Political Issues

[Gordinho]

Why have any child benefit? If you can't afford kids don't have em!

I was stunned that I could get child benefit, I take the money though, the only fudging rebate I get of the government! It goes into my girls Junior ISA, until it stops next year.

I remember you mentioning this some time ago and the fact you'd attempted to not accept it and was stonewalled.

I look at it from another angle, I'm shafted on a daily basis, I pay my dues without complaint, without exception, when some due comes back to me I accept it.

Half the time even when we click on a website we have to tick a box to accept their T&Cs just to get past page one before we even consider making a purchase, people regularly try and fudge me over on a daily basis. Well fudge everyone, I pay my dues so I'm taking what's due without questioning it, that's why I support everyone rich enough to support a tax lawyer to evade tax. [rant]I pay ?ú175 pounds a month council tax to live in a 1930's 3 bed semi in Dunstable, I pay the clam without fail even though I'm robbed blind, they're the rules, so fudging right I'm taking back anything due to me whether I need it or not. Apparently, according to my MP (aren't Tory boroughs supposed to be cheaper and a lesson in local management) it's because we're a rural area and that's why I pay so much.[/rant]

 

[monkeybarry]

Why have any child benefit? If you can't afford kids don't have em!

with the cost of living in this country and the almost impossibility of having a household where only one parent has to work to even pay the bills, let alone pay for a kid too, that is simply not possible and is idealist bullcrap IMHO (and i know A LOT about idealistic bullcrap!)

i would agree that there needs to be a cap however - so when a couple has a child they dont just keep reproducing to wake it financially worth their while etc

 

[Gordinho]

with the cost of living in this country and the almost impossibility of having a household where only one parent has to work to even pay the bills, let alone pay for a kid too, that is simply not possible and is idealist bullcrap IMHO (and i know A LOT about idealistic bullcrap!)

i would agree that there needs to be a cap however - so when a couple has a child they dont just keep reproducing to wake it financially worth their while etc

Taking this post and tieing it in with the ?ú26000 pa benefit cap I feel there has to be a rent cap on those providing social housing. It's all very well and good slating scroungers but I know from personal experience that your ability to procure a house via benefits is vastly superior to your ability to procure a house if you had to pay the actual going rate for it. Apparently ?ú400 a week rent is nothing for a brickhole in London from a social landlord if (miraculously) the DHS are picking up the tab.

In short, if you're in the system and you find a nice gaff the local council will stump up your rent if you have sprogs and ain't shameless. (I have a sister in law matches all these provisos and don't she milk it). That has been going on since the eighties regardless of who's in power (so no party politics here please).

 

[thfcsteff]

Why have any child benefit? If you can't afford kids don't have em!

I was stunned that I could get child benefit, I take the money though, the only fudging rebate I get of the government! It goes into my girls Junior ISA, until it stops next year.

Swiss cheese argument. There are some people who sadly take the tinkle, and I agree they should be forced to stop it, but for a lot of people, the concept of 'affording' children becomes variable and inconsistent depending on the variables of employment, etc, in their lives. The vast majority of people who have children do so fully believing they can support their children...

Here's a thought to ponder; if we continue to further deplete our state education system, and if we continue to see the private education sector improve significantly beyond the state sector, and if we consider how much private schools cost, then would you consider the cost of a decent education part of 'being able to afford having children'? If we follow your thought through, we end up with a situation where only those who earn a set amount per year could afford a decent education for their children, thus condemning an entire class of person to a lower standard of education/thus potentially far harder chance of making something of themselves.

For your phrase to be taken as a discussion, I'd like to see you break down what 'afford kids' comprises mate.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I remember you mentioning this some time ago and the fact you'd attempted to not accept it and was stonewalled.

I look at it from another angle, I'm shafted on a daily basis, I pay my dues without complaint, without exception, when some due comes back to me I accept it.

Half the time even when we click on a website we have to tick a box to accept their T&Cs just to get past page one before we even consider making a purchase, people regularly try and fudge me over on a daily basis. Well fudge everyone, I pay my dues so I'm taking what's due without questioning it, that's why I support everyone rich enough to support a tax lawyer to evade tax. [rant]I pay ?ú175 pounds a month council tax to live in a 1930's 3 bed semi in Dunstable, I pay the clam without fail even though I'm robbed blind, they're the rules, so fudging right I'm taking back anything due to me whether I need it or not. Apparently, according to my MP (aren't Tory boroughs supposed to be cheaper and a lesson in local management) it's because we're a rural area and that's why I pay so much.[/rant]

Yep i agree, reason why i never minded doing cash jobs, not that i would do anything like that anymore:barnet:

 

[papaspur]

Why would you invest money if it's taxed higher than income tax?

