# Hood Robin



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 9, 2015)

I see the chancellor is robbing the poor to give to the rich again.


----------



## Craigg (Jul 9, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I see the chancellor is robbing the poor to give to the rich again.
		
Click to expand...

I think you'll find he's rewarding those that can be bothered bettering themselves.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 9, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I see the chancellor is robbing the poor to give to the rich again.
		
Click to expand...

No he's not!

He's robbing from the poor to keep for himself! - so more like the Sheriff!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 9, 2015)

He's rewarding people that work, increasing wages for low paid and letting people keep more of their own money.  He  has to lower the deficit to stop us becoming a basket case like Greece and reducing the bloated welfare bill and public sector spending is the right way to do it IMO.

Iv'e always thought inheritance tax disgraceful. People have already been taxed on their earnings and just about anything else they do, inheritance tax is IMO robbing the dead.


----------



## MarkE (Jul 9, 2015)

Seemed a very fair budget to me. At last a bit of sanity where managing the countries finances are concerned. Everybody has had to endure cutbacks, he's not picked on any group more than others. Only negative to me was Ian Duncan Smith getting over excited and acting like a Osbourne groupie.


----------



## Beezerk (Jul 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I see the chancellor is robbing the poor to give to the rich again.
		
Click to expand...

By poor, do you mean the career unemployed?


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 10, 2015)

Craigg said:



			I think you'll find he's rewarding those that can be bothered bettering themselves.
		
Click to expand...


Whilst at the same time punishing those least able to look after themselves...


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			He's rewarding people that work, increasing wages for low paid and letting people keep more of their own money.  He  has to lower the deficit to stop us becoming a basket case like Greece and reducing the bloated welfare bill and public sector spending is the right way to do it IMO.

Iv'e always thought inheritance tax disgraceful. People have already been taxed on their earnings and just about anything else they do, inheritance tax is IMO robbing the dead.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with the sentiment of both paragraphs!

Just a couple of points.

UK's Debt compared to GDP is nowhere near the level of Greece, though it's above the level set by EU - as are most of the EU since the 2008 crash.

Inheritance Tax is actually a tax on (robbing) the living (the beneficiaries). It's Estate Duty/Tax that is the tax on (robbing) the dead!

Of course, the other way of reducing the deficit is to promote greater output, but that's a harder thing to manage. Simply having the GDP increase as currently will also reduce the value of the metric he's using, so another cunning use of stats by a Chancellor!


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 10, 2015)

Craigg said:



			Only negative to me was Ian Duncan Smith getting over excited and acting like a Osbourne groupie.
		
Click to expand...


With Galloway gone now the most odious person in Westminster by quite some stretch...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 10, 2015)

Beezerk said:



			By poor, do you mean the career unemployed?
		
Click to expand...

I do not.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 10, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			With Galloway gone now the most odious person in Westminster by quite some stretch...
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this...

With regards to the OP, without getting into the discussion regarding the welfare state (I really can't be bothered anymore), I was relatively happy with the decision to advance the "Living wage" agenda. For far too long we've accepted a system whereby wage have not reflected living costs, and this shortfall has been paid out via Tax Credits. Welfare for the Working Person should not be necessary. Put the onus back onto the Employers to pay a decent wage..


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 10, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Absolutely agree with this...

With regards to the OP, without getting into the discussion regarding the welfare state (I really can't be bothered anymore), I was relatively happy with the decision to advance the "Living wage" agenda. For far too long we've accepted a system whereby wage have not reflected living costs, and this shortfall has been paid out via Tax Credits. Welfare for the Working Person should not be necessary. Put the onus back onto the Employers to pay a decent wage..
		
Click to expand...

But those employers forced to pay the minimum wage [it is certainly not a living wage]  will simply trim their workforce and close down under performing businesses.
This will ensure remaining staff have to take on greater responsibility and work harder.

Thus creating unhappy workers and greater unemployment. Oh.. and putting the cost of welfare and health well being up again.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			But those employers forced to pay the minimum wage [it is certainly not a living wage]  will simply trim their workforce and close down under performing businesses.
This will ensure remaining staff have to take on greater responsibility and work harder.

Thus creating unhappy workers and greater unemployment. Oh.. and putting the cost of welfare and health well being up again.
		
Click to expand...

That's the standard cry from modern business leaders every time someone dares to ask them to do anything that costs..


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			But those employers forced to pay the minimum wage [it is certainly not a living wage]  will simply trim their workforce and close down under performing businesses.
This will ensure remaining staff have to take on greater responsibility and work harder.

Thus creating unhappy workers and greater unemployment. Oh.. and putting the cost of welfare and health well being up again.
		
Click to expand...

   They cant win with you.   So from what you said here you would prefer Employers to pay low wages


----------



## Snelly (Jul 10, 2015)

Thought the budget was excellent.  At last starting to undo some of Gordon Brown's terrible damage. 

