of the world. Seemed to work for them.
 
#16
Quite possibly but if the parents can't afford to have children, why I should I pay for them? No-one has a right to have children.
Whilst I agree with you, children are the responsibility of the parents rather than a right, there are some on this site who would disagree with you! Mainly the ones who seem to think that the ill concieved and unnecessary "human rights act" isn't a criminals charter introduced mainly to make scrotes & lawyers rich!!
 
#17
Knowing nothing about child benefit, I was earlier enlightened by an article on the news that child benefit is to be stopped for those who earn 44k or more. I would have thought that it would have been means tested in the first place, not just given out willy nilly. Housing benefit is means tested and you get little or no help depending if you have worked hard and saved money. Withdraw all child benefit. It would reduce if not cure drunken scenes of single mother slappers in town centres, the amount of children concieved through irresponsible sexual encounters. It would force the parents to work thus earning money to look after their sprog, instead of sitting at home, flicking through the Argos catalogue to see what they can buy.
 
#18
Knowing nothing about child benefit, I was earlier enlightened by an article on the news that child benefit is to be stopped for those who earn 44k or more. I would have thought that it would have been means tested in the first place, not just given out willy nilly. Housing benefit is means tested and you get little or no help depending if you have worked hard and saved money. Withdraw all child benefit. It would reduce if not cure drunken scenes of single mother slappers in town centres, the amount of children concieved through irresponsible sexual encounters. It would force the parents to work thus earning money to look after their sprog, instead of sitting at home, flicking through the Argos catalogue to see what they can buy.
Taffnp,dont be such a ******* know it all,we dont sit around looking through the argos catalogue,we order and buy from SCOTS of STOW IN THE WOLD,and also buy from the lewis,es catalogue.
Most of us are not drunken slappers,we care a lot of who we go to bed with,as long as the guy buys us at least 2 drinks,then and only then will we consider having sex with them,so dont be so ******* disparaging .
 
#19
The execution of it will be interesting as we see all the IT outsourcing companies making a fortune out of the programme changes, training, documents, standard letters, contract adjustments and anything else they can charge for. I hope it's wrong, but the cynical part of me thinks that more taxpayers money will be squandered through that exercise than will be gained by withdrawing this benefit from a minority of people.
Probably true, one of the advantages of universal benefits is that they are cheap to administer.

Thinking things further; when they realise that the scheme is costing money they will realise that adjusting the threshold downwards would not cost any more and would save much more. So stand by for a threshold of 25k.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#20
Children are parsites. They do not have jobs. If their parents choose to harbour parasites in their homes, they must pay. Same with old people. Long live the Great Leader and his frankly wooly thinking. Long live the ConDem.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top