You want to tax job creators MORE??!!

90% of all new jobs are created by SME's.

We should make countries pay full UK tax or they can't trade here, that will sort it out.

The top 10% of earners, (higher rate tax payers on more than ?ú37k a year, hardly rich IMO) pay 58% of all taxes! The top 1% pay 27%!!

It seems to me you are ill informed and are adocating class-warfare.

This government has taken 750,000 people out of tax and will soon raise the threshold to ?ú10k a year for NO TAX, they have frozen the higher rate level so more people than ever are paying top rate tax, they've cut corporation tax as you advocate.

Income tax only raises ?ú155 billion a year, that's only 29% of the total!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_taxes.svg

You could make the 'rich' pay 100% tax and it would only raise another ?ú60 billion a year. The current deficit is ?ú127 billion! As you can see, the bottom line is we are spenimg too much and we need to control spending.

As I'm sure you're all aware now, the 99%/Occupy Wall Street movement brought to the forefront, albeit for a very limited time, the issue of the shrinking middle class, corporate and financial irresponsibility, and the increasing difficulty for ordinary citizens to compete with lobbyists.
However, there's a vast difference between the top 1% and the top .1%. Can you fathom that the top 400 wealthiest households in America hold 2/3 of its wealth? Many of these top .1% are CEOs and executives of large corporations. They don't create jobs. They've been given "favorable" tax rates for the past decade and they simply DO NOT create jobs. This is one of the biggest myths that comes from the right: "throw the wealthy a bone, they've done enough for this country... how can they be creating jobs when they're being taxed so heavily?!?!"
Since when was it that the WEALTHY needed a break? We have people in this country that can't even afford health care or proper meals. If they really were so awesome at creating jobs, then WHERE ARE THEY? I've been hearing this flimflam for so long that everyone in this country should have THREE jobs by now, but many are still struggling to find work.

When it comes to government spending, I'm all for consolidating agencies and trimming the fat (some through attrition). However, like past depressions, there needs to be some spending in order to kick-start the economy. Why hasn't austerity worked in Europe?

Finally, enough with the class-warfare flimflam. That's just a petty victimization tactic from those that have waged this war. The wealthy have all the power to do as they will. Do you think a citizen like me can afford a lobbyist to influence legislatures? This is oligarchy, and our congress is another commodity that can be bought.. for the right price.

 

[southstand1882]

Last year I was bleating on to colleagues about how I was disgusted with what was happening in Greece.

Greece will end up giving some islands to the Germans in exchange for some bail out cash.

And then who's next? Italy?

Now Germany want control over the Greek budget. They want to install a European official in their treasury.

The German land grab in Europe is starting again, 100 years after its first attempt.

World War 3 on its way?

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Last year I was bleating on to colleagues about how I was disgusted with what was happening in Greece.

Greece will end up giving some islands to the Germans in exchange for some bail out cash.

And then who's next? Italy?

Now Germany want control over the Greek budget. They want to install a European official in their treasury.

The German land grab in Europe is starting again, 100 years after its first attempt.

World War 3 on its way?

The way the EU is set up, with brussles wanting to control things that people in countries find very personal, i have always said that was going to end in tears.

I do not think a world war 3, but what i do not get is if the IRA and etta(spelling, the spainish ones) did not like being governed by people from outside their country how will they like it when people not elected by them are setting their interest rates and other economic policies.

But people like me were called old fossils(im not even that old im in my 40's...) but it is common sense that countries do not want to be controlled by others, the only people for it are the likes of neil kinnock and people like him in other countries, they made themselves part of the EU because they could not get elected at home.

It was the only way for some of this politicains to get the power they wanted and they are now largely unchecked in what they do.

 

[Gifter]

My thoughts on politics, summised by a rather nifty old punk band nomeansno 'a bold plan drawn up by arseholes to screw macarons, you gotta love 'em'

At the last election I went to the polling station in our village and asked that if I crossed every box would it register as in intentional spoiling of my vote, they said 'you can't do that', to which I replied 'well I want to vote, but have no faith in any of the choices available to me', they looked at me like I was an utter idiot, not getting the notion that someone would want to register their disgust with the options available to me.

Strange, as you alway get people saying 'if you don't vote you have no right to critise the outcome'...

 

[papaspur]

My thoughts on politics, summised by a rather nifty old punk band nomeansno 'a bold plan drawn up by arseholes to screw macarons, you gotta love 'em'

At the last election I went to the polling station in our village and asked that if I crossed every box would it register as in intentional spoiling of my vote, they said 'you can't do that', to which I replied 'well I want to vote, but have no faith in any of the choices available to me', they looked at me like I was an utter idiot, not getting the notion that someone would want to register their disgust with the options available to me.