Work hard and you can keep more of your money.


----------



## Rooter (Jul 10, 2015)

Snelly said:



			Thought the budget was excellent.  At last starting to undo some of Gordon Brown's terrible damage. 

Work hard and you can keep more of your money.
		
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my summary too. pretty fair all round,


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 10, 2015)

Snelly said:



			Thought the budget was excellent.  At last starting to undo some of Gordon Brown's terrible damage. 

Work hard and you can keep more of your money.
		
Click to expand...




Rooter said:



			That was pretty much my summary too. pretty fair all round,
		
Click to expand...

Ditto, and a future PM in the making


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



   They cant win with you.   So from what you said here you would prefer Employers to pay low wages 

Click to expand...

You seem to have forgotten the tax credit losses of up to Â£1000 that some 'hard working families' have just lost.
Thus sending many more families into poverty and food banks to solve a problem that was causes by a handful of greedy bankers.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2015)

Hopefully this will make businesses pay a proper wage rather than getting the tax payer to subsidise them and at last something that makes people responsible for then amount of children they have.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Hopefully this will make businesses pay a proper wage rather than getting the tax payer to subsidise them and at last something that makes people responsible for then amount of children they have.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, if you must have a dose of weans then bloody well pay for them yourself! 

Not sure about the budget, I haven't had a proper look at it yet, but it's refreshing to see a living wage (higher than that promised by other parties btw) going up. I'd like to see it higher, but it's a start.

As for the welfare...... I don't like the fact under 25s will suffer (no living wage etc) while pensioners who are, let's face it, more of a financial burden on the welfare state still get their free telly licence, free buses, inflation linked pensions, heating allowance etc whether they actually need it or not. No problem with those that do need it though.  
Perhaps the young uns need to make their voice heard to avoid constantly getting shafted?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Agreed, if you must have a dose of weans then bloody well pay for them yourself! 

Not sure about the budget, I haven't had a proper look at it yet, but it's refreshing to see a living wage (higher than that promised by other parties btw) going up. I'd like to see it higher, but it's a start.

As for the welfare...... I don't like the fact under 25s will suffer (no living wage etc) while pensioners who are, let's face it, more of a financial burden on the welfare state still get their free telly licence, free buses, inflation linked pensions, heating allowance etc whether they actually need it or not. No problem with those that do need it though.  
Perhaps the young uns need to make their voice heard to avoid constantly getting shafted?
		
Click to expand...

Remember that most of those pensioners and their Employers have paid their NI contributions for around 50 years and never saw a tax credit.   Gordon Brown spoilt people by introducing a raft of benefits like tax credits and he did it to buy votes. The bill for them has ballooned out of control and has to be reigned in.   It's tough but the benefit merry-go-round needs slowing down and bringing to a stop.

As a pensioner myself I agree that pensioners paying 40% tax should not receive benefits like free TV licenses and heating allowances though.


----------



## Fish (Jul 10, 2015)

Snelly said:



			Thought the budget was excellent.  At last starting to undo some of Gordon Brown's terrible damage. 

Work hard and you can keep more of your money.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Craigg (Jul 10, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Whilst at the same time punishing those least able to look after themselves...
		
Click to expand...

And which particular group of people fall into this category then?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 10, 2015)

I live in an area where most of my neighbours are well off pensioners.
New Mercedes drivers getting subsidised transport, TV and heating whilst young hard working families really struggle to keep ahead of the bailiffs makes no sense whatsoever.

How to fix it is the problem, perhaps this can be done through the tax codes. I would much rather have seen a government address these problems that hit the most vulnerable easy targets.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I live in an area where most of my neighbours are well off pensioners.
New Mercedes drivers getting subsidised transport, TV and heating whilst young hard working families really struggle to keep ahead of the bailiffs makes no sense whatsoever.

How to fix it is the problem, perhaps this can be done through the tax codes. I would much rather have seen a government address these problems that hit the most vulnerable easy targets.
		
Click to expand...

What's actually to fix? Those 'well off pensioners' probably worked very hard to get the comfortable retirement they now enjoying! Would you now wring an extra amount of them - and discourage those in their 40s from doing the same? That would simply be multiplying the problem imo.

Certainly, there is a need to support the truly hard up! But there is (or should be) really quite a bit of support actually available for most of those cases!

I do agree that the Tax Credit changes have disadvantaged many, but these are folk who are in work, so not an absolute disaster - and the 'living wage' change goes some way (by no means all) to alleviating that.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I live in an area where most of my neighbours are well off pensioners.
New Mercedes drivers getting subsidised transport, TV and heating whilst young hard working families really struggle to keep ahead of the bailiffs makes no sense whatsoever.

How to fix it is the problem, perhaps this can be done through the tax codes. I would much rather have seen a government address these problems that hit the most vulnerable easy targets.
		
