For instance, some people with families might want to ensure that their children will all get free meals at primary schools.
Why, those who need free school meals already get them, just like they always have (in my lifetime anyway). I don't see the point of my children if they were still at primary getting free meals, I can afford to pay them so wouldn't that money be better spent? It's decisions like this that make no sense in comparison to some of Labours policies/manifesto.
But there's also one chilling point that anyone who has two children should consider. Under the current Government's policy and proposals, if a family has one or two children, they can make a claim for child tax credits to help in the cost of raising the children. But if a woman has a third child, she may have to prove the pregnancy is the result of rape. So, my advice to anyone with, contemplating or in a family with a third child is, do not vote for the current Government next month.
Surely if you are in receipt of child tax credits and have two children and know you won't get anymore help from the state (in child tax credits) you make the decision that you can either afford another child or you can't. Many times my parents said they wished they could have afforded more children, they took the decision they couldn't and therefore they didn't. Child tax credits came in in 2003, people seemed to have managed for the 2003 years prior to that, it only seems the last 14 years it's been necessary........
You've done exactly the right thing as far as I am concerned. You've looked at what is important to you and you've made your decision. That's what everyone should do.
You've weighed up what's important to you and decided that you're happy that primary school children should continue to be segregated, based on their parents' ability to pay for school meals; and that the rape clause is a perfectly acceptable policy, to mitigate against anyone whose circumstances become reduced after their third child is conceived. No-one should ever point a finger at you and accuse you of not thinking through the issues and making a decision that's right for you - if only more people would do the same.
I, however, will be voting against the forced segregation and unnecessary stigmatising of primary school children; and I will be voting against the rape clause that determines that a third child whose mother is in receipt of child tax credits will be stigmatised by having his or her mother having to prove a man has raped her (and must prove she does not live with the child's father) and share that information with their employers. You've picked on two of the items I listed. One unnecessarily discriminates against children based on their parents' income; and one unnecessarily discriminates against children based on the criminal activities of their absent father. Each to their own though.
WTF! - How does NOT giving every primary school child free school meals lead to segregation? Are you seriously saying currently those who get free school meals are some how segregated from those who pay for them?
I can't profess to having been in every primary school in the country but those I have the free/paid for school meal children eat the same food in the same hall and none of them would be any the wiser if the child sitting next to them parents paid for the meal or didn't. Be interesting see how they calculate pupil premium now .......
If you believe it's about stigma then why aren't secondary school pupils getting it? Or is there no stigma at 11+?
As for the rape policy I didn't mention that but assume it's an exception to the rule on who can obtain said benefit. Appreciate it doesn't sound pleasant, but better than not having that exception surely?
For instance, some people with families might want to ensure that their children will all get free meals at primary schools.
Why, those who need free school meals already get them, just like they always have (in my lifetime anyway). I don't see the point of my children if they were still at primary getting free meals, I can afford to pay them so wouldn't that money be better spent? It's decisions like this that make no sense in comparison to some of Labours policies/manifesto.
But there's also one chilling point that anyone who has two children should consider. Under the current Government's policy and proposals, if a family has one or two children, they can make a claim for child tax credits to help in the cost of raising the children. But if a woman has a third child, she may have to prove the pregnancy is the result of rape. So, my advice to anyone with, contemplating or in a family with a third child is, do not vote for the current Government next month.
Surely if you are in receipt of child tax credits and have two children and know you won't get anymore help from the state (in child tax credits) you make the decision that you can either afford another child or you can't. Many times my parents said they wished they could have afforded more children, they took the decision they couldn't and therefore they didn't. Child tax credits came in in 2003, people seemed to have managed for the 2003 years prior to that, it only seems the last 14 years it's been necessary........
You've done exactly the right thing as far as I am concerned. You've looked at what is important to you and you've made your decision. That's what everyone should do.
You've weighed up what's important to you and decided that you're happy that primary school children should continue to be segregated, based on their parents' ability to pay for school meals; and that the rape clause is a perfectly acceptable policy, to mitigate against anyone whose circumstances become reduced after their third child is conceived. No-one should ever point a finger at you and accuse you of not thinking through the issues and making a decision that's right for you - if only more people would do the same.
