Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
Never mind those idiots, we are about ISAs, SIPPs, mortgage rates and the FTSE 100
4 -
Thats not what you were claiming or what I was refuting. You were claiming that the vast majority of people on benefits with more than 2 had not experienced sickness/job loss/an accident to be there. A claim for which you have no evidence. I think the fact that we have 7.5million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment (down by 180k in the last year) and when you wait for treatment for 6 months you only have a 30% chance of ever returning to work and a year it becomes only a 10% chance. That along suggests that sickness will be playing a massive massive part in this.superclive98 said:
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.
So you're disagreeing with poverty at a time that we have record numbers of children skipping meals and going to school hungry.
Pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).
No No. The "common sense" he was claiming is that the "vast majority" of people didnt experience a change of circumstances (Sickness, accident, job loss) to put them in that position. A claim for which he has no evidence. Having kids you can afford and then experiencing a change in your circumstances is not something the kids should be punished for.Carter said:
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
Again pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).1 -
That isnt the solution you are going to get. Whichever way you cut it.
Lived experience is that a change of circumstance is shit, I could fall victim to that so pay into a policy that gives me a fair amount in the event something unforeseen and life changing happens. Costs me 6 quid a month, really hope I'll never have to use it but there is no way I will expect the state to take care of me or my family or rely on that being an option
0 -
I guess you could argue that ever having more than 2 kids (multiple births aside) is a financial risk that only those with very good and stable jobs should entertain. In the same way most have to budget with contingency for a change in say the mortgage rate a conscious choice to have 3 or more kids is a big commitment.cantersaddick said:
Thats not what you were claiming or what I was refuting. You were claiming that the vast majority of people on benefits with more than 2 had not experienced sickness/job loss/an accident to be there. A claim for which you have no evidence. I think the fact that we have 7.5million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment (down by 180k in the last year) and when you wait for treatment for 6 months you only have a 30% chance of ever returning to work and a year it becomes only a 10% chance. That along suggests that sickness will be playing a massive massive part in this.superclive98 said:
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.
So you're disagreeing with poverty at a time that we have record numbers of children skipping meals and going to school hungry.
Pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).
No No. The "common sense" he was claiming is that the "vast majority" of people didnt experience a change of circumstances (Sickness, accident, job loss) to put them in that position. A claim for which he has no evidence. Having kids you can afford and then experiencing a change in your circumstances is not something the kids should be punished for.Carter said:
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
Again pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).Anyway we don’t know they will lift the cap - maybe they will still apply some caveats / criteria to any revised policy.Breakfast clubs do seem to go some way to help and maybe they will have more ideas in this space. Certainly a case for free school meals all year for all age groups.0 -
Common sense is if you have kids and life takes an unexpected turn, you should sell them to the circus. Ffs....
1 -
As a 4th child I'll quite happily say I think no one should have more than 3 kids. I don't think it's possible to properly parent 4 kids even from a place of privilege. But, we believe in freedom and letting people live their lives don't we?valleynick66 said:
I guess you could argue that ever having more than 2 kids (multiple births aside) is a financial risk that only those with very good and stable jobs should entertain. In the same way most have to budget with contingency for a change in say the mortgage rate a conscious choice to have 3 or more kids is a big commitment.cantersaddick said:
Thats not what you were claiming or what I was refuting. You were claiming that the vast majority of people on benefits with more than 2 had not experienced sickness/job loss/an accident to be there. A claim for which you have no evidence. I think the fact that we have 7.5million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment (down by 180k in the last year) and when you wait for treatment for 6 months you only have a 30% chance of ever returning to work and a year it becomes only a 10% chance. That along suggests that sickness will be playing a massive massive part in this.superclive98 said:
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.
So you're disagreeing with poverty at a time that we have record numbers of children skipping meals and going to school hungry.
Pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).
No No. The "common sense" he was claiming is that the "vast majority" of people didnt experience a change of circumstances (Sickness, accident, job loss) to put them in that position. A claim for which he has no evidence. Having kids you can afford and then experiencing a change in your circumstances is not something the kids should be punished for.Carter said:
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
Again pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).Anyway we don’t know they will lift the cap - maybe they will still apply some caveats / criteria to any revised policy.Breakfast clubs do seem to go some way to help and maybe they will have more ideas in this space. Certainly a case for free school meals all year for all age groups.