Click to expand...

These Pensioners were once young hard working people with families that struggled to make ends meet.   I know I was.  What's wrong with old people living a more comfortable life in old age if they have earned it?    There seems to be a wide fronted mindset these days that wants to persecute and victimise Pensioners.    As I have stated previously I can understand a policy where Pensioners paying 40% or higher tax could go without heating allowance, free bus passes and TV licenses but please give them a break!


----------



## alexbrownmp (Jul 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I live in an area where most of my neighbours are well off pensioners.
New Mercedes drivers getting subsidised transport, TV and heating whilst young hard working families really struggle to keep ahead of the bailiffs makes no sense whatsoever.

How to fix it is the problem, perhaps this can be done through the tax codes. I would much rather have seen a government address these problems that hit the most vulnerable easy targets.
		
Click to expand...

Is this the current SNP thinking?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 10, 2015)

alexbrownmp said:



			Is this the current SNP thinking?
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea........ strange question.

I know that they seek to do away with child poverty.
In one of the richest countries in the world, one in five children are born into poverty.
I for one am very unhappy with that figure.
However as a society, the UK seems to moving to a more selfish nation.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have no idea........ strange question.

I know that they seek to do away with child poverty.
In one of the richest countries in the world, one in five children are born into poverty.
I for one am very unhappy with that figure.
However as a society, the UK seems to moving to a more selfish nation.
		
Click to expand...

One in five?

I think that is massively stretching what is considered "poverty". Go to a significantly poorer country and try to compare the poverty suffered by this 20%, i have a feeling they would be vastly different.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have no idea........ strange question.

I know that they seek to do away with child poverty.
In one of the richest countries in the world, one in five children are born into poverty.
I for one am very unhappy with that figure.
However as a society, *ENGLAND* seems to moving to a more selfish nation.
		
Click to expand...

I corrected that to what you really mean.


----------



## chippa1909 (Jul 10, 2015)

I would be far more comfortable if, as well as rightly going after the benefits scroungers, as much enthusiasm was shown for going after the bankers and tax dodgers.
That's not going to happen under a Tory Government though.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I would be far more comfortable if, as well as rightly going after the benefits scroungers, as much enthusiasm was shown for going after the bankers and tax dodgers.
That's not going to happen under a Tory Government though.
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find thats exactly what they are doing!  Did you listen to the budget?

http://realbusiness.co.uk/article/3...osborne-says-tax-dodgers-have-nowhere-to-hide


----------



## chippa1909 (Jul 10, 2015)

I'll believe it when I see front page headlines in the Daily Mail about it.
Or indeed a TV programme called Tax Dodgers Street (or would it be Avenue?).


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 10, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I'll believe it when I see front page headlines in the Daily Mail about it.
Or indeed a TV programme called Tax Dodgers Street (or would it be Avenue?).
		
Click to expand...

So unless a newspaper prints it, you don't believe it?!

Your logic has no sense. If the newspaper says it's raining, but you seen the sun outside, what do you believe?


----------



## chippa1909 (Jul 10, 2015)

I get my "tap aff".
However, a lot of people in the country will say it is raining if told enough times by the papers and TV. It is more convenient for them to believe this than to look at the weather map and work it out for themselves.
Blame the wee black cloud which is overhead rather than the storm clouds which are all around.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I get my "tap aff".
However, a lot of people in the country will say it is raining if told enough times by the papers and TV. It is more convenient for them to believe this than to look at the weather map and work it out for themselves.
Blame the wee black cloud which is overhead rather than the storm clouds which are all around. 


Click to expand...

It would be easier to admit you were wrong!


----------



## chippa1909 (Jul 11, 2015)

I'm not wrong. I'll only be happy when the same demonisation of tax dodgers is made like what they do to the benefit cheats.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I corrected that to what you really mean.
		
Click to expand...

And I think it is probably what you already really know.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I'll believe it when I see front page headlines in the Daily Mail about it.
...
		
Click to expand...

Well, given that the owner is a 'non-Dom', I wouldn't expect a particularly unbiased opinion!


----------



## Fyldewhite (Jul 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Iv'e always thought inheritance tax disgraceful. People have already been taxed on their earnings and just about anything else they do, inheritance tax is IMO robbing the dead.
		
Click to expand...

So Granny and Grandad who bought their large suburban semi for Â£20,000 in 1962 and pass it on in their will at a current value of Â£700,000 today have paid tax on the extra Â£680,000 have they?  This policy will reward mostly those now in their mid 50's with well off parents....mostly in the south east of England. Still, nothing more than I expected tbh. Giveaway for the rich while the poorer end get hammered. Still, it's fair because we all have same chance of climbing the social ladder don't we?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 11, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			So Granny and Grandad who bought their large suburban semi for Â£20,000 in 1962 and pass it on in their will at a current value of Â£700,000 today have paid tax on the extra Â£680,000 have they?  This policy will reward mostly those now in their mid 50's with well off parents....mostly in the south east of England. Still, nothing more than I expected tbh. Giveaway for the rich while the poorer end get hammered. Still, it's fair because we all have same chance of climbing the social ladder don't we?
		