I, however, will be voting against the forced segregation and unnecessary stigmatising of primary school children; and I will be voting against the rape clause that determines that a third child whose mother is in receipt of child tax credits will be stigmatised by having his or her mother having to prove a man has raped her (and must prove she does not live with the child's father) and share that information with their employers. You've picked on two of the items I listed. One unnecessarily discriminates against children based on their parents' income; and one unnecessarily discriminates against children based on the criminal activities of their absent father. Each to their own though.
When I was at school we all ate together whether you had free meals or not. I think you're going a bit OTT with your segregation comments.
Also
Where is the information you have about the 3Rd child situation?
Chizz, why should university tuition be completely free and thus paid for by the ordinary taxpayer, most of whom never had the chance to enjoy the financial, educational and social benefits of university?
I accept that society benefits from having well educated and cultured graduates (which explains why tuition fees don't cover the full cost) but free?!
You answered your question. Education can't be limited to those who can afford it either. Ultimately the country benefits. I never went to university but I want my son to.
The costings simply do not add up. Take the income tax. This is the one that everyone is focussing on even though it is only supposed to be £6.4bn of the total required. Recent evidence of the 45%/50% rate of tax implies it didn't actually make much difference to the total tax take. Part of the reason is people tax planning, legally and legitimately, as well as more dodgy practices. The lower the tax rate the less likely people are to worry about these. Corporation tax is even less predictable and will definitely raise proportionately less. There is even more room for tax planning with global groups. A lower tax rate encourages groups to allocate profit to UK. I am fairly open to nationalisation in some respects but anyone who remembers what it was like in 70's will be very sceptical. I shouldn't think any new trains had been bought for years; whereas there has been a lot of investment in rolling stock in recent years. Personally I think it can be done better by improving their targets. It strikes me biggest problem is line capacity. Everyone would like a better NHS but it is a bottomless drain as medical science improves and more of us get older. Goodness knows what it will be like when us baby boomers hit the time we all need care. One thing is for certain though is it won't be helped by taking the money out of the economy and reducing future growth or inward investment. This manifesto is a shambles
"This manifesto is a shambles, because rich people know how to cheat"
...or just work less
Why would they work less?
Being in a higher tax bracket still means you take home far more money than lower brackets.
....in my view, when tax rates reach levels which are akin to expropriation (say when your take-home is less than 50%) then sufficient numbers of those who are no longer working because they 'need' the money will simply work less or not at all (thus offsetting the extra inflows from those who continue as they were).
Bear in mind many (most?) of the highest earners are not employees on fixed contracts but effectively self-employed (eg. firm partners, actors, musicians, TV stars, sportspeople etc.). Entrepreneurs/business owners can simply leave money in their business and not dividend it out.
Even those who are employees might consider retiring early, rather than taking the 6.32am from East Grinstead for another few years only to give the government at least half of what they earn.
In your view maybe, but people have studied it and found that higher tax rates do not cause people to work less. People continue to work exactly the same when tax rates are higher.
If the government taxed me more I would have to work harder to make up for the loss of income.
Can't really see why we assume people will stop working if taxes are higher?
have to agree with NYA on both, but fees shouldn't total more than 9k and there should be plenty of schemes/bursaries to help the less well off in addition to loan scheme.
Before getting pregnant with a third child, it is good planning to ensure you can afford it.
Yes. Equally, before becoming the victim of compromised financial circumstances (losing a job, becoming widowed, etc), one should be careful to ensure that one has an appropriate number of children. However, life's not always that simple.
Society is advantaged when all members of society can be cared for by their families - even when those families require financial help.
Some people might prefer a system where the number of children any family is allowed to have is limited by punitive taxation methods. I am not a fan of that type of system. It's never the fault of a third child that he or she has two older siblings. Why should that child be singled out for punishment?
Chizz, why should university tuition be completely free and thus paid for by the ordinary taxpayer, most of whom never had the chance to enjoy the financial, educational and social benefits of university?
I accept that society benefits from having well educated and cultured graduates (which explains why tuition fees don't cover the full cost) but free?!
The answer to the question in your first sentence is perfectly provided in the first half of your second sentence.