Strange, as you alway get people saying 'if you don't vote you have no right to critise the outcome'...

...if you have no faith in the other candidates, you can always run for office yourself (I'm assuming you at least have faith in yourself)!

 

[Gifter]

When I read up about this though (not with a thought of running), you need many thousands of votes to get your retainer back, it is a closed shop. Look at the stats in the US, they spend billions of corporate funding in campaign trailing, then when strange laws are passed which greatly benefit certain corporations we wonder why!

I might vote for a Ron Paul character, if we had an equivolent candidate here, but he's still a republicrat who would (no doubt in my mind) cowtail to the corporations.

Part of me just thinks humans in general are to flawed, maybe we do get the governments we deserve as a whole.

 

[papaspur]

When I read up about this though (not with a thought of running), you need many thousands of votes to get your retainer back, it is a closed shop. Look at the stats in the US, they spend billions of corporate funding in campaign trailing, then when strange laws are passed which greatly benefit certain corporations we wonder why!

I might vote for a Ron Paul character, if we had an equivolent candidate here, but he's still a republicrat who would (no doubt in my mind) cowtail to the corporations.

Part of me just thinks humans in general are to flawed, maybe we do get the governments we deserve as a whole.

As kooky as Ron Paul is, he's at least genuine with his thoughts and political views.

I'm an incredibly cynical person. I agree with you that humanity is flawed, in that the human brain is too susceptible to flimflam, and flimflam is the vehicle by which politicians gain power. It's simply too easy to lie, even in this age where every little thing is scrutinized.
An incredibly LARGE piece of flimflam is the Citizens United ruling, which basically allows 'independent' Super PACs to get anonymous donor money for a particular candidate, including from corporations because corporations are somehow people too, and their speech (ie., money) ought to be protected by our first amendment. Ideally, every citizen should be protesting this decision because theoretically, foreign money can flow into a Super PAC, allowing the outcome of an election to be affected by 'speech' from abroad. However, I think we have become too content with the status quo that is continuously fed to us by the media. WTF are the Supreme Court justices smoking, because something tells me they've been passed the corporate peace pipe. The only thing human about a corporation is its ability to fudge someone over from behind.

 

[Leeds Spur]

I would vote for Paul. A true libertarian.

 

[Leeds Spur]

That American wealth stat is bogus.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Can people on this thread define wealthy? If w are talking people worth 50 million then fine. For me a household income of say £60k isn't wealthy. Yet to listen to the rhetoric these people are the enemy. Papa you need to define so boundaries before you erect any more straw men. And to clarify my position, people who earn more that say £20k shouldn't be getting a penny in welfare. Why should I pay for other peoples kids? as a child of thatchers years I was fine at school and they spent fudge all then!!! education spending is ring fenced so I'm not sure where these cuts are taking place?

 

[papaspur]

Sorry leeds, you're right. I mis-posted a statistic in my own thread, when I specifically stated that all numbers like these be cited. I confused the stat, but here is what I meant to say:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
Don't let that throw you off because you see Michael Moore's name. I know he can be a bit sensationalist at times, but he's spot on here.

Like I said, I agree with you that there's a large range of earners in the top 1%, thus this group needs to be further broken down. Let's just define the wealthy as the top .5% or even .1%, because then we start getting into "stupid money" territory.
Yeah, welfare should be a social safety net, but since there are so few wealthy out there (relatively), I don't know how big of an issue this actually is.

 

[Yossarian]

Sorry leeds, you're right. I mis-posted a statistic in my own thread, when I specifically stated that all numbers like these be cited. I confused the stat, but here is what I meant to say:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
Don't let that throw you off because you see Michael Moore's name. I know he can be a bit sensationalist at times, but he's spot on here.

Like I said, I agree with you that there's a large range of earners in the top 1%, thus this group needs to be further broken down. Let's just define the wealthy as the top .5% or even .1%, because then we start getting into "stupid money" territory.
Yeah, welfare should be a social safety net, but since there are so few wealthy out there (relatively), I don't know how big of an issue this actually is.

How much is he worth again?

Champagne socialists boil my tinkle.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was brilliant though. As was Bowling for Columbine. The guy made money honestly through his art and pays his taxes. I have no issue with him. David Milliband on the other hand........

 

[papaspur]

No doubt about it, he's well off, but it's because he's a successful director/producer/documentarian. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that, and furthermore, all our governments have socialist elements. State-sponsored education, health care (well, working on that in the US), etc.
The point here though is that he's right.

Government should only exist to improve our lives and do what we, various citizens of diverse nationalities, cannot do on our own.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Amen