Click to expand...

You are sooooo wrong there.






A suburban semi cost around Â£10,000 in 1962.:lol:
My brothers first Edinburgh flat cost Â£2,000 in 1968. Probably worth Â£250,000 now.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			So Granny and Grandad who bought their large suburban semi for Â£20,000 in 1962 and pass it on in their will at a current value of Â£700,000 today have paid tax on the extra Â£680,000 have they?  This policy will reward mostly those now in their mid 50's with well off parents....mostly in the south east of England. Still, nothing more than I expected tbh. Giveaway for the rich while the poorer end get hammered. Still, it's fair because we all have same chance of climbing the social ladder don't we?
		
Click to expand...

Why should they pay tax on it ?   Do you have any comprehension what Â£20,000 was worth in 1962, the average wage was around Â£800 a year and people worked damed hard for it, they never had the luxuries we have now either.

It's easy to blame the Old rather than take responsibility for your own life.   "The poor get hammered still"   have you ever been really hard up?   I doubt it as you sound like an armchair socialist to me.


----------



## delc (Jul 11, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Agreed, if you must have a dose of weans then bloody well pay for them yourself! 

Not sure about the budget, I haven't had a proper look at it yet, but it's refreshing to see a living wage (higher than that promised by other parties btw) going up. I'd like to see it higher, but it's a start.

As for the welfare...... I don't like the fact under 25s will suffer (no living wage etc) while pensioners who are, let's face it, more of a financial burden on the welfare state still get their free telly licence, free buses, inflation linked pensions, heating allowance etc whether they actually need it or not. No problem with those that do need it though.  
Perhaps the young uns need to make their voice heard to avoid constantly getting shafted?
		
Click to expand...

As a pensioner myself, I should point out that I worked hard and paid all my taxes and National Insurance contributions, and paid into a pension scheme for many years, so that I could have a comfortable retirement, like my father had before me. I think that with the way things are, many golf clubs would close down if pensioner benefits were cut. Having said that, I feel sorry about the way young people are treated these days, particularly in having to fund their own educations!


----------



## delc (Jul 11, 2015)

I was never happy with the concept of Working Tax Credits, because they are effectively a subsidy for unscrupulous employers who will pay their employees the minimum wages they can get away with, whilst penalising companies who properly reward their staff. Likewise, why should people be allowed to have a more comfortable life on benefits than they can by working?  I don't like George Osbourne, but to some extent I have to agree with his reforms. It was that mad Socialist Gordon Brown who messed this country up.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Jul 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Why should they pay tax on it ?   Do you have any comprehension what Â£20,000 was worth in 1962, the average wage was around Â£800 a year and people worked damed hard for it, they never had the luxuries we have now either.

It's easy to blame the Old rather than take responsibility for your own life.   "The poor get hammered still"   *have you ever been really hard up?*   I doubt it as you sound like an armchair socialist to me.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I have as it happens, and I was grateful for the extra money that I got when I started work in a low paid job with a new baby to look after.....taking responsibility for my own life you could say. I'm not blaming the old.....don't know where you got that from tbh. Just questioning a tax policy that will mostly benefit the middle aged children of wealthy parents in the south east of England. Personally, from my armchair, I believe there were bigger priorities. That's all.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 12, 2015)

Without being harsh, but why would you have a child if you can't afford to support it?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 12, 2015)

It's a fair budget given the warped idea of fairness in the minds of the tories and their acolytes.


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It's a fair budget given the warped idea of fairness in the minds of the tories and their acolytes.
		
Click to expand...

And not a fair budget in the warped mind of the cuddly lefties? Note, question mark. Both sides of the political divide think they're right and the other side wrong.

If there was enough money in the economy to fund the cuddly policies I'd be all for it. Alternatively, with the level of debt and gdp we have we could have chosen the Greek method of head in the sand and spend even more in the naive hope of being able to stimulate the economy whilst continuing to spend huge amounts on Gordon Brown's welfare explosion.

Switch on BBC's World news and listen to the politicians from Greece and the rest of the Eurozone.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 12, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Without being harsh, but why would you have a child if you can't afford to support it?
		
Click to expand...

Strangely enough mistakes do happen.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 13, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			And not a fair budget in the warped mind of the cuddly lefties? Note, question mark. Both sides of the political divide think they're right and the other side wrong.

If there was enough money in the economy to fund the cuddly policies I'd be all for it. Alternatively, with the level of debt and gdp we have we could have chosen the Greek method of head in the sand and spend even more in the naive hope of being able to stimulate the economy whilst continuing to spend huge amounts on Gordon Brown's welfare explosion.