Before getting pregnant with a third child, it is good planning to ensure you can afford it.
Which is exactly why the Tories have made an exemption for rape victims who give birth to a third child.
You know, after they have to prove to a group of strangers that the child was indeed a product of a vile crime, including recounting traumatising details of the ordeal.
You also ignore the fact that the victims of child benefit cuts are not the parents who choose to have them but the children who did not ask to be born to an impoverished family.
For instance, some people with families might want to ensure that their children will all get free meals at primary schools.
Why, those who need free school meals already get them, just like they always have (in my lifetime anyway). I don't see the point of my children if they were still at primary getting free meals, I can afford to pay them so wouldn't that money be better spent? It's decisions like this that make no sense in comparison to some of Labours policies/manifesto.
But there's also one chilling point that anyone who has two children should consider. Under the current Government's policy and proposals, if a family has one or two children, they can make a claim for child tax credits to help in the cost of raising the children. But if a woman has a third child, she may have to prove the pregnancy is the result of rape. So, my advice to anyone with, contemplating or in a family with a third child is, do not vote for the current Government next month.
Surely if you are in receipt of child tax credits and have two children and know you won't get anymore help from the state (in child tax credits) you make the decision that you can either afford another child or you can't. Many times my parents said they wished they could have afforded more children, they took the decision they couldn't and therefore they didn't. Child tax credits came in in 2003, people seemed to have managed for the 2003 years prior to that, it only seems the last 14 years it's been necessary........
You've done exactly the right thing as far as I am concerned. You've looked at what is important to you and you've made your decision. That's what everyone should do.
You've weighed up what's important to you and decided that you're happy that primary school children should continue to be segregated, based on their parents' ability to pay for school meals; and that the rape clause is a perfectly acceptable policy, to mitigate against anyone whose circumstances become reduced after their third child is conceived. No-one should ever point a finger at you and accuse you of not thinking through the issues and making a decision that's right for you - if only more people would do the same.
I, however, will be voting against the forced segregation and unnecessary stigmatising of primary school children; and I will be voting against the rape clause that determines that a third child whose mother is in receipt of child tax credits will be stigmatised by having his or her mother having to prove a man has raped her (and must prove she does not live with the child's father) and share that information with their employers. You've picked on two of the items I listed. One unnecessarily discriminates against children based on their parents' income; and one unnecessarily discriminates against children based on the criminal activities of their absent father. Each to their own though.
Where is the information you have about the 3Rd child situation?
Pretty much gives all the information, there are a number of exceptions for the third child such as adoption, multiple births, non-consensual conception and kinship care situations. But lets not mention all of those heh.
So 2.5% surcharge (paid by companies) on excessive pay over £330,000. That will include pretty much all football players in the top two divisions. (And Tex) Then, of course, the players will demand more wages to offset their new tax bills. So, ticket prices and/or Sky subscriptions will have to go up. That's an impact on ordinary hard working football fans straight away.
Absurd. Players don't demand better wages and get them, clubs are in a bidding war for them. If the highest clubs will go for X player is £50k a week before the tax changes, that isn't going to change after the tax changes.
Sometimes I really hate this country - we are really nasty sometimes. That is probably why the Tories have been doing so well of late. I'm not going to tell people how many children they should have directly or indirectly! A quick google shows George Best and Bill Gates were the third child.
Chizz, why should university tuition be completely free and thus paid for by the ordinary taxpayer, most of whom never had the chance to enjoy the financial, educational and social benefits of university?
I accept that society benefits from having well educated and cultured graduates (which explains why tuition fees don't cover the full cost) but free?!
You answered your question. Education can't be limited to those who can afford it either. Ultimately the country benefits. I never went to university but I want my son to.
Hence he will only pay for it when he is earning enough to do so....
Before getting pregnant with a third child, it is good planning to ensure you can afford it.
Which is exactly why the Tories have made an exemption for rape victims who give birth to a third child.
You know, after they have to prove to a group of strangers that the child was indeed a product of a vile crime, including recounting traumatising details of the ordeal.
You also ignore the fact that the victims of child benefit cuts are not the parents who choose to have them but the children who did not ask to be born to an impoverished family.