Universal free school meals is an obvious one. Has the biggest impact on educational outcomes. If we want an educated workforce of the future it needs to be done.0 -
Absolutely. Just not with an expectation of a financial safety net.cantersaddick said:
As a 4th child I'll quite happily say I think no one should have more than 3 kids. I don't think it's possible to properly parent 4 kids even from a place of privilege. But, we believe in freedom and letting people live their lives don't we?valleynick66 said:
I guess you could argue that ever having more than 2 kids (multiple births aside) is a financial risk that only those with very good and stable jobs should entertain. In the same way most have to budget with contingency for a change in say the mortgage rate a conscious choice to have 3 or more kids is a big commitment.cantersaddick said:
Thats not what you were claiming or what I was refuting. You were claiming that the vast majority of people on benefits with more than 2 had not experienced sickness/job loss/an accident to be there. A claim for which you have no evidence. I think the fact that we have 7.5million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment (down by 180k in the last year) and when you wait for treatment for 6 months you only have a 30% chance of ever returning to work and a year it becomes only a 10% chance. That along suggests that sickness will be playing a massive massive part in this.superclive98 said:
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.
So you're disagreeing with poverty at a time that we have record numbers of children skipping meals and going to school hungry.
Pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).
No No. The "common sense" he was claiming is that the "vast majority" of people didnt experience a change of circumstances (Sickness, accident, job loss) to put them in that position. A claim for which he has no evidence. Having kids you can afford and then experiencing a change in your circumstances is not something the kids should be punished for.Carter said:
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
Again pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).Anyway we don’t know they will lift the cap - maybe they will still apply some caveats / criteria to any revised policy.Breakfast clubs do seem to go some way to help and maybe they will have more ideas in this space. Certainly a case for free school meals all year for all age groups.
Universal free school meals is an obvious one. Has the biggest impact on educational outcomes. If we want an educated workforce of the future it needs to be done.Maybe the cap will become 3 ?
There is no credible argument against free school meals in holiday times as well.1 -
Changing the subject from politics onto what I believe this thread should be about......
The new Pensions & Inheritance Tax Bill has thrown up an interesting issue. Not only will pension "pots" form part of your Estate from April 2027 but any residue annuity payments will too. For example, if you have an annuity with a 10 year guarantee period, and you die after 5 years, the remaining 5 years payments will be added into your Estate.
3 -
Honestly I'm surprised that things like this don't happen already!golfaddick said:Changing the subject from politics onto what I believe this thread should be about......
The new Pensions & Inheritance Tax Bill has thrown up an interesting issue. Not only will pension "pots" form part of your Estate from April 2027 but any residue annuity payments will too. For example, if you have an annuity with a 10 year guarantee period, and you die after 5 years, the remaining 5 years payments will be added into your Estate.0 -
Does anyone else find it really interesting/surprising/worrying that we are in a world where gold is up 47% YTD, and the S&P is up 14%?
It feels like everyone is terrified of missing out so pumping the S&P whilst being absolutely terrified of what is coming, so also pumping gold!
I really wish I'd bought gold earlier this year, I might be about to get my hands on a little bit of cash and still think it would be a good purchase!0 - Sponsored links:
-
Anyone on here set up a trust before for their kids?
Are they a good / bad thing, I heard they were expensive to maintain / how much do they roughly cost?0 -
So punishing children for other people's choices. Condemning them to a life of worse educational health and economic outcomes. That's the plan here?valleynick66 said:
Absolutely. Just not with an expectation of a financial safety net.cantersaddick said:
As a 4th child I'll quite happily say I think no one should have more than 3 kids. I don't think it's possible to properly parent 4 kids even from a place of privilege. But, we believe in freedom and letting people live their lives don't we?valleynick66 said:
I guess you could argue that ever having more than 2 kids (multiple births aside) is a financial risk that only those with very good and stable jobs should entertain. In the same way most have to budget with contingency for a change in say the mortgage rate a conscious choice to have 3 or more kids is a big commitment.cantersaddick said:
Thats not what you were claiming or what I was refuting. You were claiming that the vast majority of people on benefits with more than 2 had not experienced sickness/job loss/an accident to be there. A claim for which you have no evidence. I think the fact that we have 7.5million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment (down by 180k in the last year) and when you wait for treatment for 6 months you only have a 30% chance of ever returning to work and a year it becomes only a 10% chance. That along suggests that sickness will be playing a massive massive part in this.superclive98 said:
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.