Switch on BBC's World news and listen to the politicians from Greece and the rest of the Eurozone.
		
Click to expand...

An outcome that results in the poorest working families losing more income than any other group (according to Institute of Fiscal Studies after taking into account increases in the minimum wage) is many things but it is not fair.  Fairness across economic groups would result in all groups losing out the same - indeed that that would mean a greater Â£Â£ impact for the higher earning family for the impact to be equivalent.  But no - the poorest economic groups take the greatest hit - and many think that that is 'fair'?  

It may be unavoidable; it may be unfortunate; it may be politically expedient; it may be 'the only way' - it is most certainly not 'fair'.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			An outcome that results in the poorest working families losing more income than any other group (according to Institute of Fiscal Studies after taking into account increases in the minimum wage) is many things but it is not fair.  Fairness across economic groups would result in all groups losing out the same - indeed that that would mean a greater Â£Â£ impact for the higher earning family for the impact to be equivalent.  But no - the poorest economic groups take the greatest hit - and many think that that is 'fair'?  

It may be unavoidable; it may be unfortunate; it may be politically expedient; it may be 'the only way' - it is most certainly not 'fair'.
		
Click to expand...

Whats 'not fair' is the imposition of Tax Credits as a means to subsidise poor wages and also being rewarded for having large families that you cant afford without state subsidies.

The freezing of tax credits will also hopefully create less of a draw to immigrants who use them to boost their low wages and support children in their home countries.


----------



## delc (Jul 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Whats 'not fair' is the imposition of Tax Credits as a means to subsidise poor wages and also being rewarded for having large families that you cant afford without state subsidies.

The freezing of tax credits will also hopefully create less of a draw to immigrants who use them to boost their low wages and support children in their home countries.
		
Click to expand...

Remember that guy called Philpott who lived off State Benefits by having 17 children by 3 different women? He basically used his kids as cash cows!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Whats 'not fair' is the imposition of Tax Credits as a means to subsidise poor wages and also being rewarded for having large families that you cant afford without state subsidies.

The freezing of tax credits will also hopefully create less of a draw to immigrants who use them to boost their low wages and support children in their home countries.
		
Click to expand...

I might not disagree with you on these - but I'm not for this budget being called 'fair' when the hardest hit are the poorest, and the rest of us get away with what in truth are relatively inconsequential hits on our disposable income.  

I thought that we were all in it together.  Well we may well be but some of us are in the shallow end - and the poorest are in the deep.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Strangely enough mistakes do happen.

Click to expand...

Mistakes do happen. But would less "mistakes" happen if people didn't have the fall back of child support? 

Also, if mistakes happen fine, child support for the first child. more than one mistake and maybe you need to be a LOT more careful.......


----------



## Craigg (Jul 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Strangely enough mistakes do happen.

Click to expand...

Oh dear. You really are struggling for an angle on this!

I reversed over my golf trolley a few years back. A clumsy mistake, but I don't recall getting welfare to pay for it!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 13, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Mistakes do happen. But would less "mistakes" happen if people didn't have the fall back of child support? 

Also, if mistakes happen fine, child support for the first child. more than one mistake and maybe you need to be a LOT more careful.......
		
Click to expand...

It's all very well criticising folks having more children than they might be able to support themselves - and then limiting benefit to say the first two children - but given that folks will have children - we do seem to be content to let the children of large families grow up in relative poverty - as they will - through no fault of their own.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 13, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It's all very well criticising folks having more children than they might be able to support themselves - and then limiting benefit to say the first two children - but given that folks will have children - we do seem to be content to let the children of large families grow up in relative poverty - as they will - through no fault of their own.
		
Click to expand...

If that's the worry, I can appreciate that, then something needs to be done. There needs to be *some* disincentive not to have more children that you can afford. Whether this is the restriction of child benefits, or having the children taken off families that cannot support them, I don't know the final answer. I do appreciate it should be on a case by case effort though, blanket rules don't work.


----------



## Rooter (Jul 13, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			If that's the worry, I can appreciate that, then something needs to be done. There needs to be *some* disincentive not to have more children that you can afford. Whether this is the restriction of child benefits, or having the children taken off families that cannot support them, I don't know the final answer. I do appreciate it should be on a case by case effort though, blanket rules don't work.
		
Click to expand...

Easy, if you currently have two kids and are on benefits, you get sterilized. Both parents.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 13, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Easy, if you currently have two kids and are on benefits, you get sterilized. Both parents.
		
Click to expand...

Is there a way to "temporarily" sterilize?


----------



## Rooter (Jul 13, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Is there a way to "temporarily" sterilize?
		
Click to expand...

Kick in the nuts?