....because there are so many thousands of these cases every year!
The costings simply do not add up. Take the income tax. This is the one that everyone is focussing on even though it is only supposed to be £6.4bn of the total required. Recent evidence of the 45%/50% rate of tax implies it didn't actually make much difference to the total tax take. Part of the reason is people tax planning, legally and legitimately, as well as more dodgy practices. The lower the tax rate the less likely people are to worry about these. Corporation tax is even less predictable and will definitely raise proportionately less. There is even more room for tax planning with global groups. A lower tax rate encourages groups to allocate profit to UK. I am fairly open to nationalisation in some respects but anyone who remembers what it was like in 70's will be very sceptical. I shouldn't think any new trains had been bought for years; whereas there has been a lot of investment in rolling stock in recent years. Personally I think it can be done better by improving their targets. It strikes me biggest problem is line capacity. Everyone would like a better NHS but it is a bottomless drain as medical science improves and more of us get older. Goodness knows what it will be like when us baby boomers hit the time we all need care. One thing is for certain though is it won't be helped by taking the money out of the economy and reducing future growth or inward investment. This manifesto is a shambles
"This manifesto is a shambles, because rich people know how to cheat"
...or just work less
Why would they work less?
Being in a higher tax bracket still means you take home far more money than lower brackets.
....in my view, when tax rates reach levels which are akin to expropriation (say when your take-home is less than 50%) then sufficient numbers of those who are no longer working because they 'need' the money will simply work less or not at all (thus offsetting the extra inflows from those who continue as they were).
Bear in mind many (most?) of the highest earners are not employees on fixed contracts but effectively self-employed (eg. firm partners, actors, musicians, TV stars, sportspeople etc.). Entrepreneurs/business owners can simply leave money in their business and not dividend it out.
Even those who are employees might consider retiring early, rather than taking the 6.32am from East Grinstead for another few years only to give the government at least half of what they earn.
In your view maybe, but people have studied it and found that higher tax rates do not cause people to work less. People continue to work exactly the same when tax rates are higher.
If the government taxed me more I would have to work harder to make up for the loss of income.
Can't really see why we assume people will stop working if taxes are higher?
Lucky you. Presume you work for yourself then. I work for a company. Not a commission based job. If I get taxed more I earn less. End of.
Chizz, why should university tuition be completely free and thus paid for by the ordinary taxpayer, most of whom never had the chance to enjoy the financial, educational and social benefits of university?
I accept that society benefits from having well educated and cultured graduates (which explains why tuition fees don't cover the full cost) but free?!
The answer to the question in your first sentence is perfectly provided in the first half of your second sentence.
Why stop at graduation? Why not make all postgraduate courses free too? And maybe language and yoga classes.
The costings simply do not add up. Take the income tax. This is the one that everyone is focussing on even though it is only supposed to be £6.4bn of the total required. Recent evidence of the 45%/50% rate of tax implies it didn't actually make much difference to the total tax take. Part of the reason is people tax planning, legally and legitimately, as well as more dodgy practices. The lower the tax rate the less likely people are to worry about these. Corporation tax is even less predictable and will definitely raise proportionately less. There is even more room for tax planning with global groups. A lower tax rate encourages groups to allocate profit to UK. I am fairly open to nationalisation in some respects but anyone who remembers what it was like in 70's will be very sceptical. I shouldn't think any new trains had been bought for years; whereas there has been a lot of investment in rolling stock in recent years. Personally I think it can be done better by improving their targets. It strikes me biggest problem is line capacity. Everyone would like a better NHS but it is a bottomless drain as medical science improves and more of us get older. Goodness knows what it will be like when us baby boomers hit the time we all need care. One thing is for certain though is it won't be helped by taking the money out of the economy and reducing future growth or inward investment. This manifesto is a shambles
"This manifesto is a shambles, because rich people know how to cheat"
...or just work less
Why would they work less?
Being in a higher tax bracket still means you take home far more money than lower brackets.
....in my view, when tax rates reach levels which are akin to expropriation (say when your take-home is less than 50%) then sufficient numbers of those who are no longer working because they 'need' the money will simply work less or not at all (thus offsetting the extra inflows from those who continue as they were).