So you're disagreeing with poverty at a time that we have record numbers of children skipping meals and going to school hungry.
Pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).
No No. The "common sense" he was claiming is that the "vast majority" of people didnt experience a change of circumstances (Sickness, accident, job loss) to put them in that position. A claim for which he has no evidence. Having kids you can afford and then experiencing a change in your circumstances is not something the kids should be punished for.Carter said:
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
Again pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).Anyway we don’t know they will lift the cap - maybe they will still apply some caveats / criteria to any revised policy.Breakfast clubs do seem to go some way to help and maybe they will have more ideas in this space. Certainly a case for free school meals all year for all age groups.
Universal free school meals is an obvious one. Has the biggest impact on educational outcomes. If we want an educated workforce of the future it needs to be done.Maybe the cap will become 3 ?
There is no credible argument against free school meals in holiday times as well.3 -
I stopped buying gold about 12 months ago, I also sold what I had in a fund back in March, but still hold a fair amount of physical gold. Not sure I'd buy more at this stage but that's as much about already holding quite a lot, just buy a few gold sovereigns if you want to enter the market, or a fund if you have space in ISA/SIPP etc.Huskaris said:Does anyone else find it really interesting/surprising/worrying that we are in a world where gold is up 47% YTD, and the S&P is up 14%?
It feels like everyone is terrified of missing out so pumping the S&P whilst being absolutely terrified of what is coming, so also pumping gold!
I really wish I'd bought gold earlier this year, I might be about to get my hands on a little bit of cash and still think it would be a good purchase!That said I've also liquidated around 2/3rd of my SIPP to lock in the growth since March, currently sitting in cash, which does earn last time I looked 2.5% (having slowly dropped this year from 3.25%) so not the end of the world.1 -
That makes sense though doesn't it? Would seem silly to tax the cash pot and not the guaranteed payments still to come.golfaddick said:Changing the subject from politics onto what I believe this thread should be about......
The new Pensions & Inheritance Tax Bill has thrown up an interesting issue. Not only will pension "pots" form part of your Estate from April 2027 but any residue annuity payments will too. For example, if you have an annuity with a 10 year guarantee period, and you die after 5 years, the remaining 5 years payments will be added into your Estate.1 -
I’m a private client solicitor and I would require so much more information to respond helpfully to that question.Mendonca In Asdas said:Anyone on here set up a trust before for their kids?
Are they a good / bad thing, I heard they were expensive to maintain / how much do they roughly cost?Ongoing cost really depends on amounts you would be putting into it. It’s mainly admin that’s the annoyance, as it would have to be registered with the Trust Regristrstion Service at HMRC and annual filings thereafter.2 -
No. Just suggesting people should make better choices initially.cantersaddick said:
So punishing children for other people's choices. Condemning them to a life of worse educational health and economic outcomes. That's the plan here?valleynick66 said:
Absolutely. Just not with an expectation of a financial safety net.cantersaddick said:
As a 4th child I'll quite happily say I think no one should have more than 3 kids. I don't think it's possible to properly parent 4 kids even from a place of privilege. But, we believe in freedom and letting people live their lives don't we?valleynick66 said:
I guess you could argue that ever having more than 2 kids (multiple births aside) is a financial risk that only those with very good and stable jobs should entertain. In the same way most have to budget with contingency for a change in say the mortgage rate a conscious choice to have 3 or more kids is a big commitment.cantersaddick said:
Thats not what you were claiming or what I was refuting. You were claiming that the vast majority of people on benefits with more than 2 had not experienced sickness/job loss/an accident to be there. A claim for which you have no evidence. I think the fact that we have 7.5million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment (down by 180k in the last year) and when you wait for treatment for 6 months you only have a 30% chance of ever returning to work and a year it becomes only a 10% chance. That along suggests that sickness will be playing a massive massive part in this.superclive98 said:
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.
So you're disagreeing with poverty at a time that we have record numbers of children skipping meals and going to school hungry.
Pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).