The vasectomy is reversible, not sure about the procedure for woman.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 13, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			If that's the worry, I can appreciate that, then something needs to be done. There needs to be *some* disincentive not to have more children that you can afford. Whether this is the restriction of child benefits, or having the children taken off families that cannot support them, I don't know the final answer. I do appreciate it should be on a case by case effort though, blanket rules don't work.
		
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that the only answers are the very, very difficult and possibly unacceptable ones that would shift the benefits system back to what it was at the outset - a social security system.


----------



## Snelly (Jul 13, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Is there a way to "temporarily" sterilize?
		
Click to expand...

No need.  Stick some of your man goo in a test tube and get it held in storage.  Then get spayed.  

If you fancy more children later in life when you can actually afford another money pit then make a withdrawal and your good lady can be inseminated.  Not exactly romantic but if you are on your third bambino then I can't imagine either of you would be all that bothered about the absence of champagne, roses and fresh Egyptian cotton sheets!!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Kick in the nuts?

The vasectomy is reversible, not sure about the procedure for woman.
		
Click to expand...

It's called the 'Block'


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 13, 2015)

Interesting discussion on a very complex subject. The main sticking point when discussing the unfortunate situation whereby children become an easy way to claim more from the State is the unfortunate fact that the birth rate in this country (and most of the civilised world) is well below what is necessary to maintain a population. 

   Wha-hey I hear you cry, we're an over-populated Island as it is!! Unfortunately, a decrease in birth rate means that the population decrease happens at the lower end of the age spectrum (obviously I suppose). Less children equals less people entering the workforce, which means that you have a very dangerous imbalance in your population. The State Pension will be unaffordable with a decreasing Tax base. 

   It's an incredibly complex situation which isn't helped by the fact that the families who can afford kids tend to have 2 working parents, meaning that they often choose to have only 1 or 2 children. As soon as 1 parent stops working, the family often becomes eligible for the Tax Credits we don't want to be necessary. 

   I'm glad there are smarter people than me making policy decisions.......


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Interesting discussion on a very complex subject. The main sticking point when discussing the unfortunate situation whereby children become an easy way to claim more from the State is the unfortunate fact that the birth rate in this country (and most of the civilised world) is well below what is necessary to maintain a population. 

   Wha-hey I hear you cry, we're an over-populated Island as it is!! Unfortunately, a decrease in birth rate means that the population decrease happens at the lower end of the age spectrum (obviously I suppose). Less children equals less people entering the workforce, which means that you have a very dangerous imbalance in your population. The State Pension will be unaffordable with a decreasing Tax base. 

   It's an incredibly complex situation which isn't helped by the fact that the families who can afford kids tend to have 2 working parents, meaning that they often choose to have only 1 or 2 children. As soon as 1 parent stops working, the family often becomes eligible for the Tax Credits we don't want to be necessary. 

   I'm glad there are smarter people than me making policy decisions.......
		
Click to expand...

It is indeed complex. The attached link gives an alternative view:

http://populationmatters.org/2013/population-matters-news/uk-population-growing-faster-the-economy/


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			It is indeed complex. The attached link gives an alternative view:

http://populationmatters.org/2013/population-matters-news/uk-population-growing-faster-the-economy/

Click to expand...

Yes, but that is primarily as a result of the other great talking point, immigration. If you cut immigration and curb tax credits and child benefit then you put an abrupt halt to that. Complex times and some interesting discussions ahead.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Easy, if you currently have two kids and are on benefits, you get sterilized. Both parents.
		
Click to expand...

For a man with 4 kids and  a bleedin' great Volvo gas-gobbler, that's 'fighting talk'!

How would you fare if you lost your job?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			For a man with 4 kids and  a bleedin' great Volvo gas-gobbler, that's 'fighting talk'!

How would you fare if you lost your job?
		
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit different someone having a kid then losing their job, to not having a job in the first place. The welfare system *should* be designed for the first (until they get a new one), not for the second


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I think it's a bit different someone having a kid then losing their job, to not having a job in the first place. The welfare system *should* be designed for the first (until they get a new one), not for the second
		
Click to expand...

Is the correct answer :thup:


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I think it's a bit different someone having a kid then losing their job, to not having a job in the first place. The welfare system *should* be designed for the first (until they get a new one), not for the second
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree! 

Unfortunately there are too many example of the 2nd - especially highlighted by certain parts of the media - and no disincentive (indeed, significant incentive) to take that route!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 14, 2015)

Putting aside for a moment the rights or wrongs or affordability or not of having children; fecklessness and irresponsibility of parents; and considerations of what the state should and shouldn't be expected to provide in terms of financial support - it seems to me that the majority here (and in the country?) seem happy to consign to poverty the children of larger poorer families. These children did not choose to come into the world and did not choose their parents - yet many seem happy to say - sorry - tough - nothing to do with me.

British values of caring and compassion.  Yeh - right.


----------



## Rooter (Jul 14, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			For a man with 4 kids and  a bleedin' great Volvo gas-gobbler, that's 'fighting talk'!