Bear in mind many (most?) of the highest earners are not employees on fixed contracts but effectively self-employed (eg. firm partners, actors, musicians, TV stars, sportspeople etc.). Entrepreneurs/business owners can simply leave money in their business and not dividend it out.
Even those who are employees might consider retiring early, rather than taking the 6.32am from East Grinstead for another few years only to give the government at least half of what they earn.
In your view maybe, but people have studied it and found that higher tax rates do not cause people to work less. People continue to work exactly the same when tax rates are higher.
If the government taxed me more I would have to work harder to make up for the loss of income.
Can't really see why we assume people will stop working if taxes are higher?
Lucky you. Presume you work for yourself then. I work for a company. Not a commission based job. If I get taxed more I earn less. End of.
Only if you earn more than £80k a year under Labour and you will get a better health service and schools for your family. And if you have elderly relatives who need social care you benefit from that too.
And as the 5th biggest economy we can afford to pay for education.
Sometimes I really hate this country - we are really nasty sometimes. That is probably why the Tories have been doing so well of late. I'm not going to tell people how many children they should have directly or indirectly! A quick google shows George Best and Bill Gates were the third child.
Wrong - have as many children as you want just don't expect everyone to pay for them
Disagree in parts: Most people that I have seen or know on benefits have more expensive clothes than I, more expensive TV's, Cars etc generally more and get benefits whilst working cash in hand or not at all. They go on multiple holidays a year and get a ridiculously cheap house... All they tend to do is go to the odd GP appointment to say they're not ready to get back out there or go to the odd job interview...
I earn a bit below 40k and have an average car, average motorbike, average clothes (next etc) and I have to save up for months for a weekend away. I even have to save to buy for any additional expenses each month. Bills and mortgage = 80% of our monthly income. Food and a savings account for our daughter take up the remainder!
So yeah I'll say flip the benefits we get - £10 per week whilst some lazy chav gets hundreds maybe a thousand a month for doing flip all.
I see what you are saying. I could count up to ten people I know abusing the system
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
My heart truly bleeds at such injustice.
Wow, you do have a real beef with high earners. Why does it bother you so much that there's people earning 100k plus a year?
It doesn't bother me that people are earning 100k plus a year. Don't know where you got that from.
What does bother me, like it should any decent human being, is that we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power, and that the only way this is going to improve is if money is spent to help these people, yet those who would miss the money the least (the highest earners) whinge the loudest when asked to help stop this injustice. For the cost of a few high-earners having to save up for a few months more to buy a brand new BMW, the lives of many more families could be immensely improved.
Poverty ruins lives. Poverty kills. Poverty destroys life chances. Poverty damages neighbourhoods and society. Poverty leads to crime and injustice. Solve poverty and you will make far more savings when it comes to the rise in happiness and spending and the fall of crime, health spending and eventually welfare as life chances improve.
But no. Everyone I have seen condemning the tax rises have this 'me me me' approach and are so blinded by their petty greed that they do not have the sense to realise there is no price too great for destroying poverty that won't be paid back several times over in the improvement we need to see in national happiness and productivity.
There are two approaches to the problem: we can either solve poverty now, and then when we see the benefits the rich will be able to keep more of their money...or we keep throwing away lives, life chances and productivity due to an easily solvable problem because some people are too greedy and dense to realise that a small cost now will reap huge rewards in the future.
Chizz, why should university tuition be completely free and thus paid for by the ordinary taxpayer, most of whom never had the chance to enjoy the financial, educational and social benefits of university?
I accept that society benefits from having well educated and cultured graduates (which explains why tuition fees don't cover the full cost) but free?!
The answer to the question in your first sentence is perfectly provided in the first half of your second sentence.
Why stop at graduation? Why not make all postgraduate courses free too? And maybe language and yoga classes.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Sometimes I really hate this country - we are really nasty sometimes. That is probably why the Tories have been doing so well of late. I'm not going to tell people how many children they should have directly or indirectly! A quick google shows George Best and Bill Gates were the third child.
You make some good points at times mutts but that is just silly.
There is no restriction on the size of your family, just a policy that says the state won't automatically subsidise you if you intentionally have more than two.