No No. The "common sense" he was claiming is that the "vast majority" of people didnt experience a change of circumstances (Sickness, accident, job loss) to put them in that position. A claim for which he has no evidence. Having kids you can afford and then experiencing a change in your circumstances is not something the kids should be punished for.Carter said:
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
Again pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).Anyway we don’t know they will lift the cap - maybe they will still apply some caveats / criteria to any revised policy.Breakfast clubs do seem to go some way to help and maybe they will have more ideas in this space. Certainly a case for free school meals all year for all age groups.
Universal free school meals is an obvious one. Has the biggest impact on educational outcomes. If we want an educated workforce of the future it needs to be done.Maybe the cap will become 3 ?
There is no credible argument against free school meals in holiday times as well.I’m not saying the cap is without consequences.1 -
The whole welfare state has become a financial headache for the country, it needs a complete revamp and overhaul, including looking at the 2 child cap. My personal belief is it (the cap) needs to be reviewed in the whole round of a review into the complete welfare state. The last tax return I have summarised by HMRC was 23-24, the highest percentage of tax was for welfare (21.6%), by the time you add Health, state pension and national debt interest you are at over 2/3rds of all tax. As we know the tax receipts have doubled in the past 10 years.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
I'm expecting by the next return summary (24/25) the welfare state will have increased further as a % of tax take, it's expected to be around 25%. This cannot continue without other changes.
On the Cap specifically, they could tie this in with the removal of child benefit (which is still received no matter what number of children). Whilst you can be effected by the cap if you have 3 or more children, you do still receive £900 per child (assuming you earn below a set amount) per annum for the 2nd child onwards (more for the 1st child, £1350).There probably has to be a limit on the support the state can provide in any given situation, what needs to be considered is where this is allocated and children should be high up on that list.2 -
Lifting the child benefit cap is much needed, we need people to have more children in this country, especially if we want to cut immigration down to a net zero. Anything that encourages that is good.
this is all moving deck chairs around whilst the triple lock still exists, btw. The welfare state is unsustainable, the most unsustainable part is the triple lock.1 -
cantersaddick said:
So punishing children for other people's choices. Condemning them to a life of worse educational health and economic outcomes. That's the plan here?valleynick66 said:
Absolutely. Just not with an expectation of a financial safety net.cantersaddick said:
As a 4th child I'll quite happily say I think no one should have more than 3 kids. I don't think it's possible to properly parent 4 kids even from a place of privilege. But, we believe in freedom and letting people live their lives don't we?valleynick66 said:
I guess you could argue that ever having more than 2 kids (multiple births aside) is a financial risk that only those with very good and stable jobs should entertain. In the same way most have to budget with contingency for a change in say the mortgage rate a conscious choice to have 3 or more kids is a big commitment.cantersaddick said:
Thats not what you were claiming or what I was refuting. You were claiming that the vast majority of people on benefits with more than 2 had not experienced sickness/job loss/an accident to be there. A claim for which you have no evidence. I think the fact that we have 7.5million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment (down by 180k in the last year) and when you wait for treatment for 6 months you only have a 30% chance of ever returning to work and a year it becomes only a 10% chance. That along suggests that sickness will be playing a massive massive part in this.superclive98 said:
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.
So you're disagreeing with poverty at a time that we have record numbers of children skipping meals and going to school hungry.
Pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).
No No. The "common sense" he was claiming is that the "vast majority" of people didnt experience a change of circumstances (Sickness, accident, job loss) to put them in that position. A claim for which he has no evidence. Having kids you can afford and then experiencing a change in your circumstances is not something the kids should be punished for.Carter said:
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
Again pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).Anyway we don’t know they will lift the cap - maybe they will still apply some caveats / criteria to any revised policy.Breakfast clubs do seem to go some way to help and maybe they will have more ideas in this space. Certainly a case for free school meals all year for all age groups.
Universal free school meals is an obvious one. Has the biggest impact on educational outcomes. If we want an educated workforce of the future it needs to be done.Maybe the cap will become 3 ?
There is no credible argument against free school meals in holiday times as well.
Do us a favour? Please take your political ramblings to another site.