How would you fare if you lost your job?
		
Click to expand...

I would get off my ass and find another job. Been there mate with a redundancy last year and 3 months off while finding a new job. Did i claim any money or sign my wife back up for child tax credits? No. I was sensible and had a savings account knowing my job is not forever, try and keep 6months living expenses tucked away should the worst happen. Its call being sensible.


----------



## delc (Jul 14, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Interesting discussion on a very complex subject. The main sticking point when discussing the unfortunate situation whereby children become an easy way to claim more from the State is the unfortunate fact that the birth rate in this country (and most of the civilised world) is well below what is necessary to maintain a population. 

   Wha-hey I hear you cry, we're an over-populated Island as it is!! Unfortunately, a decrease in birth rate means that the population decrease happens at the lower end of the age spectrum (obviously I suppose). Less children equals less people entering the workforce, which means that you have a very dangerous imbalance in your population. The State Pension will be unaffordable with a decreasing Tax base. 

   It's an incredibly complex situation which isn't helped by the fact that the families who can afford kids tend to have 2 working parents, meaning that they often choose to have only 1 or 2 children. As soon as 1 parent stops working, the family often becomes eligible for the Tax Credits we don't want to be necessary. 

   I'm glad there are smarter people than me making policy decisions.......
		
Click to expand...

There is a gent (perhaps not the right word) called Mick Philpott who tried to correct the population imbalance by having 17 children by 5 different women. Apparently he had an income on State benefits and child allowance of over Â£60k per annum, a figure that many graduates would like to earn. Basically his children were cash cows to fund his life style. Unfortunately he managed to accidentally kill 6 of them in another scam and is now in jail. He once appeared on the Jeremy Kyle show and I am sure that some of his kids will also be in that program at some point in the future! How the underclass lives!  :mmm:


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2015)

Rooter said:



			I would get off my ass and find another job. Been there mate with a redundancy last year and 3 months off while finding a new job. Did i claim any money or sign my wife back up for child tax credits? No. I was sensible and had a savings account knowing my job is not forever, try and keep 6months living expenses tucked away should the worst happen. Its call being sensible.
		
Click to expand...

We could do with more like you Rooter :thup:


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Putting aside for a moment the rights or wrongs or affordability or not of having children; fecklessness and irresponsibility of parents; and considerations of what the state should and shouldn't be expected to provide in terms of financial support - it seems to me that the majority here (and in the country?) seem happy to consign to poverty the children of larger poorer families. These children did not choose to come into the world and did not choose their parents - yet many seem happy to say - sorry - tough - nothing to do with me.

British values of caring and compassion.  Yeh - right.
		
Click to expand...

You assume wrong then!

I suppose you agree that the blame for the situations of such children lies with the parents then?   Regarding the children: Of course they cant be left to go hungry or live in a deprived state.   The Social service already has mechanisms to deal with such cases and a lot more could be done to improve it.   Simply throwing money at feckless parents is no way to guarantee their children will be well looked after, often the money is wasted by the parents, I would agree not always but in many cases.    Paying food and household necessities in vouchers would be better and if the children are not cared for then take them away.   Harsh I know but the misuse welfare merry-go-round needs slowing down and stopping as does the disgrace of bringing children into this world as cash cows.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 14, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			You assume wrong then!

I suppose you agree that the blame for the situations of such children lies with the parents then?   Regarding the children: Of course they cant be left to go hungry or live in a deprived state.   The Social service already has mechanisms to deal with such cases and a lot more could be done to improve it.   Simply throwing money at feckless parents is no way to guarantee their children will be well looked after, often the money is wasted by the parents, I would agree not always but in many cases.    Paying food and household necessities in vouchers would be better and if the children are no cared for then take them away.   Harsh I know but the misuse welfare merry-go-round needs slowing down and stopping.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not considering 'blame' - I'm simply thinking of the situation that arises with >2 children with the third not being financially supported.

I have not heard anything from the government about creating and funding other ways of ensuring children of 'feckless' parents do not suffer and get brought up in poverty - unless I missed something - which means I assume you are reconciled to accepting that the children of bigger families will have to suffer for the 'irresponsibility' of their parents.  

And you'll take them away from the parents - because the parents can't afford to look after them properly - even although that might well be because the government won't provide financial support.  You really think it acceptable to remove children from their families for that reason?  Even if it was acceptable who do you suggest is going to look after these fortunate children?


----------



## chellie (Jul 14, 2015)

I'm currently having to look for work through no fault of my own. If businesses paid a decent wage there wouldn't be a need for tax credits etc. imo

In 1998 in my part time job I was paid Â£7.50 per hour which was the then going rate. Minimum wage now some 17 years later is Â£6.50 per hour I'm looking at a huge salary decrease


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not considering 'blame' - I'm simply thinking of the situation that arises with >2 children with the third not being financially supported.