Disagree in parts: Most people that I have seen or know on benefits have more expensive clothes than I, more expensive TV's, Cars etc generally more and get benefits whilst working cash in hand or not at all. They go on multiple holidays a year and get a ridiculously cheap house... All they tend to do is go to the odd GP appointment to say they're not ready to get back out there or go to the odd job interview...
I earn a bit below 40k and have an average car, average motorbike, average clothes (next etc) and I have to save up for months for a weekend away. I even have to save to buy for any additional expenses each month. Bills and mortgage = 80% of our monthly income. Food and a savings account for our daughter take up the remainder!
So yeah I'll say flip the benefits we get - £10 per week whilst some lazy chav gets hundreds maybe a thousand a month for doing flip all.
I see what you are saying. I could count up to ten people I know abusing the system
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
My heart truly bleeds at such injustice.
Wow, you do have a real beef with high earners. Why does it bother you so much that there's people earning 100k plus a year?
It doesn't bother me that people are earning 100k plus a year. Don't know where you got that from.
What does bother me, like it should any decent human being, is that we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power, and that the only way this is going to improve is if money is spent to help these people, yet those who would miss the money the least (the highest earners) whinge the loudest when asked to help stop this injustice. For the cost of a few high-earners having to save up for a few months more to buy a brand new BMW, the lives of many more families could be immensely improved.
Poverty ruins lives. Poverty kills. Poverty destroys life chances. Poverty damages neighbourhoods and society. Poverty leads to crime and injustice. Solve poverty and you will make far more savings when it comes to the rise in happiness and spending and the fall of crime, health spending and eventually welfare as life chances improve.
But no. Everyone I have seen condemning the tax rises have this 'me me me' approach and are so blinded by their petty greed that they do not have the sense to realise there is no price too great for destroying poverty that won't be paid back several times over in the improvement we need to see in national happiness and productivity.
There are two approaches to the problem: we can either solve poverty now, and then when we see the benefits the rich will be able to keep more of their money...or we keep throwing away lives, life chances and productivity due to an easily solvable problem because some people are too greedy and dense to realise that a small cost now will reap huge rewards in the future.
Fish - that is inspiring. I hate poverty, not because I have ever experienced it, but I think of children experiencing it and the damge it does. People working and needing foodbanks shames us. I don't want to feel guilty about having money, and I want money, but would rather have a bit less if it means being part of a fairer Britain. And if I were to become ill due to a misfortune, I know my country will help me, like I want to help people in that situation now.
This government has taken money from people who have no money in the name of austerity.
Disagree in parts: Most people that I have seen or know on benefits have more expensive clothes than I, more expensive TV's, Cars etc generally more and get benefits whilst working cash in hand or not at all. They go on multiple holidays a year and get a ridiculously cheap house... All they tend to do is go to the odd GP appointment to say they're not ready to get back out there or go to the odd job interview...
I earn a bit below 40k and have an average car, average motorbike, average clothes (next etc) and I have to save up for months for a weekend away. I even have to save to buy for any additional expenses each month. Bills and mortgage = 80% of our monthly income. Food and a savings account for our daughter take up the remainder!
So yeah I'll say flip the benefits we get - £10 per week whilst some lazy chav gets hundreds maybe a thousand a month for doing flip all.
I see what you are saying. I could count up to ten people I know abusing the system
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
My heart truly bleeds at such injustice.
Wow, you do have a real beef with high earners. Why does it bother you so much that there's people earning 100k plus a year?
It doesn't bother me that people are earning 100k plus a year. Don't know where you got that from.
What does bother me, like it should any decent human being, is that we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power, and that the only way this is going to improve is if money is spent to help these people, yet those who would miss the money the least (the highest earners) whinge the loudest when asked to help stop this injustice. For the cost of a few high-earners having to save up for a few months more to buy a brand new BMW, the lives of many more families could be immensely improved.
Poverty ruins lives. Poverty kills. Poverty destroys life chances. Poverty damages neighbourhoods and society. Poverty leads to crime and injustice. Solve poverty and you will make far more savings when it comes to the rise in happiness and spending and the fall of crime, health spending and eventually welfare as life chances improve.