This thread is fantastic because lots of knowledgeable people give their time and expertise freely to those of us who aren't expert in this field and I do not want the thread shut when people who don't agree with you start responding.7 -
Hang on a second. I didnt start this topic I've only replied to other peoples political assertions and quoted actual studies. Is it only political when you dont agree with it? I havent mentioned a single political party or politician (though others have) I have focused solely on the economic impact of the policy in discussion. Which is relevant to this thread.Fortune 82nd Minute said:cantersaddick said:
So punishing children for other people's choices. Condemning them to a life of worse educational health and economic outcomes. That's the plan here?valleynick66 said:
Absolutely. Just not with an expectation of a financial safety net.cantersaddick said:
As a 4th child I'll quite happily say I think no one should have more than 3 kids. I don't think it's possible to properly parent 4 kids even from a place of privilege. But, we believe in freedom and letting people live their lives don't we?valleynick66 said:
I guess you could argue that ever having more than 2 kids (multiple births aside) is a financial risk that only those with very good and stable jobs should entertain. In the same way most have to budget with contingency for a change in say the mortgage rate a conscious choice to have 3 or more kids is a big commitment.cantersaddick said:
Thats not what you were claiming or what I was refuting. You were claiming that the vast majority of people on benefits with more than 2 had not experienced sickness/job loss/an accident to be there. A claim for which you have no evidence. I think the fact that we have 7.5million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment (down by 180k in the last year) and when you wait for treatment for 6 months you only have a 30% chance of ever returning to work and a year it becomes only a 10% chance. That along suggests that sickness will be playing a massive massive part in this.superclive98 said:
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.
So you're disagreeing with poverty at a time that we have record numbers of children skipping meals and going to school hungry.
Pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).
No No. The "common sense" he was claiming is that the "vast majority" of people didnt experience a change of circumstances (Sickness, accident, job loss) to put them in that position. A claim for which he has no evidence. Having kids you can afford and then experiencing a change in your circumstances is not something the kids should be punished for.Carter said:
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
Again pay for this now or pay for it 4 times over in another generations time (plus the opportunity cost of an entire missed generation).Anyway we don’t know they will lift the cap - maybe they will still apply some caveats / criteria to any revised policy.Breakfast clubs do seem to go some way to help and maybe they will have more ideas in this space. Certainly a case for free school meals all year for all age groups.
Universal free school meals is an obvious one. Has the biggest impact on educational outcomes. If we want an educated workforce of the future it needs to be done.Maybe the cap will become 3 ?
There is no credible argument against free school meals in holiday times as well.
Do us a favour? Please take your political ramblings to another site.
This thread is fantastic because lots of knowledgeable people give their time and expertise freely to those of us who aren't expert in this field and I do not want the thread shut when people who don't agree with you start responding.
I also dont want this thread closed and use it for its "proper" purpose regularly, but its important at times like these to not let people make unfounded claims go unchallenged.5 - Sponsored links:
-
Can only assume that the budget will see changes in the CGT and Dividend tax regime alongside pension contribution relief if we accept the indication that the manifesto commitments stand (for now).I also assume rumblings on the banking sector levy and maybe energy companies has some likelihood of happening too.Really not sure what else can happen short term that generates the needed cash and doesn’t conflict with the manifesto stuff.Sure there will be changes on spend too.0
-
Would love to equalise CGT/Dividends with income tax, scrap triple lock, address welfare bill in other areas (what was attempted a few months back).valleynick66 said:Can only assume that the budget will see changes in the CGT and Dividend tax regime alongside pension contribution relief if we accept the indication that the manifesto commitments stand (for now).I also assume rumblings on the banking sector levy and maybe energy companies has some likelihood of happening too.Really not sure what else can happen short term that generates the needed cash and doesn’t conflict with the manifesto stuff.Sure there will be changes on spend too.
I think all those things combined would make a difference.
I would also like to see some sort of means testing on pensions (which I know is a bit more radical and many people who I greatly respect on here disagree, so I'm not completely sold on it) with more money going to those who are genuinely poor, but the flip side is that the tax incentives for pensions will remain generous (maybe even outside of scope of IHT for example). Pensions will have to be addressed one way or another in the near future.
2 -
Huskaris said:
Would love to equalise CGT/Dividends with income tax, scrap triple lock, address welfare bill in other areas (what was attempted a few months back).valleynick66 said:Can only assume that the budget will see changes in the CGT and Dividend tax regime alongside pension contribution relief if we accept the indication that the manifesto commitments stand (for now).I also assume rumblings on the banking sector levy and maybe energy companies has some likelihood of happening too.Really not sure what else can happen short term that generates the needed cash and doesn’t conflict with the manifesto stuff.Sure there will be changes on spend too.