I have not heard anything from the government about creating and funding other ways of ensuring children of 'feckless' parents do not suffer and get brought up in poverty - unless I missed something - which means I assume you are reconciled to accepting that the children of bigger families will have to suffer for the 'irresponsibility' of their parents.  

And you'll take them away from the parents - because the parents can't afford to look after them properly - even although that might well be because the government won't provide financial support.  You really think it acceptable to remove children from their families for that reason?  Even if it was acceptable who do you suggest is going to look after these fortunate children?
		
Click to expand...

So you think welfare should be available for anyone, no matter how many children they have and whether they can afford them or not.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 14, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			So you think welfare should be available for anyone, no matter how many children they have and whether they can afford them or not.
		
Click to expand...

I am asking whether it is a sign of a civilised and compassionate society (of the sort that Britain has aspirations to be - or pretends that it still is) - for government to have a policy that  *knowingly* will result in children being brought up in poverty - and that has some suggesting that if parental care to the children is subsequently poor then the children be taken into care.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I am asking whether it is a sign of a civilised and compassionate society (of the sort that Britain has aspirations to be - or pretends that it still is) - for government to have a policy that  *knowingly* will result in children being brought up in poverty - and that has some suggesting that if parental care to the children is subsequently poor then the children be taken into care.
		
Click to expand...

It's not much of a civilised, caring and compassionate society where people have children to increase benefits.

If people have children and fall on hard times then of course they should have a 'hand up' rather than a 'hand out'.   I ask you again: Do you think welfare should be available for anyone, no matter how many children they have and whether they can afford them or not.


----------



## MarkA (Jul 15, 2015)

The Victorians had a great system for those without a job or the means to care for themselves or their children, it was called the workhouse. Imagine something as inhumane as having to work for society to ensure that you could live and eat with a roof over your head and imagine how hard people would try not to end up there. Instead we encourage the workshy with benefits, council houses and extra cash for having more kids - its no wonder half the western world want to try and get over here on this overcrowded island.
Society should look after the underprivileged and vulnerable but its time to balance the books now and ensure that there is a clear incentive to get out and work for living rather than sitting on your ar8se playing on an xbox.
Osborne got things right in the budget - its not a perfect world but this is the first step in redressing the balance to help those who want to work and pay their way and those who don't.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			It's not much of a civilised, caring and compassionate society where people have children to increase benefits.

If people have children and fall on hard times then of course they should have a 'hand up' rather than a 'hand out'.   I ask you again: Do you think welfare should be available for anyone, no matter how many children they have and whether they can afford them or not.
		
Click to expand...

I simply do not believe that a rich society such as ours should conscience deliberately putting helpless and innocent children into poverty - that is unacceptable - and will only end in misery for the children and according to your plan some or many ending up in care (for which we will have to pay).   If the only means of ensuring that we do not do that is by providing some form of welfare and the only way of doing that is via the parents then so be it.  What checks and balances should then applied to ensure that the financial or other welfare support actually gets to the children are for policy makers to determine not me - but clearly there is a need for some such checking as the system is open to abuse - as you say.

But why on earth do we think it acceptable to address the issue of the national debt and the deficit by putting children into poverty?  We hear loud cries for the hardest punishments to be meted out to those who harm children - yet many think it acceptable for our government to implement policy that will...harm children.


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I simply do not believe that a rich society such as ours should conscience deliberately putting helpless and innocent children into poverty - that is unacceptable - and will only end in misery for the children and according to your plan some or many ending up in care (for which we will have to pay).   If the only means of ensuring that we do not do that is by providing some form of welfare and the only way of doing that is via the parents then so be it.  What checks and balances should then applied to ensure that the financial or other welfare support actually gets to the children are for policy makers to determine not me - but clearly there is a need for some such checking as the system is open to abuse - as you say.

But why on earth do we think it acceptable to address the issue of the national debt and the deficit by putting children into poverty?  We hear loud cries for the hardest punishments to be meted out to those who harm children - yet many think it acceptable for our government to implement policy that will...harm children.
		
Click to expand...

But if feckless parents can go out and buy booze and fags, can be in the local social club a few afternoons and evenings a week and still feed and clothe their children surely the level of benefits paid out is too high.

And before you respond with "that's just a Daily Mail headline," there is a not too distant branch of my family that have done that for the last 50 years, and are on their 3rd generation of the benefits culture being a lifestyle choice. They've had the Spannish holidays every year... one of the children's children, now in his 30's and never worked, has bought a very nice static caravan on a holiday/theme park.

And giving vouchers instead of cash won't work either. They'll just sell the vouchers.

If there are people out there earning significantly less than Â£25k a year, and surviving on it, why should the state fund someone in excess of that? Whilst I absolutely support your sentiments, why should the state support someone to have a lifestyle that many hardworking people can't achieve?


----------