But no. Everyone I have seen condemning the tax rises have this 'me me me' approach and are so blinded by their petty greed that they do not have the sense to realise there is no price too great for destroying poverty that won't be paid back several times over in the improvement we need to see in national happiness and productivity.
There are two approaches to the problem: we can either solve poverty now, and then when we see the benefits the rich will be able to keep more of their money...or we keep throwing away lives, life chances and productivity due to an easily solvable problem because some people are too greedy and dense to realise that a small cost now will reap huge rewards in the future.
This is an absolute serious question. You stated "we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power".
So I assume you mean since the 2010 coalition, why do you think this is? What action have they taken to cause this, Is it the benefit cuts?
What exactly are labour planning to do to eradicate this Poverty?
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
Well if wages are supressed at the lowest levels, people get poorer.
Labour won't eradicate it straight away, but they have plans to improve people's lives. I think reading their manifesto explains that.
The question is are those plans affordable. I say - based on sound economic principles that they are. Then there is the question of are they fair. I say they are, but some are creating sob stories around people on £100k plus a year as a reason not to make things better!
Comments
I can't profess to having been in every primary school in the country but those I have the free/paid for school meal children eat the same food in the same hall and none of them would be any the wiser if the child sitting next to them parents paid for the meal or didn't. Be interesting see how they calculate pupil premium now .......
If you believe it's about stigma then why aren't secondary school pupils getting it? Or is there no stigma at 11+?
As for the rape policy I didn't mention that but assume it's an exception to the rule on who can obtain said benefit. Appreciate it doesn't sound pleasant, but better than not having that exception surely?
Also
Where is the information you have about the 3Rd child situation?
Can't really see why we assume people will stop working if taxes are higher?
Society is advantaged when all members of society can be cared for by their families - even when those families require financial help.
Some people might prefer a system where the number of children any family is allowed to have is limited by punitive taxation methods. I am not a fan of that type of system. It's never the fault of a third child that he or she has two older siblings. Why should that child be singled out for punishment?
You know, after they have to prove to a group of strangers that the child was indeed a product of a vile crime, including recounting traumatising details of the ordeal.
You also ignore the fact that the victims of child benefit cuts are not the parents who choose to have them but the children who did not ask to be born to an impoverished family.
Pretty much gives all the information, there are a number of exceptions for the third child such as adoption, multiple births, non-consensual conception and kinship care situations. But lets not mention all of those heh.
And as the 5th biggest economy we can afford to pay for education.
What does bother me, like it should any decent human being, is that we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power, and that the only way this is going to improve is if money is spent to help these people, yet those who would miss the money the least (the highest earners) whinge the loudest when asked to help stop this injustice. For the cost of a few high-earners having to save up for a few months more to buy a brand new BMW, the lives of many more families could be immensely improved.
Poverty ruins lives. Poverty kills. Poverty destroys life chances. Poverty damages neighbourhoods and society. Poverty leads to crime and injustice. Solve poverty and you will make far more savings when it comes to the rise in happiness and spending and the fall of crime, health spending and eventually welfare as life chances improve.
But no. Everyone I have seen condemning the tax rises have this 'me me me' approach and are so blinded by their petty greed that they do not have the sense to realise there is no price too great for destroying poverty that won't be paid back several times over in the improvement we need to see in national happiness and productivity.
There are two approaches to the problem: we can either solve poverty now, and then when we see the benefits the rich will be able to keep more of their money...or we keep throwing away lives, life chances and productivity due to an easily solvable problem because some people are too greedy and dense to realise that a small cost now will reap huge rewards in the future.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
There is no restriction on the size of your family, just a policy that says the state won't automatically subsidise you if you intentionally have more than two.
This government has taken money from people who have no money in the name of austerity.
So I assume you mean since the 2010 coalition, why do you think this is? What action have they taken to cause this, Is it the benefit cuts?
What exactly are labour planning to do to eradicate this Poverty?
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
Labour won't eradicate it straight away, but they have plans to improve people's lives. I think reading their manifesto explains that.
The question is are those plans affordable. I say - based on sound economic principles that they are. Then there is the question of are they fair. I say they are, but some are creating sob stories around people on £100k plus a year as a reason not to make things better!