I think all those things combined would make a difference.
I would also like to see some sort of means testing on pensions (which I know is a bit more radical and many people who I greatly respect on here disagree, so I'm not completely sold on it) with more money going to those who are genuinely poor, but the flip side is that the tax incentives for pensions will remain generous (maybe even outside of scope of IHT for example). Pensions will have to be addressed one way or another in the near future.I would agree that the triple lock is unsustainable and should be linked to CPI or such like. As I've made clear in the past, I do not believe that the State Pension should be means tested - taxed as part of overall income yes and the richest pensioners would pay tax on it all. I see it different to welfare payments - the State Pension is more akin to an annuity than a benefit as it is based on an individual's lifetime NI record.I agree - disability benefits are a real burden on the welfare spend and have to be addressed, however unpopular that may be. The significant increase in claimants year on year is difficult to explain - this report is illuminating, especially the graph at Figure 3.
4 -
Yeah happy to admit I could be completely wrong on the means testing of state pension, as you rightly point out it already gets taxed if you have your own provision in place, probably just a load of hassle to means test it as well!bobmunro said:Huskaris said:
Would love to equalise CGT/Dividends with income tax, scrap triple lock, address welfare bill in other areas (what was attempted a few months back).valleynick66 said:Can only assume that the budget will see changes in the CGT and Dividend tax regime alongside pension contribution relief if we accept the indication that the manifesto commitments stand (for now).I also assume rumblings on the banking sector levy and maybe energy companies has some likelihood of happening too.Really not sure what else can happen short term that generates the needed cash and doesn’t conflict with the manifesto stuff.Sure there will be changes on spend too.
I think all those things combined would make a difference.
I would also like to see some sort of means testing on pensions (which I know is a bit more radical and many people who I greatly respect on here disagree, so I'm not completely sold on it) with more money going to those who are genuinely poor, but the flip side is that the tax incentives for pensions will remain generous (maybe even outside of scope of IHT for example). Pensions will have to be addressed one way or another in the near future.I would agree that the triple lock is unsustainable and should be linked to CPI or such like. As I've made clear in the past, I do not believe that the State Pension should be means tested - taxed as part of overall income yes and the richest pensioners would pay tax on it all. I see it different to welfare payments - the State Pension is more akin to an annuity than a benefit as it is based on an individual's lifetime NI record.I agree - disability benefits are a real burden on the welfare spend and have to be addressed, however unpopular that may be. The significant increase in claimants year on year is difficult to explain - this report is illuminating, especially the graph at Figure 3.
Thanks so much for sharing that report, absolutely fascinating. As you say, Figure 3 is particularly concerning! I think they key thing that it shows it that the rate of change in claimants seems to be more or less unique to the UK amongst OECD nations.2 -
I'm with Bob on state pensions, by the time I get there, if I do, I'll be giving back nearly half of it anyway. It should never be means tested, to do so would also make people less likely to save/invest/take responsibility themselves.Huskaris said:
Yeah happy to admit I could be completely wrong on the means testing of state pension, as you rightly point out it already gets taxed if you have your own provision in place, probably just a load of hassle to means test it as well!bobmunro said:Huskaris said:
Would love to equalise CGT/Dividends with income tax, scrap triple lock, address welfare bill in other areas (what was attempted a few months back).valleynick66 said:Can only assume that the budget will see changes in the CGT and Dividend tax regime alongside pension contribution relief if we accept the indication that the manifesto commitments stand (for now).I also assume rumblings on the banking sector levy and maybe energy companies has some likelihood of happening too.Really not sure what else can happen short term that generates the needed cash and doesn’t conflict with the manifesto stuff.Sure there will be changes on spend too.
I think all those things combined would make a difference.
I would also like to see some sort of means testing on pensions (which I know is a bit more radical and many people who I greatly respect on here disagree, so I'm not completely sold on it) with more money going to those who are genuinely poor, but the flip side is that the tax incentives for pensions will remain generous (maybe even outside of scope of IHT for example). Pensions will have to be addressed one way or another in the near future.I would agree that the triple lock is unsustainable and should be linked to CPI or such like. As I've made clear in the past, I do not believe that the State Pension should be means tested - taxed as part of overall income yes and the richest pensioners would pay tax on it all. I see it different to welfare payments - the State Pension is more akin to an annuity than a benefit as it is based on an individual's lifetime NI record.I agree - disability benefits are a real burden on the welfare spend and have to be addressed, however unpopular that may be. The significant increase in claimants year on year is difficult to explain - this report is illuminating, especially the graph at Figure 3.
Thanks so much for sharing that report, absolutely fascinating. As you say, Figure 3 is particularly concerning! I think they key thing that it shows it that the rate of change in claimants seems to be more or less unique to the UK amongst OECD nations.The disability benefit issue shouldn't be underestimated. I do some work in that sector from a reinsurance perspective and some of the stuff I see is just unbelievable and unprintable! (plus I'm under an NDA).
Something needs to give to that end, my wife's one of many cousins, her and her husband are mid 50's and neither have worked for over 20 years I believe (he much longer). She apparently due to arthritis and he anxiety/stress. But they don't seem to have any issue living life to the full that their stress/anxiety or arthritis stop them from doing pretty much everything I can do (except paid work!). Their Facebook is full of nights out, 3 week holidays, at the gym, in their hot tub, cycling, the theatre just basically having a great time! Having met them a few times it's very very clear they are quite capable of working, but are happy not to and living as they do.6 -
Yeah it is very interesting. It is indexed so doesn't show what the starting point was. It's possible, but I think unlikely, that we are starting from a lower starting point.Huskaris said:
Yeah happy to admit I could be completely wrong on the means testing of state pension, as you rightly point out it already gets taxed if you have your own provision in place, probably just a load of hassle to means test it as well!bobmunro said:Huskaris said:
Would love to equalise CGT/Dividends with income tax, scrap triple lock, address welfare bill in other areas (what was attempted a few months back).valleynick66 said:Can only assume that the budget will see changes in the CGT and Dividend tax regime alongside pension contribution relief if we accept the indication that the manifesto commitments stand (for now).I also assume rumblings on the banking sector levy and maybe energy companies has some likelihood of happening too.Really not sure what else can happen short term that generates the needed cash and doesn’t conflict with the manifesto stuff.Sure there will be changes on spend too.
I think all those things combined would make a difference.
I would also like to see some sort of means testing on pensions (which I know is a bit more radical and many people who I greatly respect on here disagree, so I'm not completely sold on it) with more money going to those who are genuinely poor, but the flip side is that the tax incentives for pensions will remain generous (maybe even outside of scope of IHT for example). Pensions will have to be addressed one way or another in the near future.I would agree that the triple lock is unsustainable and should be linked to CPI or such like. As I've made clear in the past, I do not believe that the State Pension should be means tested - taxed as part of overall income yes and the richest pensioners would pay tax on it all. I see it different to welfare payments - the State Pension is more akin to an annuity than a benefit as it is based on an individual's lifetime NI record.I agree - disability benefits are a real burden on the welfare spend and have to be addressed, however unpopular that may be. The significant increase in claimants year on year is difficult to explain - this report is illuminating, especially the graph at Figure 3.
Thanks so much for sharing that report, absolutely fascinating. As you say, Figure 3 is particularly concerning! I think they key thing that it shows it that the rate of change in claimants seems to be more or less unique to the UK amongst OECD nations.
2 things I'd like to see on that. Those countries waiting lists for health treatments. There is an undeniable link between our waiting list for NHS treatment and people using the disability benefit system. We currently have 7.5m people on a waiting list for treatment with huge numbers waiting over a year. And that's just the stock of what's there currently. Not the flow of millions of people over the last 10 years who have had massive waits for treatment. There will be millions who's health outcomes, recovery, future ability to lead a healthy life and economic prospects have been damaged by these long waits. That is simply funnelling people onto the disability system.
A US comparison - which I know doesn't exist as they don't have a remotely comparable system. But the way we experienced the pandemic socially and the recovery is similar to the way the US experienced it. I'm wondering if social factors are driving the massive increase in mental health as a driver in demand for the disability system.0 -
I'm sure that plays a part. What I'm seeing is over the past 3 years a huge increase in predominantly under 30's due to mental health issues (which I appreciate can be related to lack of NHS support etc). I'm always staggered at how many of my two daughters friends/peers (aged 22 and 25) either aren't working at all, and a lot who are, are part time. Very few are in full time employment and that's an issue that will play out of many years.cantersaddick said:
Yeah it is very interesting. It is indexed so doesn't show what the starting point was. It's possible, but I think unlikely, that we are starting from a lower starting point.Huskaris said:
Yeah happy to admit I could be completely wrong on the means testing of state pension, as you rightly point out it already gets taxed if you have your own provision in place, probably just a load of hassle to means test it as well!bobmunro said:Huskaris said:
Would love to equalise CGT/Dividends with income tax, scrap triple lock, address welfare bill in other areas (what was attempted a few months back).valleynick66 said:Can only assume that the budget will see changes in the CGT and Dividend tax regime alongside pension contribution relief if we accept the indication that the manifesto commitments stand (for now).I also assume rumblings on the banking sector levy and maybe energy companies has some likelihood of happening too.Really not sure what else can happen short term that generates the needed cash and doesn’t conflict with the manifesto stuff.Sure there will be changes on spend too.
I think all those things combined would make a difference.
I would also like to see some sort of means testing on pensions (which I know is a bit more radical and many people who I greatly respect on here disagree, so I'm not completely sold on it) with more money going to those who are genuinely poor, but the flip side is that the tax incentives for pensions will remain generous (maybe even outside of scope of IHT for example). Pensions will have to be addressed one way or another in the near future.I would agree that the triple lock is unsustainable and should be linked to CPI or such like. As I've made clear in the past, I do not believe that the State Pension should be means tested - taxed as part of overall income yes and the richest pensioners would pay tax on it all. I see it different to welfare payments - the State Pension is more akin to an annuity than a benefit as it is based on an individual's lifetime NI record.I agree - disability benefits are a real burden on the welfare spend and have to be addressed, however unpopular that may be. The significant increase in claimants year on year is difficult to explain - this report is illuminating, especially the graph at Figure 3.
Thanks so much for sharing that report, absolutely fascinating. As you say, Figure 3 is particularly concerning! I think they key thing that it shows it that the rate of change in claimants seems to be more or less unique to the UK amongst OECD nations.
2 things I'd like to see on that. Those countries waiting lists for health treatments. There is an undeniable link between our waiting list for NHS treatment and people using the disability benefit system. We currently have 7.5m people on a waiting list for treatment with huge numbers waiting over a year. And that's just the stock of what's there currently. Not the flow of millions of people over the last 10 years who have had massive waits for treatment. There will be millions who's health outcomes, recovery, future ability to lead a healthy life and economic prospects have been damaged by these long waits. That is simply funnelling people onto the disability system.
A US comparison - which I know doesn't exist as they don't have a remotely comparable system. But the way we experienced the pandemic socially and the recovery is similar to the way the US experienced it. I'm wondering if social factors are driving the massive increase in mental health as a driver in demand for the disability system.4 -
Bonds tonight 🙏🍺⚽️3
-
Equalising CGT & Dividend Tax wont raise much money......certainly not enough to make even a small dent in the £40bn black hole, which will get even bigger if the benefit cap on 2 children is lifted.Huskaris said:
Would love to equalise CGT/Dividends with income tax, scrap triple lock, address welfare bill in other areas (what was attempted a few months back).valleynick66 said:Can only assume that the budget will see changes in the CGT and Dividend tax regime alongside pension contribution relief if we accept the indication that the manifesto commitments stand (for now).I also assume rumblings on the banking sector levy and maybe energy companies has some likelihood of happening too.Really not sure what else can happen short term that generates the needed cash and doesn’t conflict with the manifesto stuff.Sure there will be changes on spend too.
I think all those things combined would make a difference.
I would also like to see some sort of means testing on pensions (which I know is a bit more radical and many people who I greatly respect on here disagree, so I'm not completely sold on it) with more money going to those who are genuinely poor, but the flip side is that the tax incentives for pensions will remain generous (maybe even outside of scope of IHT for example). Pensions will have to be addressed one way or another in the near future.
There will have to be a "biggie" in the works otherwise any changes already mentioned will just be tinkering around the edges.0 -
I can think of a biggie but this isn't the forum. 😉
On a separate note, £122m of the £3.5bn has been clawed back. Bloody boat people.4
